How Will Employee Monitoring Impact Organizations?
This blog is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research CenterSurprisingly, the concept of employee monitoring has been around for centuries with some of the earliest versions of monitoring capturing the length of time an employee used for lunch or a bathroom break (The Economist, 2022). However, in recent years, the monitoring of employees has increased dramatically due to technological advances. In fact, according to the American Management Associate (2019), almost 80% of organizations in the U.S. monitor employees using some form of technology. Employees can be monitored by email content, webcams, internet browser tracking, keyboard and mouse activity, and exclusive, third-party software such as ActivTrak (Hunter, 2021).Given its prevalence in the workplace, managers need to be conscious of how employees feel about being monitored. In a recent survey of over 600 respondents, my research team and I discovered a lack of internal communication around employee monitoring and its purposes. This led to employer distrust, which impacted engagement and productivity. Therefore, management needs to prioritize internal communication and listening mechanisms for feedback when it comes to employee monitoring. Below I outline a few more suggestions to navigate this delicate topic so that it benefits the employee and the employer.First, strategic internal programming needs to be a priority for organizations. Specifically, opportunities for feedback need to be available to employees so they can exercise their voice around concerns or potential system improvements. Managers should also be checking in with employees to make sure the monitoring systems are accurately capturing an employee’s work and productivity. In our study, we found that employees often do additional work to update the monitoring system with accomplished tasks, which requires more, yet counterproductive work. Therefore, management need to be checking in and making sure employees are not inundated with extra tasks to meet the needs of a monitoring system. Second, the employee onboarding experience should provide ample details regarding the monitoring practices of an organization. Specifically, what is management doing with the information, why is monitoring required, what is exactly being monitored and how, should all be addressed during orientation sessions. These sessions should also be centered around an open dialogue that allows employees to ask questions and express concerns. If an open forum is not ideal for any employee, then anonymous feedback mechanisms need to be available for all employees to privately share their thoughts and feelings.Third, management should continue to revisit the impetus for employee monitoring to ensure it is still a required, ethical practice. These management conversations might require addressing difficult topics such as whether they trust their employees and how could trust be improved within an organization. If changes are made to employee monitoring processes, employees should be notified immediately to ensure they are up-to-speed on all organizational changes.Until organizations are willing to fully relinquish control, employee monitoring is not going away anytime soon. Therefore, managers need to be committed to an open dialogue around such organizational practices so employees can trust their employers. This is the only way that these practices will enhance and not hinder an organization.References:American Management Association (2019, April 8). The latest on workplace monitoring and surveillance. https://www.amanet.org/articles/the-latest-on-workplace-monitoring-and-surveillance/.The Economist (2021, April 8). The rise of working from home. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2021/04/08/the-rise-of-working-from-home.Hunter, T. (2021, September 24). Here are all the ways your boss can legally monitor you. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/work-from-home-computer-monitoring/.
Laura L. Lemon, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the University of Alabama in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations. She can be reached at lemon@apr.ua.edu.
...
This roundtable discussion is provided by the IPR Measurement CommissionMembers of the IPR Measurement Commission gathered virtually to discuss disinformation in the evolving communication landscape. IPR Measurement Commission member Chelsea Mirkin, Head of Global Analysis at Cision, and Antony Cousins, Executive Director for AI Strategy at Cision, moderated the discussion.Participants discussed how the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting disinformation and how PR professionals can advise the C-suite on how to respond to disinformation threats.Key themes from the discussion include :— Disinformation was defined by the group as information that was shared with the intent to mislead.—- Misinformation was defined as false information that was shared because the communicator genuinely believes the false content, with no intent to mislead.—– Misinformation is the symptom of a larger problem. Disinformation is the spark of the inaccurate content.— Public relations professionals should be proactive and control the narrative so when disinformation does spread, the company is able to show the process and the facts to correct the information.— Truth is an interpretation; describing content as “accurate” or “inaccurate” as opposed to “mis-/disinformation” or “false information” can establish the difference between opinion and accuracy.— Disinformation makes output measures less relevant and should lead communicators to question if the metrics are listening in the right places.— Generative AI will have a large impact on disinformation. Experts agreed that it is essential for communicators to make sure that data are correct when using generative AI tools.—– Tracking this data is an increasingly important responsibility.—– People are needed to measure model accuracy and intercede if the information is wrong.— While trust in media has decreased, it’s important not to cast blanket statements over all forms of media.—– In the U.S., local media is a trusted source. PR professionals should be selective when it comes to the channels they use for building reputation.— The U.S. is only a small entity on the global scale, and global brands need to consider different societies when determining their sources.—– General sentiment toward AI differs depending on the country.— Prioritization is key to combatting disinformation; what does the company prioritize and what could damage its reputation?—– Occasionally, responding to disinformation can make it a bigger issue than it was originally.— Communicators should measure media channels as well as consumer mindsets, and analyze the gap between them in order to discern which topics drive outcomes.—- This analysis highlights the difference between what the media is saying and how consumers are interpreting it.— When monitoring topics, it’s important to discern when a conversation involving disinformation is attracting less informed groups and when it is attracting experts.—– Public relations professionals can show data to guide misinformed experts before the issue is shared on a larger scale.
... 
Dr. Jay Hmielowski and Dr. Eliana DuBosar researched how the places that people come from played a role in how they perceived and trusted journalists and the media.A pilot study was conducted in 2019 followed by a time series study in 2020 that included a total sample of 7,545 participants.Key findings include:— Respondents who lived in rural areas held less positive feelings toward journalists compared to respondents who lived in urban areas.—- The gap between rural and urban was higher amongst those who placed more importance on their place-based identities.—- Respondents who identified as “country people” reported less positive feelings toward journalists compared with “suburban” and “city” people.— Respondents that felt more positive feelings toward journalists among urban residents were more likely to use print and TV news outlets compared to those who identified as rural residents.— Small town and suburban respondents held more moderate feelings toward journalists, regardless of the importance placed on their place-identity.Find the original study here.
... 
Institute for Public Relations and Voya Financial have partnered on a comprehensive report, “Disabilities in the Workplace: Culture, Communication, Support, and Inclusion” that analyzes a survey of 1,014 employees to determine how organizations support and communicate about disabilities and caregiving in the workplace.
Introduction: Little research has been conducted regarding employee perceptions of diversity priorities and inclusion and how well initiatives and programs are communicated within organizations. In 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17% of people with a disability were employed compared to the 61% of people without a disability. According to a report from Bentley University, more than two-thirds of disabilities are “invisible,” meaning disabilities cannot be observed or are not visually detectable. The Bentley University report also found that while more than two-thirds of workplace leaders believe their technological arrangements and cultures are supportive of employees with disabilities, fewer than half of those with disabilities agree.While Disability:IN has seen participation in its annual Disability Equality Index increase year-over- year, an Institute for Public Relations (IPR) study found executive support of those with disabilities may not be communicated effectively through organizations. In the 2021 IPR Language of Diversity study, of communication professionals, only 24% said, “physical abilities and disabilities” were rated as a “high priority” for their organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I)initiatives, while only 14% said the same about neurodiversity (e.g., ADHD, autism, etc.). Compared to other categories of diversity, disabilities was one of the lowest-ranked. Disabilities or becoming a caregiver of those with disabilities can affect anyone at any point in their lives.In January 2023, IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace.
Full Report:
Some Key Findings: More than half of people with disabilities have witnessed or experienced both macroaggressions and microaggressions toward individuals with disabilities at least a few times a year in the workplace.
Forty percent of respondents were not familiar with the organization’s position or strategic plan related to disabilities in the workplace.Only slightly more than one-third of employees were “very familiar” with an organization’s position or strategic plan on how best to support individuals with a disability. In fact, 4-in-10 respondents were unfamiliar or “slightly familiar” with their organization’s plan. For organizations to be effective with their programs, employees must be well-versed in the strategy as they influence the culture of the organization.Slightly more than half of employees said their company effectively communicated internally and externally about leadership’s commitment to disability inclusion.
Both employees with and without disabilities wanted to learn more about disability inclusion within the organization.More than half of their employees (53%) without disabilities and 72% of those with disabilities were interested in learning more about disabilities within their organization, offering a great opportunity for organizations.Despite nearly three-quarters (73%) of employees saying they want to see people with disabilities represented in commercials, advertisements, and social media, only one-third said their organization actually features people with disabilities on these channels. Only 36% said their company featured individuals with disabilities in commercials or advertisements and 39% said they were included in their internal or employee-focused communications (39%).People with disabilities and caregivers thought their organizations did a better job communicating about supporting people with disabilities and their caregivers than people without disabilities.
One-in-three people who have a disability and one-in-five caregivers have not disclosed their disability or caregiving responsibilities to their employer.At least 4-in-10 respondents with disabilities had to scale back their hours (41%) or leave their job (49%) due to their disability, affecting retention. Similarly, nearly 5-in-10 caregivers (48%) had to scale back their hours and 34% had to leave their job. People who did not disclose their disability to their employer were concerned about being fired, ridiculed, orretaliated against.
Methodology: IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace.One hundred and eighty-seven respondents identified as an individual with disabilities either currently or in the past, and 242 respondents said they had or have had caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability. Prior to taking the survey, employees were provided definitions of the scope of disabilities and the definition of a caregiver for consistency purposes (see Appendix for definitions and methodology).*IPR is a separate entity and not a corporate affiliate of Voya Financial®.
About the Institute for Public RelationsFounded in 1956, the Institute for Public Relations is an independent, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations™. IPR creates, curates, and promotes research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use. IPR predicts and analyzes global factors transforming the profession and amplifies and engages the profession globally through thought leadership and programming. All research is available free at www.instituteforpr.org and provides the basis for IPR’s professional conferences and events.Media Contact:Brittany HigginbothamCommunications & Digital Specialistbrittany@instituteforpr.org352-392-0280
... 
The Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago examined Americans’ confidence levels in science and medicine related to their political affiliation.A survey of 3,544 U.S. adults was conducted May 5 – Dec. 20, 2022.Key findings include:— 39% of U.S. adults overall said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community.—– This number is down from 48% in 2021.—– 53% of Democrats reported “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 55% in 2018.—– 22% of Republicans said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 45% in 2018.— 34% of Americans reported “a great deal of confidence” in medicine, compared to 39% before the pandemic.— Although confidence in the scientific community has declined in recent years, this community is still more trusted than other institutions in America including the press (7%), organized religion (19%), and education (25%).Full report here
... 
Pew Research Center examined journalists’ concerns and perspectives on changes in the news industry.A survey of 11,889 U.S.-based journalists was conducted from Feb. 16 – March 17, 2022. Key findings include:— 57% of journalists say they are extremely or very concerned about possible restrictions on U.S. press freedoms.— Journalists aged 65+ years were the most concerned age group; 42% reported they are feeling extremely concerned.—– 39% in the 50-64 year old age group were extremely concerned, followed by ages 30-49 (28%) and ages 18-29 (20%). — 65% of journalists who have more than 20 years of experience are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms, compared to 45% of journalists with five years or less.— Concern remains consistent across types of news outlets and local, state or national news.—– 59% of journalists who work for news sources with right-leaning audiences and 56% of those who work for news sources with left-leaning audiences are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms.Discover how journalists perceive the future of the news industry
... 
WE Communications and the USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations examined how communications leaders are responding to the recent uptick of interest in AI. The study specifically measured practitioners’ levels of excitement and concern.A survey of roughly 400 communications leaders was conducted in April 2023.Key findings include:— 80% of respondents said AI will be extremely or very important to the future of PR work.— 16% of respondents said they were extremely knowledgeable about the applications of AI in communications.—– 59% of respondents said they already have or are looking for ways to incorporate ChatGPT into their work.— 23% of respondents said their organizations are changing the way they work due to new AI tools.—– 88% of respondents said AI will increase the efficiency of their work.—– 72% or respondents said it will reduce workloads.— 25% of respondents think that AI will negatively impact creativity.— 87% of respondents said the ability to write good AI prompts will become a more important skill to have.—– Other important skills included having knowledge on human-computer interaction (82%), strategic thinking (79%), and data analytics experience (75%).Discover what communications leaders are saying about AI
... 
This summary is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterMorning Consult explored Americans’ trust in artificial intelligence (AI) companies and support of AI being regulated by the government.A survey of 2,212 U.S. adults was conducted from April 19-22, 2023.Key findings include:— 43% of all respondents said AI companies should be “more regulated” by the government.—– 49% of Democrats said the same, compared to 44% of Republicans.— 36% of Americans overall said they have a “favorable” view of AI companies.—– Millennials had the most favorable views of AI companies (48%), followed by Gen Xers (34%), and Gen Zers (32%).—– Baby Boomers had the least favorable views of AI companies (26%). — While nearly equal shares of adults trust (38%) or distrust (36%) AI companies, major technology firms such as Microsoft and Google fare much better with 52% of respondents saying they trust these firms.—– Democrats (47%) were more likely than Republicans (32%) to say they trust AI companies to “do what is right.”
Learn more about Americans’ thoughts on AI companies and regulation
...