Workplace technology: privacy, power and trust

In 2018, while developing communications for a property management division testing smart-building technology, I addressed a question that connected building operations to employee privacy: “Will my manager use the data collected to track attendance?”

The proposed system would use Wi-Fi occupancy data to adjust heating and ventilation. The aim was to reduce energy use and make workspaces more comfortable.

The answer was no. Identifying information would be removed, and occupancy data would be used to adjust heating and ventilation. Individual attendance would not be monitored.

The communications addressed questions employees might have about the data being collected, including whether it could be used to assess their work. The answers explained both its purpose and the limits on its use.

There is an ethical responsibility in establishing such limits, whether or not someone asks about them. The organization has authority over both the workplace and many of the conditions of employment. Employees should not have to discover every possible implication of a new system before their interests receive consideration.

That responsibility does not diminish the environmental purpose. Reducing energy use and improving comfort were legitimate reasons to test the technology. Taking privacy seriously helped establish how those benefits could be pursued responsibly.

I think this matters because it is easy to describe privacy as a concern to be addressed on the way to introducing something useful. Privacy is also part of what makes the proposal acceptable. The value lies in protecting people, including when doing so attracts little attention or makes the project more demanding.

In this case, removing identifying information and restricting the use of occupancy data supported a clear boundary between managing space and assessing employees. The communications needed to explain that boundary in language someone could understand without becoming a specialist in wireless networks or building controls.

This is familiar territory for a communications adviser: understanding the proposal, considering its implications for the people affected and working with those responsible to provide an accurate account. The judgment lies partly in recognizing which distinctions matter. An explanation of how the technology works can be correct and still leave an employee’s question unanswered.

Philosopher Onora O’Neill offers a useful way to think about that obligation. In “How to trust intelligently,” she argues that people need intelligible evidence of competence, honesty and reliability to judge where trust is warranted. Her emphasis is on giving people grounds to assess trustworthiness, rather than treating more trust as the goal.

For me, that places a responsibility on the organization asking people to rely on its assurances. Employees cannot be expected to inspect every stage of a system themselves. They need the people who understand it and control its use to take care with the decisions being made on their behalf.

Being trustworthy means the organization’s commitments deserve that reliance. A limit on attendance monitoring matters when the announcement is written, but also later, if someone requests information or proposes a different use. The commitment needs to hold beyond the conversation in which it was made.

Communications has a continuing place in that relationship. People need somewhere to bring a question and someone able to answer it. When an answer requires technical expertise or a decision about acceptable use, the question needs to reach the person responsible. An employee should not have to navigate the organization’s divisions to find out who can account for a system operating in their workplace.

My graduate studies have helped me pay closer attention to an organization’s readiness for dialogue. It takes preparation on both sides: people need enough information to consider a proposal, and the organization needs to be ready to consider what they say. With workplace technology, that includes being clear about which decisions have been made and where employees can still have an influence. If a question reveals a consequence the project team has not considered, someone needs the authority to respond.

Before your next workplace technology announcement goes out, take one question about an ordinary working day and follow it through with the project team. Consider what the person needs to know, what supports the answer and who will remain responsible for the commitment.

Further reading

• Onora O’Neill, “How to trust intelligently,” on giving people a basis for judging where confidence is warranted.

• Jaime Estupiñán and Gary L. Neilson, “The 10 Principles of Organizational DNA,” for a wider examination of how decision rights and information work alongside an organization’s unwritten rules and relationships.

About the author

Alesha Hayes, MA, APR, is principal of A. M. Hayes & Associates, a communication and public relations practice based in Victoria, British Columbia. Her work brings together strategic communications, organizational development and public engagement, with attention to how decisions are made, how people become involved and what it takes to earn their trust.

Subscribe to Insights for new writing on communication, organizations and public life.