As a specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion, Sofia Khaira is at the forefront of the evolving workplace, helping businesses navigate the complex intersection of technology and talent management. With digital surveillance tools becoming increasingly common, particularly since the rise of remote work, she offers critical insights into how companies can leverage these technologies responsibly. Her work focuses on building equitable environments where both productivity and employee well-being can thrive, a challenge made more urgent by recent studies on the impacts of so-called “bossware.”
A recent GAO report noted surveillance can have positive effects, like safety alerts, but also negative ones, like increased anxiety from productivity pressure. What specific strategies can employers use to implement these tools to maximize safety benefits while minimizing the negative mental health impacts you’ve seen?
That’s the central tension we’re facing. The technology itself is neutral; it’s the implementation that determines whether it becomes a tool for support or a source of stress. To maximize safety, employers should focus the tool’s application narrowly on its intended purpose—for instance, an app that alerts a warehouse worker they’ve been in a static position for too long, preventing strain. The problem arises when that same data is used to push them to move faster to meet a productivity quota. To minimize the mental health impact, the strategy must be rooted in transparency. Communicate clearly that the tool is for well-being, not punitive oversight. When employees feel they are being watched just to be pushed harder, you can feel the anxiety build, which not only harms morale but can ironically lead to more injuries as they rush and cut corners.
The article states surveillance tools can use flawed benchmarks, leading to inaccurate performance reviews. How can a company audit its “bossware” to ensure fairness? Could you walk me through the key steps for validating that these tools account for a full range of employee responsibilities?
Auditing your own “bossware” is absolutely critical, because relying on flawed data is worse than having no data at all. The first step is to deconstruct what “productivity” truly means for each role. A tool might track keystrokes, but it can’t measure the time an employee spends mentoring a junior colleague or collaborating on a complex problem—the very activities that build a strong team. The next step is to involve employees in the audit; they are the only ones who can validate if the benchmarks account for the full range of their tasks. Finally, you need a regular review cycle where HR and management analyze the outputs for anomalies. If a top-performing team suddenly looks like it’s failing based on a new metric, the tool is likely the problem. Ignoring these flaws is a direct path to the negative consequences the GAO report warns about, from poor evaluations to wrongful terminations, which can destroy careers and expose the company to risk.
Given the widespread employee suspicion mentioned in a Glassdoor report, what does effective, trust-building communication about digital monitoring look like? Please share an example of the specific language or a communication plan a company could use to introduce a new tracking tool without causing backlash.
Trust is the currency here, and it’s easily lost. The Glassdoor report confirms what we see on the ground: employees are deeply suspicious, and that suspicion can lead to disengagement or even sabotage. Effective communication must be proactive, transparent, and centered on shared benefits. A company should never just flip a switch and say, “We’re monitoring you now.” Instead, a communication plan could start with a town hall explaining why a new tool is being considered. The language should be collaborative. For example: “To ensure workloads are distributed fairly and to identify burnout risks before they become problems, we are introducing a tool that helps us visualize project timelines. It will measure aggregate team-level data, not individual web browsing, and is here to help us support you better.” This approach frames the tool as a resource for the employee, not a weapon for the employer. It directly counters the fear and helps prevent the kind of backlash that leads people to look for a new job.
With employers now pairing AI with surveillance, the ethical lines are becoming blurrier. Beyond basic transparency, what ethical framework should guide a company’s use of AI to analyze worker data? Please detail a few core principles that can help protect both the company and its employees.
The introduction of AI magnifies every existing concern. Basic transparency is no longer enough; we need a robust ethical framework. A core principle must be
Purpose Limitation.
Data collected to monitor warehouse safety should never be repurposed by an AI to infer an employee’s likelihood of quitting. A second principle is
Human Oversight.
No employee should face disciplinary action or termination based solely on an AI’s analysis; a human must always be the final decision-maker, using the data as just one input. Finally, there’s the principle of
Data Minimization.
Companies should only collect the absolute minimum data required for the stated purpose. Adhering to these principles protects employees from unfair outcomes and protects the company from the legal and reputational damage that comes from using these powerful tools irresponsibly.
What is your forecast for the evolution of workplace surveillance and employee privacy rights over the next five years?
I believe we’re heading toward a major inflection point. On one hand, surveillance technology, powered by AI, will become more powerful and integrated into our daily work. On the other hand, there will be a growing and more organized pushback from workers who, as the reports show, are already feeling the negative effects. I forecast that this tension will force a legislative response, leading to new laws that explicitly define employee privacy rights in the digital workplace, much like we’ve seen with consumer data. Companies that wait to be regulated will find themselves at a disadvantage. The winners will be the organizations that proactively build ethical frameworks and use these tools to empower and support their employees, turning a potential liability into a competitive advantage for attracting and retaining the best talent.
