Workplace Surveillance: Enhancing Performance or Reducing Trust?

Figure 01 : Work place digital surveillance

Workplace surveillance, which refers to the monitoring of employees by employers, has existed even in the past. However, it has evolved in different forms alongside technological advancements. In the present context, the development of technology has significantly increased the ability to track employee performance, security, and daily operations through various tools and methods. This has created both positive and negative implications for employers and employees. Fingerprint systems (for attendance), CCTV cameras, digital SOPs, and performance tracking systems are some commonly used tools in modern workplace surveillance. From an organizational perspective, such practices are considered essential for improving overall performance. However, from an HR perspective, the key concern remains whether surveillance enhances efficiency or weakens employer employee trust.

From an organizational viewpoint, workplace surveillance supports quality control and reduces the need for traditional supervision methods, such as physically monitoring employees around the premises. This makes observation more efficient and less time consuming. However, despite these benefits, excessive surveillance can trigger psychological pressure among employees, making them feel constantly monitored and reducing perceived autonomy (Ravid et al., 2020). According to Alder (2001), electronic surveillance can increase stress levels and reduce employee morale. Employees may perceive such monitoring as a violation of privacy and a sign of mistrust, which can lead to job dissatisfaction and demotivation. In addition, research suggests that workplace monitoring systems can negatively affect organizational trust when perceived as overly controlling (Doğru, 2021).

Figure 02: Employee Privacy and Surveillance (Source: James Moore and Co, 2024)

The Sri Lankan context 

In the Sri Lankan context, workplace surveillance is rapidly increasing, particularly in industries such as retail, hospitality, and banking. Many organizations now rely heavily on CCTV systems to monitor operations. In service industries such as hospitality, surveillance plays a critical role as it directly influences service quality and guest interaction.

However, in small scale hotels, such practices may not always align with employee expectations, as these environments are typically less formal. Employees are often more accustomed to direct supervision rather than electronic monitoring. If employees feel excessive pressure under surveillance, their service delivery may become more scripted rather than natural. In my organization, workplace surveillance is used as a developmental tool rather than a fault-finding mechanism. By applying social learning principles (Bandura, 1977), employees are encouraged to learn through observation. Clear communication ensures that surveillance is viewed as an opportunity for growth rather than a burden.

Conclusion

Workplace surveillance presents both challenges and opportunities for HRM. While it can enhance performance, if not managed effectively, it may damage trust and employee well being. Therefore, HR practices must strike a balance between monitoring and trust to sustain employee commitment.

Reference List

Alder, G.S. (2001) ‘Employee reactions to electronic performance monitoring: A consequence of organizational culture’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(2), pp. 323–342.

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Doğru, Ç. (2021) ‘The effects of electronic surveillance on job tension, task performance and organizational trust’, Business Systems Research Journal, 12(2), pp. 125–143.

Kalischko, T. and Riedl, R. (2021) ‘Electronic monitoring in the workplace: A review of the empirical literature’, Journal of Business Research, 139, pp. 101–123.

Ravid, D.M., Tomczak, D.L., White, J.C. and Behrend, T.S. (2020) ‘EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring’, Journal of Management, 46(1), pp. 100–126

James Moore and Co, 2024. Employee Privacy and Surveillance. [online video]  https://youtu.be/roix3adDN_s [Accessed April 2026].


Comments

  1. Iresha Vithanage18 April 2026 at 06:01

    This nails the double-edged nature of workplace surveillance. It can lift performance, but overuse erodes trust and wellbeing. For HR, the takeaway is clear: monitoring without transparency backfires. The real skill is balancing oversight with trust to keep employees committed, not controlled. good Post. good luck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathasha Jayamanna21 April 2026 at 08:28

      Thank you for your feedback. I completely agree that transparency is key, and without it, surveillance can easily damage trust. Finding the right balance between monitoring and trust is indeed the main HR challenge.

      Delete
  2. E.M Sampath19 April 2026 at 11:06

    Yes, I am with you here. It would be sufficient to just have a monitoring system. Most firms deduct employee salaries on account of being late at the workplace by the use of fingerprinting devices, while the same employees work late in the office. Commitment is thus not an issue. I believe there could be another alternative to this situation. Since most employees hurry to stamp their fingerprints in order to avoid having any deduction in salary, they don’t think about anything else like their own safety. Employees might drive very fast just to reach office before the set deadline, hence this kind of practice cannot be accepted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathasha Jayamanna21 April 2026 at 08:29

      Thank you for sharing this perspective. You raise a very practical concern about fairness and employee behaviour under strict monitoring. It shows how surveillance can have unintended consequences beyond just performance tracking.

      Delete
  3. Chandima Karunarathne20 April 2026 at 20:28

    Your post raises an important HRM dilemma between efficiency and trust. While workplace surveillance improves control and performance tracking, it can also reduce autonomy and increase stress if overused. The Sri Lankan context adds another layer, where informal work cultures may react differently to strict monitoring systems. How far is too far when it comes to monitoring employees at work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathasha Jayamanna21 April 2026 at 08:30

      Thank you for your thoughtful question. I agree that the boundary of how far is too far in workplace surveillance is not fixed and depends on organisational culture and industry context. However, it generally becomes problematic when monitoring starts to reduce employee autonomy, increase stress, or create a sense of constant control rather than support. In such cases, the negative impact on trust and wellbeing can outweigh performance benefits. So, HR needs to ensure surveillance is used in a way that supports transparency and performance, without undermining psychological safety.

      Delete
  4. Satheeshwaran Balasundaram21 April 2026 at 07:23

    This is a very good and clear discussion. I appreciate how you explained workplace surveillance and its impact on productivity in a simple way.
    At the same time, I feel too much monitoring may reduce employee trust and motivation. If employees always feel watched, it can create stress and may even affect their performance. So, a balance between monitoring and trust is very important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathasha Jayamanna21 April 2026 at 08:31

      Thank you for your comment. I agree with your point that excessive monitoring can reduce trust and motivation. A balanced approach that combines supervision with employee trust is crucial for sustainable performance.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analyzing Gen Z Job-Hopping in the Modern Workforce

Image
                                                                                                Figure 1: Job-Hopping Generation  The practice of switching employers every one to two years, known as "job-hopping," has evolved from a career "red flag" to a defining trait of Generation Z. Gen Z operates under a modern Psychological Contract (Rousseau, 1995) that prioritizes personal development, flexibility, and alignment with individual values over status, in contrast to earlier generations who valued long-term institutional loyalty. This Generation is less likely to tolerate stagnant environments, since they perceive frequent changes as a tactical way to raise "Digital Capital" and salary benchmar...
Read more

Human Resource Development in Small Businesses: The Role of Informal Learning

Image
Training and development are essential components of Human Resource Management (HRM). However, for many small scale organizations, implementing formal training programs can be difficult due to cost and time constraints. Formal training often involves professional trainers, structured sessions, and workshops, which may not be feasible for businesses with limited resources. As a result, small organizations tend to rely more on informal approaches to employee development.                                                                      Figure 01:  Formal vs Informal learning (Source: Edly, 2024) Informal learning plays a key role in employee development, often supported by informal training practices in the workplace. It occurs through observation, interaction, and hands on experience...
Read more

Balancing Employee Needs and Organizational Expectations

Image
The Psychological Contract and Theoretical Framework The relationship between employer and employee is fundamentally governed by the psychological contract, a set of unwritten mutual expectations (Rousseau, 1995). When organizations demand "100% effort" without providing foundational requirements like fair pay, rest, and recognition, they breach this contract, leading to diminished morale and performance. Figure 1 : Maslow's hierarchy of needs This necessity is supported by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) , which posits that basic physiological and safety requirements must be met before employees can achieve high-level performance. Similarly, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) suggests that while "hygiene factors" (like working conditions) prevent dissatisfaction, true motivation stems from recognition and growth. High performance is unsustainable if these fundamental needs are ignored. Evolution of Employee Advocacy In today’s complex environment, the trad...
Read more