We told staff about the monitoring before rolling it out and it nearly backfired
We're about to deploy monitoring across our Windows estate and our HR lead insisted we announce it in advance rather than install it quietly. Reasonable in principle, but the announcement itself has caused problems. Two people have already asked whether their keystrokes will be logged, someone else wants to know if the camera can be switched on, and now there's a general atmosphere of suspicion that wasn't there before. Nobody has done anything wrong, but everyone is suddenly acting like they might. I'm starting to wonder whether announcing it was a mistake, or whether we just announced it badly. Has anyone handled this rollout in a way that didn't poison the mood?
Welcome!
Please sign in to your OneAll account to ask a new question or to contribute to the discussions.
Please click on the link below to connect to the forum with your OneAll account.
Information
Products & Services
Categories
- 2.7K All Categories
- 1.6K General
- 1.5K Questions
- 57 Suggestions
- 604 Implementation
- 12 Single Sign On
- 16 LoudVoice
- 672 Turnkey Plugins
- 42 Drupal
- 33 Joomla!
- 21 Magento
- 23 myBB
- 85 Opencart
- 128 phpBB
- 39 PrestaShop
- 31 Simple Machines Forum
- 9 Vanilla
- 17 vBulletin
- 8 WHMCS
- 230 WordPress
- 6 ZenCart
Answers
The announcement is not the problem, the wording usually is. What helped us was not announcing "monitoring" as one big scary thing, but showing exactly which channels were active and which were switched off. In the tool we use for employee monitoring you configure that per profile, so we could genuinely say to the team: we are recording app usage and idle time, we are not recording keystrokes or your camera, and here is the screen where that setting lives. There is also an option to display a visible monitoring warning on the machine rather than run it silently, which turned out to reassure people more than it annoyed them. The two questions you got are actually the right ones to be asked, because they mean people want to know the scope rather than assume the worst. If you can answer them with the settings in front of you, the mood usually settles within a week. If you cannot answer them, that is the real problem to fix before you deploy anything.
That distinction between channels is exactly what we were missing, because we announced it as a general capability and let people fill in the gaps themselves, which of course meant they imagined the worst version. Two things I want to get right before we try again. First, when you say a visible warning can be shown on the machine, is that a fixed notice or can it be worded by us? Our works council will want specific phrasing about what is and is not collected, and a generic system message will not satisfy them. Second, if someone asks for their own data, can we pull a report for one person rather than only seeing the whole company? That question has already come up and I do not want to promise something we cannot deliver.