Executive summary
Workplace surveillance is controversial, but that hasn’t stopped its steady expansion from industrial settings into digital offices, remote workspaces, and everyday collaboration tools. Once limited to tracking physical labour, monitoring is now ubiquitous, spanning communications, behaviour, and biometric data. The tech continues to reshape how work is managed and experienced across sectors:
- 74% of US employers now use online tracking tools to monitor work activities, according to a 2025 ExpressVPN survey.
- Concerningly, just 22% of workers say that they are aware of being watched.
- Employees facing both online and physical monitoring report 45% higher stress levels than those in less-surveilled environments.
- Nearly 50% of employees say that they would consider quitting their jobs if surveillance increased.
- “When monitoring shifts from a tool for productivity to an invasive form of spying, it creates distrust, stifles creativity, and breeds resentment,” warns Lauren Hendry Parsons, ExpressVPN’s privacy advocate.
It doesn’t seem like workplace surveillance is going anywhere, but its impact will depend on how organisations choose to use it. Companies that prioritise clarity, consent, and proportionality have an opportunity to balance operational insight with human trust, while those that don’t risk long-term damage to culture, morale, and retention.
Workplace surveillance has been around for a long, long time. In some sectors, it’s practically baked into the job. Warehouse staff, delivery drivers, and call centre employees have spent decades working under systems designed to measure speed, accuracy, and compliance, usually justified by the need for greater efficiency, safety, or consistent customer service. Those environments became the early testing grounds for tools that could track location via GPS, enforce productivity quotas, record calls, or scan fingerprints and faces to control access and attendance.
What started on shop floors and factory lines has gradually moved into roles once assumed to be insulated from this sort of invasive monitoring. Today, many white-collar professionals also encounter similar forms of monitoring in their line of work, which is often translated into software and spread across home offices and personal devices. Sometimes it’s even more intensive than in manual labour: time-tracking dashboards, activity logs, and always-on collaboration tools that extend managerial visibility far beyond a central workplace. It’s a distributed version of surveillance that follows the worker wherever they go.
Across the digital workplace, monitoring tools have been interwoven into everyday systems. Email platforms, video calls, security software, and wellness apps all generate data, often in volumes that exceed what’s strictly needed to do the work itself. Voice characteristics, facial recognition data, movement patterns… even fragments of private conversations. It can all be captured, aggregated, and analysed by AI with little visibility for the people being monitored. While such technologies – often referred to as ‘bossware’ – are commonly introduced under the pretext of improving safety or boosting efficiency, they also raise serious concerns about privacy, trust, and the cumulative effects on stress and morale. As the digitisation of modern work expands into every crevice of the business world, these concerns are becoming increasingly pervasive. You won’t be able to ignore it; so, what do you need to know?
Big Brother is watching you
From AI scanning workplace chats to biometric building access, major companies are embedding monitoring into everyday tools and physical spaces.
Workplace surveillance is everywhere, but it’s particularly widespread in the US. It recently came to light just how deeply monitoring tools are now embedded in everyday corporate systems there: major US companies like Walmart, Starbucks, Delta, and Chevron have reportedly been using AI developed by New Zealand-based startup Aware. This tool monitors employee communications across commonly used work-related platforms such as Slack, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams. According to Aware, the software is designed to analyse patterns in language and behaviour, looking for signals associated with issues like bullying, harassment, cyberattacks, or insider trading. All data is kept anonymised by default, with identities revealed only when the system flags content that matches specific risk criteria. At this point, the data and its source are passed over to HR, IT, or legal teams for closer review.
Unsurprisingly, each company frames its use slightly differently. Chevron was upfront, indicating it uses the tool to monitor employee interactions on its internal platform, whereas Starbucks described its usage as a way to spot trends and gather feedback in order to ‘improve the employee experience’. Walmart used similarly obfuscated language, claiming its use of the software was to maintain safety within online internal communities and track general trends among employees. Delta, for its part, said it uses Aware for the moderation of its internal social platform, routine monitoring of sentiment, and record retention for legal purposes. Taken together, these examples illustrate how communication monitoring is increasingly normalised as part of routine corporate governance.
Of course, workplace surveillance frequently extends beyond digital conversations and into physical spaces. JPMorgan Chase recently announced that employees assigned to its new Manhattan headquarters will be required to fork over their biometric data – specifically fingerprints or eye scans – to enter the building. The bank positions this requirement as a key component of its modern security strategy, intended to protect staff and streamline entry. In addition to the biometric access requirement, JPMorgan Chase is also rolling out a new Work at JPMC smartphone app. Doubling as a digital ID badge and internal service platform, the app will be integrated into basic functions like ordering meals, navigating the building, and registering visitors. Put together, the two solutions will enable the bank to keep track of not just who enters the building and when, but also how long they remain in specific areas.
“Employers believe if they can measure everything, they can optimise everything – productivity, efficiency, even emotional tone.”
Hilke Schellmann, assistant professor of journalism at New York University
The rise of bossware
Surveillance is now routine across digital and physical workplaces, yet many employees remain unclear about what’s tracked, how often, or by whom.
At this point, you may have a raised eyebrow and finding yourself wondering just how widespread workplace surveillance has become. Well, a 2025 ExpressVPN survey found that 74% of US employers now use online tracking tools to monitor work activities, with web browsing logs (62%) and real-time screen tracking (59%) highlighted as the most common practices. Unsurprisingly, this surveillance extends into physical offices as well. The same survey found that 75% of employers use on-site monitoring, with 69% relying on video surveillance and 58% implementing biometric access controls. Companies are also increasingly adopting more advanced analytics alongside standard security measures. Approximately 61% of companies now use AI-powered tools to gauge productivity, while 67% collect biometric data to track attendance and behaviour.
Employees often struggle to gauge the full scope of these measures. While 69% of workers understand that workplace surveillance is legal, many lack insight into the specific practices of their own employers. They literally don’t know how their data is being harvested and used to monitor them. “To me, the most troubling thing is that we just plain don’t know how common these surveillance systems are, which employers are using them, or which workers are being affected,” says Matt Scherer, a senior policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Only 22% of workers report knowing for certain that they are being monitored online. The uncertainty surrounds biometric data as well, with 44% of employees stating they have no idea if their employer uses facial recognition or fingerprint scans. That gap in understanding leaves many workers unsure what data is being collected about them, or what happens to it once it is.
Measure everything
As we mentioned earlier, most companies defend workplace surveillance as a way to improve safety and boost efficiency. To be sure, some experts believe this is true in certain cases. “I find it’s really useful, myself,” says Dorota Swieboda, a finance leader with experience in monitoring technology in the banking sector. “It gives you the assessment of how much time is spent on each activity, and you can verify, is it value adding or not? It helps you to plan the work and manage your time effectively.” When used thoughtfully, monitoring data can indeed support workload planning and highlight inefficiencies that would otherwise stay hidden.
Others, of course, take a far more sceptical view. Much of bossware, they argue, functions less as a support tool and more as a disciplinary mechanism, citing concerns that such systems may jeopardise employee health, as well as compromise their privacy and security. “Employers believe if they can measure everything, they can optimise everything – productivity, efficiency, even emotional tone,” says Hilke Schellmann, an Emmy-award-winning investigative reporter and assistant professor of journalism at New York University. “Some companies claim it’s about ‘insights,’ but often it’s really about discipline and deterrence.”
A counterproductive cycle
It should be of little surprise that constant oversight is shown to substantially worsen employee wellbeing and morale. Instead of feeling like valued team members, they end up feeling scrutinised and as targets of suspicion, which often fuels a culture of pressure and disengagement. According to ExpressVPN’s survey, employees who are subjected to both online and physical monitoring report 45% higher stress levels than those in environments where surveillance is less pronounced. “When monitoring shifts from a tool for productivity to an invasive form of spying, it creates distrust, stifles creativity, and breeds resentment,” warns Lauren Hendry Parsons, ExpressVPN’s privacy advocate.
This can have a pretty dramatic impact on how employees behave in the workplace. Nearly 24% of workers admit they take fewer breaks – even to use the bathroom – fearing that stepping away might be interpreted as idleness. Quality of work often suffers as employees prioritise speed over thoughtfulness, with 32% reporting that monitoring practices make them feel rushed, which can lead to burnout and detachment over time. It can also fuel a sense of frustration, prompting some workers to respond defensively. Almost a quarter admit to using tactics designed to fake productivity (bear in mind that’s just the ones admitting to it), a sign that monitoring systems often undermine the very outcomes they aim to achieve.
A legal minefield
The growing reliance on AI-powered systems may also have serious legal ramifications for employers due to the well-documented limitations of automated tools. “Workers have legal and contractual rights that protect them against privacy violations, wrongful termination, and other unjust treatment – including actions guided by automated decision-making (ADM) systems,” explains Hudson Hongo, a spokesman for the digital rights advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. “While ADM vendors may promise employers increased efficiency or more objective decision-making, these systems are frequently faulty, have repeatedly demonstrated bias, and may not be aware of relevant local and state laws and regulations.”
Biometric monitoring, in particular, provokes strong reactions. Nearly 21% of employees strongly object to its use, while another 35% say they would be somewhat likely to push back. Invasive practices, such as collecting biometric data or scanning private messages, often serve as a breaking point that compels workers to re-evaluate their employment. Indeed, nearly half of the employees indicated that they would consider quitting if surveillance increased. Privacy holds such high value that a significant portion of the workforce would sacrifice their financial security to maintain it; nearly 24% of workers reported they would accept a pay cut of up to 25% to avoid being monitored at work.
“Do you really care how often an employee is going to the bathroom? Or do you care if the employee is getting the job done in the time allotted? At the end of the day, are they doing their jobs or not?”
Sylmarie Arizmendi, attorney
The path forward
While concerns surrounding workplace surveillance are unlikely to go away, there are steps companies can take to get their employees on board.
Love it or more likely hate it, the reality is simple: workplace surveillance is here to stay. Even as concerns around privacy and trust grow, it is in the nature of employers to want to know everything about their employees. It has been ever since the invention of the Panopticon in the late 18th century, and it was true a good deal earlier than that too. The question facing companies is less about whether to use these tools and more about how they are introduced and governed. Puneet Muthreja, an India-based finance and strategy consultant, argues: “[What we’re seeing with AI is] the beginning of something that’s going to stay with us, so as professionals we must ensure that AI is not only powerful, but also principled.”
When handled carefully, monitoring tools can support operations without having a detrimental impact on employee dignity or trust. Companies that adopt the technology just need to be explicit about their goals, transparent about what data is collected, and realistic about where the line is with employee revulsion. That also means keeping employees informed and involved while navigating a regulatory landscape that varies widely by region and continues to evolve. “We don’t need to avoid those questions,” adds Swieboda. “We need to spend time with employees, have a conversation, and explain why we’re implementing such monitoring solutions.”
Involving employees from the very start can dramatically alter how surveillance is perceived. Instead of being something imposed, making it a shared design challenge invites a wholly different perspective. “It can be quite useful to get employees, believe it or not, involved in the design of these systems,” says Oliver Kayas, senior lecturer in digital business at Liverpool Business School. “If you involve them in the design, employees tend to be much more accepting.” Ultimately, leaders also need to clarify exactly what they hope to achieve by deploying these tools. “The bottom line should be outcomes,” says attorney Sylmarie Arizmendi. “Do you really care how often an employee is going to the bathroom? Or do you care if the employee is getting the job done in the time allotted? At the end of the day, are they doing their jobs or not?”
In closing
Workplace surveillance forces organisations to confront a deeper question about what kind of working relationships they want to build. Technology now makes it possible to observe virtually every interaction, movement, and pause, but that capability doesn’t automatically translate into wisdom. The more data employers gather, the more responsibility they assume for interpreting it fairly, protecting it rigorously, and resisting the urge to substitute measurement for judgment. Surveillance can sharpen visibility, yet it can just as easily narrow perspective, reducing complex human work to dashboards and alerts.
There’s also a longer-term risk that’s harder to quantify. Trust, once weakened, is difficult to restore. Environments shaped by constant monitoring tend to encourage self-protection rather than initiative, compliance rather than curiosity. Over time, that dynamic affects not only morale but the quality of decisions, collaboration, and innovation. Still, the same technologies also offer an opportunity to rethink how accountability works at scale. Used with restraint, transparency, and genuine employee involvement, monitoring tools can support fairness, consistency, and safety without sliding into coercion. The path forward isn’t about rejecting surveillance outright or embracing it uncritically. It’s about drawing clearer boundaries, asking better questions, and recognising that work is ultimately a human activity.