A recent study by Cornell University highlighted potential drawbacks associated with using AI to monitor employees, cautioning that such technologies could lead to decreased performance and increased discontent among workers unless managed carefully.
AI Monitoring Could Lead to More Complaints and Worse Performance
The research underscored that AI-driven surveillance tools, which analyze various aspects of employee behavior, such as physical activity, facial expressions, and communication patterns, often leave employees feeling a loss of autonomy compared to oversight by human supervisors.
The research team's findings suggest that this perception of reduced autonomy can result in heightened resistance and lower productivity levels among employees.
Emily Zitek, an associate professor of organizational behavior at Cornell's ILR School and co-author of the study, said that while AI can be beneficial when framed as a tool for developmental feedback, its implementation solely for evaluative purposes can exacerbate negative perceptions.
Employees expressed concerns about the lack of contextualization in AI assessments, which they perceived as impersonal and potentially inaccurate.
The study draws attention to instances where AI surveillance has met with backlash, such as a 2020 incident where an investment bank discontinued a productivity monitoring pilot due to employee concerns over intrusive monitoring practices.
Similarly, during the pandemic, schools faced resistance from students regarding AI-monitored virtual tests, fearing students would misinterpret their actions as cheating.
Interestingly, the research suggests a nuanced view among employees regarding AI surveillance. While some view algorithms as efficient and impartial tools, others raise valid objections regarding their impact on workplace dynamics and employee morale.
In a series of experiments involving nearly 1,200 participants, the researchers explored how the type of surveillance - human vs. AI - and its perceived purpose - performance evaluation vs. developmental support - affect employee attitudes and behaviors.
Participants consistently reported feeling less autonomous and more inclined to exhibit resistance behaviors under AI surveillance than human oversight.
In addition to complaints and criticism, the researchers discovered that individuals who believed they were under AI surveillance produced fewer ideas, suggesting diminished performance.
Developmental Feedback vs. Performance Evaluation
According to Zitek, despite receiving identical messages prompting increased idea generation, participants perceived the instructions differently depending on whether they came from AI or a human research assistant.
Thus, AI surveillance resulted in poorer performance across multiple studies. Moreover, the study highlights a pivotal finding: employees were less likely to perceive it as intrusive when AI surveillance was positioned as providing developmental feedback rather than performance evaluation.
According to the research team, this shift in framing seemed to mitigate concerns about autonomy and lessen employees' intentions to leave their jobs.
"Organizations trying to implement this kind of surveillance need to recognize the pros and cons," Zitek said in a statement. "They should do what they can to make it either more developmental or ensure that people can add contextualization. If people feel like they don't have autonomy, they're not going to be happy."
The findings of the study were published in the journal Communications Psychology.
