Welcome to the Age of Surveillance in the Workplace
Imagine enjoying a Whopper while discussing the implications of surveillance technology. Earlier this year, Burger King introduced “Patty”, an AI chatbot embedded in headsets that ensures cashiers remember to say “please” and “thank you”, while also alerting them when the soda machine is running low. This innovation is emblematic of a broader trend within the corporate landscape, where advancements in artificial intelligence, cameras, sensors, and tracking software grant employers unprecedented capabilities to monitor their employees.
Contemporary employers are now able to track not just the physical locations of their staff, but also the duration and content of phone calls, keystrokes per minute, and even the tone and pitch of customer interactions. As corporations increasingly seek novel methods to oversee their workforce, researchers are meticulously examining the ramifications of this incessant surveillance.
The practice of employee monitoring has become commonplace across various sectors. Delivery drivers, whether for packages or pizzas, are more frequently subjected to AI-driven surveillance systems. In Amazon warehouses, employees are monitored continuously through handheld scanners, ID card readers, and workstation software. Cornelius König, a psychology researcher at the University of Saarland in Germany, notes that such monitoring technologies appeal to corporate managers; they often believe that close observation will help identify high performers, enhance efficiency, or improve safety.
The Illusion of Enhanced Productivity
However, the reality is that these anticipated benefits are challenging to realise. König reviewed studies on employee surveillance published in the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, and found scant evidence to suggest that electronic monitoring boosts performance. “My overarching conclusion is that [surveillance] is not going to be as significant as employers presume,” he asserts.
Despite the lack of concrete evidence demonstrating its efficacy, the global market for employee surveillance technology is projected to exceed $4 billion by 2026, largely driven by major North American companies. A 2022 investigation uncovered that eight of the ten largest private employers in the United States, including UPS, Amazon, and UnitedHealth Group, actively monitor productivity indicators for each worker, often in real time.
Even postal workers in the United States are subjected to intense scrutiny. One Reddit user described the experience as feeling less like public service and more akin to operating within a silent surveillance state. “We are monitored down to the second. Every scan. Every step. Every stop. They track our GPS in real time. They can show up unannounced and interrogate us about something as human as needing to use the restroom or double-checking a package,” the user lamented.
The Accessibility of Monitoring Technology
Any company, regardless of its size, can enter the surveillance business with relative ease. Michele Molè, a labour law researcher at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, points out that Amazon Web Services offers countless software solutions for monitoring employees. Integrating a surveillance application into the workplace can be as straightforward as downloading a music app, albeit the data acquired pertains to employee behaviour rather than musical preferences.
However, the quest for enhanced workforce performance through monitoring encounters a fundamental obstacle rooted in human nature, König argues. While employees may temporarily boost their productivity under scrutiny, they often revert to their habitual routines. “They get used to it,” he explains. His analysis revealed growing evidence that even body cameras worn by police officers—an especially notable instance of surveillance—do not significantly alter the long-term behaviour of either the police or the public.
Unintended Consequences of Surveillance
When employees do respond to monitoring, it can lead to unintended consequences. A 2020 study indicated that truck drivers under electronic surveillance were less likely to exceed daily driving limits, but paradoxically, they also experienced a higher likelihood of accidents. König is not alone in his scepticism; Daniel Ravid, a management researcher at the University of New Mexico, notes a similar lack of evidence supporting the idea that mere implementation of employee surveillance will boost productivity or performance.
Ravid conducted a meta-analysis in 2022 that aggregated findings from studies involving over 23,000 participants across laboratory and workplace settings, including call centre workers and patrol officers. Collectively, these studies found no correlation between levels of surveillance and employee performance. This can partly be attributed to the fact that some employees find ways to circumvent monitoring, even if it means occasionally typing while reading a book during lunch breaks. “People are incredibly creative and adaptable, and they will find ways to assert their freedom when it is threatened or taken away,” Ravid states.
The Impact of Stress on Employee Well-being
Ravid’s meta-analysis revealed that any form of surveillance—whether subtle or overt, incidental or invasive—tended to heighten workplace stress. “I believe that anything undermining a sense of dignity will also erode employee attitudes,” he asserts. Furthermore, a 2024 study involving over 3,500 Canadian workers highlighted the potential downsides of surveillance: employees who felt they were being monitored reported increased pressure and stress, alongside diminished autonomy and privacy at work.
In this age of “datification”, it is unsurprising that companies are eager to seek new metrics for evaluating their employees, observes Kirstie Ball, a management researcher at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. “The systematic collection of data about individuals and their activities is integral to modernity,” she states. “Surveillance becomes a means to ensure tasks are completed.” However, not all companies are adept at harnessing this data effectively, Ball cautions. “There are many pitfalls along the way. Are you measuring what you think you’re measuring? Are you interpreting the data correctly according to the purpose for which it was collected, or are you merely analysing it because you can?”
The Dangers of Data Overload
Employee surveillance without a coherent plan for utilising the data has become a prevalent practice in modern businesses, König notes. Many workplaces end up collecting data simply because the technology allows it, rather than because surveillance aligns with the overarching corporate strategy. “They end up with terabytes of data on some hard drive, but don’t know what to do with it,” he adds.
Modern surveillance is inherently electronic, yet companies cannot simply implement an application and expect results, Ravid contends. “If managers think they have a perfect way to measure performance simply because they possess advanced technologies, they are mistaken,” he says. “They still need human insight and dialogue to contextualise that data.”
The Need for Legal Protections
Legal frameworks that protect employees from excessively invasive surveillance have generally not kept pace with technological advancements, Molè observes. While the European Union has stringent privacy laws, with additional protections in countries such as Italy, Spain, France, and Germany, workers in the United States face far fewer safeguards and are more likely to encounter rigorous scrutiny.
In 2023, three Amazon delivery drivers—current or former employees—from Colorado filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging they were subjected to excessive AI-assisted surveillance that hindered their ability to take necessary breaks. “Drivers were forced to urinate in bottles,” Molè asserts. “This does not happen in Europe.” Amazon sought arbitration, claiming the drivers are employed by external delivery service providers contracted with the company, rather than by Amazon itself. The case remains ongoing.
Addressing Legal and Ethical Concerns
The fine print accompanying surveillance software may reveal additional legal challenges. Managers who download surveillance applications without customisation are essentially allowing external companies to control their employees’ data with little oversight or understanding of how that data might be used. “We need more labour laws directed at technology providers,” Molè argues. Surveillance companies should be mandated to collaborate directly with businesses and their employees to clearly explain the technologies and tailor each product to meet specific needs and objectives, she adds.
In principle, monitoring could be part of a healthy corporate culture that fosters success, notes Molè. “Individuals under surveillance should feel valued, and monitoring should be genuinely meaningful in improving working conditions and methods for all,” she asserts. “Good surveillance is built on mutual trust.” Companies that carefully design their own systems for tracking employee performance, rather than imposing some “creepy and strange” tool found online, are more likely to achieve real benefits, she suggests.
Success Stories and the Importance of Transparency
Success is certainly achievable. While brainwave-monitoring headsets might seem invasive, an Australian mining company found that this technology significantly reduced fatigue-related accidents. A 2024 study on remote workers at Upwork revealed that productivity among high-performing workers dropped nearly 20% after they were allowed to disable monitoring software without explanation, suggesting that the software provided some advantages.
However, productivity did not decline when this same high-performing group was informed that they had the opportunity to work without supervision due to their exceptional performance, underscoring the importance of effective management—leading researchers to conclude that investing in good managers might yield better results than relying solely on monitoring software.
Transparency can significantly enhance workplace culture, Ravid asserts. His meta-analysis revealed that compared to workers who are monitored with little explanation or consent, those who clearly understand how they are being surveilled and how their data will be used also experience a greater sense of fairness and job satisfaction.
As new technologies continue to emerge—including Patty from Burger King—within the modern workplace, if companies do not shift their fundamental approach,