For my first deep dive into the world of digital surveillance, I have chosen to evaluate the current standards for employee tracking at their day to day jobs, and how ethical this process is. From the perspective of an employer, it is understandable that employers feel the need to use various tools to surveil employees. This surveillance can have many benefits, from ensuring the productivity of employers to enforcing company values and beliefs, it can prove essential to the smooth operations of a company. On the flip side, there are some employees that may feel that the steps companies take to monitor their daily tasks and communication may be over the line. While there are arguments for both sides, it is important to consider and strike a balance to make sure all parties involved are satisfied with their situation.
According to Syteca, there are five major ethical concerns involved with monitoring employees. In my opinion, the most interesting and controversial of these ethical concerns is privacy concerns that employees may have. For example, if an employee is sending personal emails to family members, the employee would most likely not want that email to be monitored by their employer. Although the employee might not want their email to be surveilled, there is also a chance that the employee might not know at all due to a lack of communication and boundaries surrounding employee monitoring. On the other hand of this issue, there could be an employer out there that could argue that an employee should not be using company facilities and time to be sending out personal emails. There is definitely an argument for both sides in this scenario, exemplifying why this next point my Syteca is ultra important when considering ethics in employee monitoring.
That important point is creating a detailed plan surrounding employee monitoring, which goes hand in hand with being transparent about the monitoring you plan to carry out if you are an employer. When you make a plan surrounding employee monitoring, you are able to give the employee an outlined guideline of what they can and cannot do. For example, if an employer outlined in a survelience plan that all emails will be monitored, there is no reason for an employee to get mad about having their personal emails looked at, because it was previously and clearly communicated that it would happen. Along with this, employees and employers will be on the same page about how the information is being used, to ensure a clean plan for ethical considerations, making sure that information is being used for productive use.
Additionally, an article does by Harvard Business Review highlights the post pandemic nature of online work, and how companies should handle these remote situations to ensure online employees are being productive during work hours. On one hand of the story, Harvard Business Review explains how companies use enhanced methods of tracking for online employees such as screen capturing and email monitoring to ensure the efficiency of company operations. On the other hand, some employees believe that since they are working from home, they should not be monitored in the same manner that they would be if they were in person at work. The answer that is also commonly shared between Harvard Business Review and Syteca: be transparent about the survailence you are doing. It is very important for an employer that you keep open lines of communication and transparency. If you as an employer feel the need to monitor your employees, it should be that they know exactly why and when they are being monitored. Without this, you compromise trust and performance of employees.
My goal with my inquiry project is to determine how digital monitoring impacts personal security and privacy, as well as creating an ethical balance so everyone is satisfied with this undeniably effective method of accountability. To answer the first question, I believe that from the information presented, there is not a high degree of risk associated to personal security and privacy associated with employee monitoring initiatives. From the professional sources and information used throughout this first inquiry, it is evident that it is common practice to notify employees why, how, and when they are being monitored by your employer, if this is the case. I believe this exemplifies a lack of risk to security because employees are usually well aware of what is being monitored. If employees have personal communication that they wish not to be monitored, then it is up to them to ensure that they are using company time for company reasons, and personal time for personal reasons. This also leads into the next part of the inquiry question, surrounding the ethics of using employe monitoring . I also believe that companies that disclose why, when, and how they are monitoring is ethical. As employers pay employees to perform work to a high degree of standards, if they openly communicate, that should be entitled to ensure that employees are performing to their potential.
I invite you to share your perspective after reading my inquiry. Do you believe that employees should be monitored? Do you believe that employers should keep open lines of communication when doing so? Let me know!
Sources/Resources Consulted
Addressing the Ethical Dilemma Surrounding Employee Monitoring: 8 Best Practices
https://hbr.org/2020/12/if-youre-tracking-employee-behavior-be-transparent-about-it
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/10/employee-surveillance/568159/