Excessive digital surveillance at work linked to stress and lower performance

Digital surveillance in the workplace is expanding rapidly, but mounting evidence suggests that excessive monitoring can undermine employee wellbeing and hurt performance rather than improve it.

Companies across sectors are increasingly using tools that track keystrokes, mouse movements, screen time and physical presence, often justified as a way to ensure productivity and accountability. What was once the role of a watchful manager has, in many organisations, been handed to always-on technology capable of recording even momentary lapses in attention.

While employers argue such systems deter shirking and provide operational visibility, research and public policy bodies are warning of unintended consequences. The US Government Accountability Office said in a recent report that digital surveillance can heighten stress and anxiety, particularly when workers feel pressured to meet rigid productivity metrics.

The GAO acknowledged that some monitoring technologies can deliver benefits, including early signals of health issues or improved safety in hazardous environments. However, it cautioned that constant observation may push employees to work at unsafe speeds or remain in a permanent state of alertness, increasing fatigue and mental strain.

These risks are most visible in highly monitored roles such as warehousing and gig work. A study by the University of Cambridge examining food delivery and ride-hailing workers found that algorithmic oversight and customer rating systems created persistent anxiety. Lead author Alex Wood said such systems leave workers feeling “judged, monitored, and replaceable”, with livelihoods dependent on scores generated by strangers or automated tools.

Beyond mental health concerns, experts say excessive surveillance can also distort how performance is assessed. Monitoring software often relies on narrow indicators of productivity, such as time spent active on a device, which may fail to capture the quality, complexity or collaborative nature of many roles.

Policy analysts have also raised concerns about accuracy and bias. The GAO noted that flawed data or poorly designed benchmarks could disadvantage certain groups of workers, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, disabilities or roles that do not fit standard productivity templates.

As hybrid and remote work become entrenched, scrutiny of digital monitoring practices is intensifying. Regulators, academics and employee groups are calling for clearer guardrails around how surveillance tools are deployed and how data is interpreted.

For employers, the challenge is balancing oversight with trust. Evidence suggests that moderate, transparent use of monitoring may support safety and accountability, but excessive surveillance risks eroding morale and engagement. As organisations refine their future-of-work strategies, how they manage this balance is likely to become a defining test of leadership credibility.