Employee Monitoring: The Fine Line Between Accountability and Overreach

Yesterday, I was asked by a reporter from The Wall Street Journal to share my thoughts on employee monitoring. While a portion of my response was included in their article (on the WSJ homepage!), I wanted to expand on the topic more broadly.

Over the last 10-15 years, workplace monitoring has increased significantly. While some level of oversight is necessary for certain roles, the way organizations use monitoring technologies today can either enhance productivity and trust or erode them.

Are Employees Under Too Much Surveillance?

This was the first question posed by the report. My answer (like any good consultant!) is that it depends. Some jobs—like call centers, sales, and high-risk environments (e.g., manufacturing, oil rigs, airports)—have long relied on monitoring. However, since the pandemic, we've seen an expansion of employee surveillance into areas where it’s much harder to justify, particularly in remote and knowledge-based work.

The acceptability of monitoring depends on three key factors:

• Transparency – Do employees know what data are being collected, who sees them, and how those data are being used?
• Purpose – Is the goal to help employees improve or to punish them for falling short?
• Relevance – Does the monitoring actually measure what matters for performance?

Many modern monitoring technologies fail this test. Keystroke tracking, webcam monitoring, and even self-reported "productivity emails" often measure activity rather than outcomes. Worse, these approaches can quickly erode trust—why hire people if you don’t trust them to do their jobs?

The Positive Potential of Workplace Data

Not all data collection is harmful. In fact, when used thoughtfully and transparently, workplace data can be one of the most powerful tools for employee growth, collaboration, and performance improvement.

There are many emerging technologies that help employees and managers gain real-time insights into how they work—how they collaborate with colleagues, which behaviors drive success, and what adjustments could improve productivity. When this information is provided without fear of retribution and is used as a learning tool rather than a punitive measure, it creates a culture of growth.

We have strong evidence that when managers have clear, data-driven insights into their employees’ work—not as a means of surveillance, but as a way to support and develop them—organizations perform better. This approach aligns workers and leaders on the same side, rather than creating an adversarial, distrustful relationship.

However, organizations must be intentional about what data they collect and why. This is where people analytics practitioners play a critical role in ensuring that monitoring remains ethical, purposeful, and employee-centric. Many of these professionals actively push back against excessive or unnecessary data collection by asking essential questions:

• Why do we want to collect this information?
• Will these data help us make a business-critical decision?
• How will this information benefit employees?

These leaders often serve as the necessary brakes on data misuse, ensuring that monitoring does not become a tool for micromanagement or fear-based control. Instead, they advocate for systems that empower employees and provide valuable feedback in a way that enhances—not hinders—their work.

Striking the Right Balance: Monitoring vs. Micromanaging

The key to balancing accountability with autonomy is a strong performance enablement process that:

• Sets clear goals with measurable outcomes
• Encourages regular check-ins between employees and managers (which is unfortunately on the decline, according to our data)
• Provides data-driven feedback that helps employees grow (which is also on the decline, compared to during the pandemic, according to our data)

When done right, monitoring can empower workers by offering insights into performance, collaboration, and areas for improvement. But when it turns into micromanagement—especially when driven by fear—it stifles creativity, innovation, and, ultimately, productivity.

The Danger of "Big Brother" Surveillance

Heavy-handed monitoring doesn’t just annoy employees—it changes behavior in damaging ways. Employees start focusing solely on hitting arbitrary metrics rather than solving real business problems. (If you want an academic take, check out "Goals Gone Wild," which explains how rigid performance goals can backfire.)

Instead of excessive surveillance, organizations should:

• Encourage collaboration between employees and managers
• Leverage technology for meaningful insights, not just oversight
• Ensure people analytics teams push back on unnecessary data collection

The Real Test of Monitoring

Employees aren’t necessarily opposed to data collection—but they want to know why it’s happening and how it benefits them. A 2019 Accenture report, "Decoding Organizational DNA," underscores the importance of responsible data strategies. The study found that 92% of employees are open to data collection if it enhances their performance or well-being. The world has obviously changed a lot in 5 years, but the underlying concept that employees want to be helped in their performance through data-based insights remains the same.

However, if monitoring is used as a tool for enablement, it can be a powerful force for good. If it becomes a tool for punishment, expect employees to look for the exit.

I’d love to hear from others—how do you see employee monitoring evolving? Where do organizations get it right, and where do they go too far?