Photo by Chris Yang on Unsplash
Should AI Be Used To Monitor Employee Performance in Real Time?
Artificial intelligence (AI) has infiltrated various aspects of human life, evolving from a mere tool for checking the weather to a pervasive force in surveillance and efficiency. Recently, a video surfaced on social media showing the controversial use of AI in a coffee shop, raising eyebrows and sparking debates among netizens.
In the video, a coffee shop is seen employing a video analytics tool provided by NeuroSpot, dubbed the Neuro Bionic Video Recorder. This tool purportedly offers real-time monitoring of employee performance and customer behavior. It tracks metrics such as the number of cups served by baristas and the duration customers stay at tables.
Netizens expressed discomfort at the intrusive nature of the technology, with some likening it to dystopian surveillance tactics. While NeuroSpot claims its focus is on security and theft prevention, skeptics argue that its implementation feels dehumanizing, raising concerns about employee privacy and autonomy. One user shared a similar sentiment regarding the invasive nature of workplace surveillance, drawing parallels to other dystopian concepts like the World Economic Forum’s proposal to track employee focus using implanted chips or headsets.
According to research from Top10VPN, demand for employee surveillance software surged by 54% between March 2020 and June 2023.
The American Psychological Association reports that more than half of employees (51%) are aware of being monitored by technology while working. This awareness has taken a toll on their mental health, with 32% of monitored employees reporting fair or poor mental health compared to 24% of those not under surveillance.
The shift from traditional methods like badge swipes to sophisticated AI monitoring tools is evident. Employers now track employees’ log-in and log-out times, communication patterns, and even their online activity. According to CNBC, software like Traqq monitors app and website usage, while Time Doctor offers video screen recording to ensure workers are focused on tasks.
Despite the purported benefits of enhanced security and reduced misconduct, most Americans oppose AI surveillance at work. Pew Research Center data reveals that a staggering 81% of workers feel it intrudes on their privacy.
Leslie Hammer, a professor at Oregon Health & Science University, warns of the detrimental effects of this surveillance on employee-employer relationships. “When employees feel they are not cared for or trusted by their employers, they are likely to have lower levels of commitment to the organization and perceive lower levels of psychological safety and higher levels of stress, all negatively affecting the relationship between employees and their employers, and specifically their managers and supervisors,” Hammer explained.
While some workers acknowledge potential benefits, such as improved security and reduced workplace misconduct, the consensus leans toward the negative impacts of AI monitoring. Hammer emphasizes that the stress and anxiety induced by surveillance outweigh any perceived advantages, highlighting its adverse effects on employees’ psychological and physical well-being, as well as job performance.
AI Employee Surveillance Is Already Mainstream
In the era of remote work and digital communication, many large U.S. companies are turning to AI monitoring systems to analyze employee interactions on platforms like Slack, Teams, and Zoom. CNBC reports that these systems boast capabilities to analyze both text and image content, aiming to gauge sentiments and identify various behaviors.
While some tools focus on innocuous tasks like assessing overall employee reactions to corporate policies, others delve deeper into individual posts and behaviors. Aware, a leading provider of such systems, offers AI models capable of identifying bullying, harassment, discrimination, and more.
Major corporations like Chevron, Delta Air Lines, Starbucks, T-Mobile, and Walmart are among the users of these systems, with Aware claiming to have analyzed billions of interactions across millions of employees.
Despite building upon existing monitoring tools, concerns arise regarding the potential for overreach and invasion of privacy. Critics worry about the Orwellian implications of AI surveillance, emphasizing the need for robust privacy legislation and oversight. Jutta Williams from Humane Intelligence warns against the “thought crime” aspect of such monitoring, likening it to treating employees as mere inventory.
Amba Kak from the AI Now Institute raises further concerns about the chilling effect of AI surveillance on workplace communication, highlighting the need to protect worker rights and privacy. Additionally, there’s apprehension regarding the potential de-anonymization of aggregated data, posing risks to employee privacy and confidentiality.
As companies navigate the balance between security and privacy, the use of AI monitoring systems raises complex ethical and legal questions. While the technology offers insights into employee behavior, its implementation must be accompanied by robust safeguards to ensure transparency, fairness, and respect for individual rights in the workplace.
Discussion Questions
How do we reconcile the potential benefits of AI monitoring systems in improving security and reducing misconduct with the significant concerns over invasion of privacy and erosion of employee autonomy, particularly in the context of remote work and digital communication platforms?
In the face of escalating demand for AI surveillance tools by large corporations, how can organizations strike a balance between leveraging technology for security purposes and safeguarding employee rights, privacy, and dignity?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Ananda Chakravarty
Vice President, Research at IDC
Karen Wong
Co-Founder & CEO, TakuLabs Ltd.
As long as employees are duly informed, employers are able to use this technology if they wish. Whether they should or not, is quite another matter. I suppose in some industries it could be very useful for looking at where bottlenecks arise and how processes and systems can be made more efficient. That can make life better for everyone including workers and customers. However, if the technology is being used to monitor individuals and their personal performance I think it becomes a bit more Orwellian. Personally, I think good team management should not rely on technology alone; managers should know how members of their teams perform without using AI.
Even in the coffee shop example, if you wanted to reduce bottlenecks through modifying store layout, your best bet would be to stand in the space, talk with the customers and staff, and take a few photos. If you want to know sales by staff member, you already track that with cash register logins. If you want to know who’s always in the storeroom smoking, get in there and follow your nose.
Yes, agreed. That said, I do think AI can analyze big data sets, including visual observations of staff movement and work practices. But it is not a substitute for human interaction and observation.
How do we reconcile any complex issue related to employment?? By recognizing the conflicts that exist, and refusing to surrender to the extremists and idelogues who proclaim a “crisis” (that they have all the answers to). For the most part, labor law in the U.S. is governed by the concept of a voluntary contractual relationship; so employers have considerable latitude. But there are still limits (just as the need to prevent theft can’t serve as a pretext for an employer searching someone’s house…no matter how much they argue the emloyee “agreed” to it). Of course this merely touches on what companies can do…what they should do is an even harder topic.
In a coffee shop? That seems a bit…excessive. You are either serving customers and keeping the lines down or you are not. The store is clean or it is dirty. And once the word is out, who would want to work there?
Just a bad idea all around. But of course it will take hold, for sure.
(Disclaimer – I work for Microsoft)
Controversial decisions like this relating to the use of AI are going to appear more and more. Some may feel it is intrusive and shows lack of trust in employees. Others may feel it gives focus and identifies areas where employees can be helped to do a better job.
One thing is clear – it needs careful attention and focus using Responsible AI principles. Microsoft provide multiple tools to aid organisations with these thought processes and these provide at the very least a thought process you must go through.
This example potentially raises questions in across a number of Microsoft’s pillars – privacy & security, fairness, transparency all spring to mind. The framework is worthy of a look – https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/principles-and-approach
It’s one thing to remotely monitor remote worker keystrokes to ensure that people are on the job, but constant monitoring of employees feels intrusive and demoralizing.
Keystroke monitoring is a bit much as well. It probably blasts the ADA as as well
Absolutely agree. Keystroke monitoring is extremely Orwellian and unnecessary. It’s obvious whether people are working or not by their output.
I wonder if Vika’s 10 cups are better than Anna’s 20 cups. What should we be measuring? Even if the management understands that the number of cups made/served in a period of time is an inappropriate measure, how long will it be before it becomes a key measure?
NeuroSpot claims its focus is on security and theft prevention, yet its promotional video is nothing about security but about piecework. That is what they are really selling, and sadly, American philosophy about work will be their ally.
The hard part is not so much the indignity, and almost betrayal of trust between employer-employee but the application of AI to do it. Primarily used to target criminal actions, shoplifting, erratic behavior and threats, pushing this type of big brother view on employees is a poor way to improve the business. There are more effective uses for AI. No wonder embezzlement and turnover are an issue across retail businesses.
Monitoring employee behaviors with video and AI seems okay in some applications, but we need to be careful of overly scrutinizing employees. Using video-based AI to monitor theft and other abuses in the workplace seems like a reasonable practice. However, monitoring every action of employees seem intrusive and will likely lead to low employee moral and make it more difficult to hire or retain employees.
Like it or not, these tools will be mainstream and used widely. It’s just the latest version of how to monitor employees and their workflows. Back when I worked for AT&T during college, the phone login/logout, the autodialer, and the swipe badge were how they tracked employees. This is a few layers deeper, but built on the same principle.
We’ve been walking in this direction for a number of years. Various forms of employee surveillance have been around for a long time.
I suppose in a weak jobs economy, retailers could get away with this. In a strong jobs economy, no chance.
i habe the luxury of being able to say “Just no.” Others, with or without the luxury will say no
I’ll come back to my always-applicable test of common sense: would your grandmother approve of this? Heck, no. There might be situations where always-on surveillance coud be recommended, but a coffee shop isn’t one of those. How insulting.
I am now completely and totally convinced that George Orwell was a time traveler. We’ve only just begun…
He just had the dates wrong, 1984 was really 2024…
We don’t have faith in employers, which employees can choose to work for at will, but we do in some type of oversight group to create regulations? AI shouldn’t be a substitute for management. It should be clear to staff what technology is used but provided AI is used to track work performance and/or used to improve business operations, who else besides the employee can make the decision whether the technology is acceptable or not? In the tight labour market for some of the roles mentioned, employees will vote with their feet. Employers be warned
This is a very dubious use of AI. In fact, recording employees in the workplace has always presented more negatives rather than positives between employees and their employer. This shatters trust and creates an atmosphere of fear and loathing. Great companies embed trust in their employees and create a community of trust and joy. Using AI to monitor employees destroys this.
Good god. Are executives so panicked by their employees? Or is their panic based on finally realizing that treating frontline employees poorly can lead to bad behavior?
Micro-management by AI will not be a successful tactic or strategy for retailers. They need to discover new ways to proceed — perhaps by first changing their own policies which contribute to any misconduct on the front lines.
As I have noted in other conversations, AI will cause the “future shock” predicted in the 1970 book, by Alvin Toffler. Technology will surpass human’s capability to keep up, and to control it for the good.
There will be an adjustment period of five to ten years before we learn where to draw the lines. How far do we go with this, and what will be the consequences of those decisions?
Expect a very uncomfortable brave new world with AI. -Db
Employees will feel stressed out if they’re examined under am AI-driven microscope. Their productivity may increase at the expense of the quality of work and morale because it’s hard to do your best work if you’re afraid.
As more companies embrace AI surveillance tools, they can respect workers’ desire for privacy by being transparent. Let employees know what the company is watching and measuring, and how it will use the data.
How about we drop “monitoring” and consider “augmenting”? Every critical process in business has an SOP. A standard operating procedure that at any moment can stray from the desired path. AI can add the “12th player” on the field and using nudge and game theory allow for the person involved in the process to “self-correct”, or make a determination to “send an additional set of hands to assist”. We use “surveillance” vs “enablement”; we think “red behaviors”, before “green behaviors” requiring some “boost”. How about we think about what AI can do in the moments that matter the most, and bring back some of the magic and atmosphere that attracted us to the “coffee house/bistro” in the video above, in the first place.
Balancing AI monitoring benefits for security and efficiency with privacy concerns is crucial. While technology can enhance processes, constant surveillance may harm trust and morale. Striking a fair balance is essential for a positive work environment, especially in remote setups.
Employees should expect to be managed by whatever means available. Good managers will mitigate the issues, and the employees will get used to it because it’s invisible to them.