Johnny C. Taylor Jr. answers workplace questions every week on USA TODAY. Taylor is president and CEO of SHRM, the world’s largest human resources professional organization, and author of Reset: A Leader’s Guide to Work in an Age of Upheaval.
Have a question? Please submit here.
question: My employer recently started using monitoring software to track employees’ computer activity, but it feels like an invasion of privacy and I’m uncomfortable with it. Where is the line between lawful surveillance and employee privacy? – Leila
Answer: Simply put, employers typically have the right to monitor activity on company-owned devices and networks, but how they do so is important. The line between legitimate surveillance and intrusion is usually determined by transparency, purpose, and proportionality.
In most workplaces, employees should have limited expectations of privacy when using company equipment. If you are working on an employer-owned laptop or network, monitoring is usually allowed, especially if it is publicly available. Organizations have good reasons for doing it. They are responsible for protecting confidential information, preventing cybersecurity breaches, maintaining productivity, and complying with regulatory obligations. From that perspective, some degree of oversight is part of responsible management.
Having said that, why and how There is a big problem behind surveillance. There is a clear difference between securing systems and monitoring people. Monitoring network activity to prevent data leaks and cyber-attacks is very different from intrusive actions such as activating webcams without explicit consent, tracking employees during off-duty hours, or capturing private communications unrelated to work. Surveillance tied directly to legitimate business needs is another. Excessive or punitive surveillance is another.
What many organizations get this wrong is transparency. Employees need to know what is being monitored, how their data will be used, and who has access to it. Surprise quickly leads to a loss of trust. On the other hand, clear policies and open communication can help employees understand the purpose and limits of surveillance, even if they aren’t excited about it.
It is also important to recognize that monitoring practices are often a reflection of an organization’s broader culture. Some companies operate on a high-trust philosophy and use minimal protection measures that primarily focus on security. Other companies rely heavily on metrics and monitoring. Neither approach is inherently right or wrong, but they can create very different workplace experiences.
If you’re uncomfortable with this change, start by reviewing your company’s policies and asking thoughtful questions about scope and purpose. Seek clarity before assuming the worst. At the same time, pay attention to the bigger picture. If you feel that the level of oversight is inconsistent with the trust and autonomy you expect at work, this can be helpful information to know if the organization is right for you long-term.
Workplace surveillance, when done well, can protect your organization and its employees. If you do it poorly, you will lose credibility. The difference is not the technology. It’s how leaders choose to use it responsibly and transparently.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.
