An HR leader and an ethics expert explain how they would manage conflict arising from the use of bossware in the workplace.

In part ten of HRM’s ethical dilemma series, where we ask AHRI members to respond to made-up ethical dilemmas, we explore how HR practitioners would respond if the use of bossware technology created conflict between business leaders and employees.

The dilemma

Your organisation recently implemented a bossware system designed to monitor employee activity, tracking time spent on tasks, email usage and browsing behaviour. A senior business leader receives a system alert flagging an employee for visiting job search websites during work hours, and decides to confront the employee directly and issues a formal warning, bypassing HR.

The distressed employee approaches HR, asserting they were not job hunting but researching industry trends to prepare for an upcoming performance review. 

They claim the confrontation violated their privacy, as job search activity wasn’t explicitly prohibited, and they were unaware such data browsing would be scrutinised in this way.

As the HR leader, you face a complex dilemma. Supporting the senior leader’s actions could compromise employee trust, your credibility as an advocate for fairness and morale across the organisation. Conversely, challenging the leader’s decision risks damaging your relationship with leadership and the perceived legitimacy of the monitoring system, which is framed as a productivity enhancement tool. 

How do you approach this situation? Can you strike a balance between advocating for fairness and protecting employee trust while maintaining a productive relationship with leadership?

The ethicist’s perspective

By Dr Matt Beard, Ethicist and Program Director of the Vincent Fairfax Fellowship at Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership

Part of the challenge I suspect you’re facing in engaging with the employee’s grievances is that you recognise the real problem here isn’t specific to this case. It’s the technology itself. These tools tend to systemise fear, distrust and control – hardly the recipe for a healthy workplace. 

Surveillance usually drives increased performance through fear. As an HR practitioner, you no doubt know that psychologically safe, open and collaborative teams outperform those driven by fear. 

It’s important to note that you may not be able to fully resolve this issue as long as the surveillance technology remains in play. However, there are a few ways you can move forward without needing to revolutionise your IT department. 

First, you need to acknowledge to the employee that it was wrong for this information to be provided to the leader in the first place. Note: this is not the same as saying that the senior leader was wrong for accessing the information. It will be helpful to position this as a failure of process, not a people problem. This will lead to less defensiveness and make it possible to move past the issue. 

Second, ensure this doesn’t happen again by making sure there’s better data governance around the surveillance data. 

It should be very clear who can access this information, and under what circumstances. And the consequences of people improperly accessing this information should be more severe than the consequences of being ‘flagged’ by performance issues within the system. This ensures people feel protected rather than being targeted by the system. 

Finally, it would be helpful to work with the senior leader to understand why they chose to come down so strongly. Was it because they believed someone from their team was searching for a new role? If so, you might make progress by giving this leader new strategies for driving retention, rather than seeing them continue to punish staff who consider leaving. 

Explore useful tools and frameworks that HR professionals can use to effectively partner with internal stakeholders in this AHRI short course. 

The HR perspective

By Sophie Theen FCPHR, Chief People and Experience Officer, Paydock

This situation highlights the delicate balance between maintaining employee trust and supporting leadership decisions, especially when privacy and fairness are at stake.

First, I’d acknowledge the employee’s concerns and reassure them that their perspective is taken seriously. 

Transparency is key, so I’d review the monitoring system’s policies and whether employees were adequately informed about its scope and potential usage. If not, this oversight must be addressed immediately to rebuild trust and ensure clarity moving forward.

Next, I’d meet with the senior leader to discuss the importance of process and fairness. While their intent may have been to address productivity concerns, bypassing HR undermines the integrity of the system and risks morale issues. I’d advocate for recalibrating how flagged data is handled – establishing clear guidelines that involve HR in assessing such situations before action is taken. This ensures a balanced, fair response while preserving leadership authority.

To strike a balance, I’d facilitate a mediated discussion between the leader and the employee to clarify intentions and restore mutual understanding. Simultaneously, I’d recommend an organisation-wide communication reiterating the monitoring system’s purpose, limitations and how data will be handled to prevent future misunderstandings.

Ultimately, this is an opportunity to enhance trust by demonstrating fairness, refining processes, and ensuring leadership and employees alike are aligned on respectful workplace practices.

This article was first featured in the February/March 2025 edition of HRM Magazine. Click here to view the rest of the articles in this series.