Key Takeaways for Employers
Employers should exercise strong caution when using automated surveillance tools. They should develop best practices that limit surveillance through intentional centralized governance procedures that prioritize inclusion for people with disabilities and other underrepresented groups. Aside from legal compliance concerns, automated workplace surveillance could result in harmful organizational cultures and other undesirable outcomes.
Surveillance tools claim to provide unbiased data about job performance, which employers can use to reward high performers and identify low performers. But proxy measurements (e.g., keylogger tracking, location monitoring, etc.) do not necessarily translate to what makes an effective employee and may be inaccurate for underrepresented groups. Further, high-quality results from employees are tied to focus, motivation, and an engaged workforce – which are all negatively impacted when workers feel stressed, untrusted, and micromanaged at work.