Human Truth Podcast | Ep. 05: Dos and Don’ts of Employee Productivity Tracking

Welcome to The Human Truth Podcast where, each episode, we take a closer look at a popular workforce statistic ripped from the headlines and ask: Where’d it come from? Is it true? And why should we care?

• What are we talking about this episode?

  A recent report from Gartner found that 

  “the number of large employers using tools to track their workers has doubled since the beginning of the pandemic to 60%, with this number expected to rise to 70% within the next three years.”

  Despite what you think about employee monitoring, some employees actually welcome it for the valuable feedback it provides—just like a smartwatch outputs info about our health. Our guest, Dr. Roshni Raveendhran, says: “So there is this trend where there is a newfound willingness to accept technological tracking. And a lot of my research is around understanding what is the psychology that would drive us to actually be okay with accepting our employers tracking these types of data.” So, what does make it acceptable? And why? Listen to learn more.

• Who’s talking about it? 

  Host, Ian Cook is joined by Dr. Roshni Raveendhran assistant professor of business administration in the Leadership and Organizational Behavior area at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business.

Resources mentioned in the episode: 

• The CEO Blindspot: What Employees Need From Their Employers

• Visier People®: Workplace Dynamics 

Subscribe to The Human Truth Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts & never miss an episode!

Want to get in touch? Email us at podcast@visier.com

Transcript: 

Producer: 80% of executives think their companies are doing enough to support their employee wellbeing, but only 46% of employees agree. What’s the business impact when the C-suite is out of touch? Can it limit the chance to attract and keep top talent? Download our white paper, The CEO Blindspot to find out.

It’s The Human Truth Podcast, where each episode we examine a workforce statistic ripped from the headlines and ask where to come from. Is it accurate and should we care? Today we’re talking about employee monitoring, specifically the rise of companies tracking their employees productivity. Despite its complicated reputation in the media, according to Gartner research, the number of large employees using tools to track their workers has doubled since the beginning of the pandemic to 60%. With this number expected to rise to 70% within the next three years. Let’s get into it with hosts, Ian Cook and special guest, Darden Professor, Dr. Roshni Raveendhran.

Ian Cook: Hi, I’m Ian Cook, the host of the Human Truth Podcast, where today we are talking about employee monitoring, and to discuss this topic. I’m really pleased to be joined by Dr. Roshni Raveendhran, an assistant professor of business administration in the leadership and organizational behavior area at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business. That was a long title, I had to make sure I got that one right. Thank you for joining us today, Roshni. It’s a real pleasure to have you on the show. So can you tell us a little bit more about yourself, the search you’re doing and your interest in this area?

Roshni Raveendhrain: Yeah, thanks Ian for having me. I’m super excited to be on the Human Truth Podcast and I’m really looking forward to having this conversation on employee monitoring. Broadly speaking, I would describe my research as really looking at topics on the future of work. So questions that are at the intersection of technology and people. So things like how new technologies can be effectively leveraged and integrated in our organizations to enable and empower our people and questions around how people can effectively use new technologies to express themselves in the workplace and feel like they can bring their full selves to work.

Ian Cook: That sounds like a fascinating area of research. I was talking with some colleagues recently where we were reminiscing about fax machines and just how far the digitization of work has come in our careers and it seems like work is digital and digital is work. Those things have mashed together in ways that I certainly didn’t anticipate when I first jumped out of university. So I think it’s worth defining what we’re talking about today. How do you define employee monitoring? What is happening to people that has raised concerns and raised opportunities? How would we describe this thing of employee monitoring?

Roshni Raveendhran: So employee monitoring is not some brand new phenomenon that we are grappling with today. The way we can think about employee monitoring, is the use of any kind of technology to observe, to record, to analyze information about our workers that would tell employers directly or indirectly how the employees are doing, how are they working, how are they existing in the workplace, what are they doing? Are they feeling good? Any of these aspects really flow into employee monitoring.

And the reason why I say this isn’t a brand new phenomenon, is you could think back all the way to 1912 and Frederick Taylor and how people had stopwatches and clipboards and they were literally sitting and counting the number of widgets somebody would make and make notes of it on their clipboard. That’s employee monitoring. It’s just that we have a lot of fancy technological tools to do employee monitoring today in the workplace, and the scope of employee monitoring is not limited to just performance monitoring. It expands to things like monitoring people’s health and activities and other types of things.

Ian Cook: It’s become more expensive. I love the fact that you say this is not new. I mean, I worked with a hotel chain for a long time. They had a camera on the back door specifically to monitor who was going in and out and what was going in and out with those people. I also worked in call centers earlier in my career and there was boards about calls answered, calls resolved, the volume of calls per team member. They had cascaded that thing into a monitoring and gamified environment. It wasn’t the most comfortable environment, I don’t think it was the most healthy environment. That was why they were talking to me at the time. But monitoring has been part of work for ever, basically. But what is it about modern technologies that has, as I say, reinvigorated this debate, maybe elevated this debate to the levels that we’re seeing today?

Roshni Raveendhran: Yeah, great question. So there are a couple of things that are going on right now. The first thing is the actual technological advancements that have allowed for the development of novel technologies that would potentially track people’s behaviors to the micro second. So you could think of this as having a  full fledged picture of what somebody is doing. When are they logging into their computers? What are they doing? How long are they sitting at their desks? What applications are they on? And not thinking of this as just a okay, one snapshot per hour type of thing, but more like every microsecond what is somebody doing?

There was this really interesting quote from the New York Times that I included in one of the articles I published. It started something along the lines of, “On April 23rd, I started work at 8:49 PM reading and responding to emails, browsing the news, scrolling Twitter. At 9:14 AM I made changes to an upcoming story, read through interview notes.” And then it goes on and on and on. Then the reporter who wrote this says all of those details from the websites I visited to my GPS coordinates were available for my boss to review. It is this technological advancement that allows people to have sort this full-fledged picture of what is going on in somebody’s workday that is integrating this debate right now, because it is similar to in many ways the number of widgets somebody was making but different, because now you can of get that very full picture of what they’re doing every little second. And the other piece of it, is there’s a relative openness to using and implementing these technologies in certain ways, which I think we’ll get into as well.

Ian Cook: Yeah, and then there’s what is it and how is it changed? I think made some key pieces. It’s always been here. It’s always about understanding who’s doing what. Are they doing it fast enough? Are they doing enough of it? Again, sometimes it’s also around this notion of fraud detection. What has changed as in our digital world, nobody used to know if you had your stock ticker open on one of your tabs and your word document open on another. And that’s the kind of even more precise data that is now being captured, now flowing back to be used. A part of me, I think I read a similar article as yourself and part of me was, “As a manager, do I actually want to micro understand my employees day like that?” It’s like, “Really? Did you get the job done?” I mean, there’s a part of me that’s like, “Did you get the job done? Do I care?” And then there’s other pieces where it’s like there’s interesting insight from that.

Roshni Raveendhran: That’s an excellent point actually, and can talk a little bit more about this as well. It is the idea that employees think that managers are super interested and they want to know and they want to be this big brother where you keep watching everything that’s going on. But given just the absolute quantity of data that someone’s able to collect through these new technologies, it is practically impossible to have an understanding of every single thing that is going on and being able to keep track of every single piece of data that flows in. So that’s, a really important thing to think about.

Ian Cook: With great monitoring comes great massive information. There’s a stat from Gartner, which we kind of kicked off the show with, from their tracking these kind of work monitoring tools that you’re talking about that look at website open times and various things, it’s doubled and expects to increase to 70%. What is it you think that has led employers to lean into this kind of technology? Why has that adoption been, what it looks to be apparently rapid? Have you any sense of what it is that employers are looking for from this new opportunity with the technology?

Roshni Raveendhran: So I also want to throw in another statistic from Gartner which said, this was before the pandemic. This was in 2019 when the statistics said that the sales from behavior tracking devices, things like wearables, things like applications, would be nearly 52 billion by 2020. And what the pandemic did, especially in the last two years, is with everyone working from home led to this explosion of tracking, where it almost started from this place of we don’t know how to think about employees working from home for an indefinite period of time. Are they going to be doing a good job? Are they going to slack? Are they just going to hang out with their families? What is going on? And I think it started from this place of we’re not sure, so let’s just use the technology to see if this would actually help us track and get a sense of what’s going on.

So I truly think it was really the sense of, okay, let’s just get into it because we have access to these types of technologies that track everything, what websites people are on. In fact, I think in November, 2020 there was this big discussion around Microsoft rolling out a new productivity score feature in its office products that would allow employers to track employee behaviors across something like 73 metrics, including things like how often employees would turn on their cameras during meetings, did they contribute to shared documents? Did they really talk during group chats or were they just kind of hanging out and how often were they using these Microsoft tools and so forth. So it really kind of started from this space of I want to know whether employees are doing what they’re doing. And I think the recent explosion is really probably attributed to employers figuring out how they want to keep track of people working from home.

Ian Cook: The whole move to hybrid, the whole working from home, the very sudden dislocation of, we used to manage by walking around and now we can’t do that anymore. So we’re now managing by digital listening. And again, I know there’s been a few things that have kind of popped up around productivity scores and then they’ve often been challenged, because when you actually unpack what they’re actually measuring and whether or not it counts, it’s like it becomes really, really tough to say, “Well if that’s what you’re monitoring me on, then that’s what I’ll do.” Everybody knows how to game a performance system if you tell me what you’re measure exactly, I will do what you’re measuring. That may not actually get you the business outcome.

Roshni Raveendhran: Absolutely.

Ian Cook: So this kind of leads me to the next phase of our conversation, which is in your research, have you touched on employees’ perspective of this technology? Because, as some of it you describe it feels quite intrusive, other pieces I can see some real value. I mean I wear a sports watch, it’s been incredibly helpful in educating me how to manage my health. So I can see this yin and yang of for the actual individual there is benefit in monitoring as well as there is some other aspects to that. So how do employees feel about it?

Roshni Raveendhran: Great question. Actually a lot of my research, especially research that I’ve done during my dissertation days, research that I did a little after, a lot of it was around employees and their perceptions of how they thought about these types of new technological tracking devices. And I love that you gave the example of your smart watch and how that has helped you keep track of your behaviors. So I want to maybe just highlight a couple of different statistics and then I’ll go into the psychology of employees and how they perceive some of these technologies. So I think in 2015 there was a survey that Gartner did, which revealed that only 10% of employees were willing to accept their employers tracking personal data. And then this number actually increased to 30% in 2018. And in that very same survey in 2018, employees said that if employers were actually explicit and transparent about the purpose of tracking, then that number of being willing to accept employers tracking their data jumped up to 50%.

So there is this trend where there is a newfound willingness to accept technological tracking. And a lot of my research is around understanding what is the psychology that would drive us to actually be okay with accepting our employers tracking these types of data. And you touched upon this a little bit and I’m happy to dive into that as well. A lot of it is, what is this tracking doing? If it is providing information about your own behavior similar to what your watch does for you in helping you keep track of your health behaviors, that’s great. We all love feedback about our own behaviors. We actually would really appreciate when we’re doing some things, how we’re doing some things. Are we doing it okay? Are we not doing it okay? And we’d like to know more about ourselves. However, the problem arises when this is done for an evaluative purpose.

If it is done in a way where employees feel like there are other humans behind the scenes watching what they’re doing, then that’s a problem. Let me give you a concrete example. I’m a researcher. A large part of my job is writing academic papers and doing research. Now, I would love to know whether I’m actually really able to be very productive and write very well at certain points during the day. And maybe that would help me reorganize my meetings, so that my meetings are not during those times of the day. Maybe I write really well in the mornings and so I could move all my meetings to my afternoons, block that time off for my writing and feel very productive.

I would love to know that. However, when this becomes problematic, is if these data go to my boss, to the dean and I’m like, “Oh, why?” They may not even have any interest in looking at these data, but just the idea that someone else who I could be reporting to or just another human being could be looking at these data makes me worried about potentially being negatively judged. It may not be that they’re actually seeing these data. It may be that I think that if someone has the opportunity to see these data, then maybe they’ll be judging me.

Ian Cook: You hit on it again, sort of looking at what is maybe, where the willingness comes from and what employees see as a benefit to them. When it starts to tell me stuff about how I am successful, how I be my best self, how I grow my career, how I advance in my knowledge and skills, then that technology has incredible power. But I think you raise a really key point about, is when that data is presented to somebody else to evaluate it automatically feels wrong, because there’s so much else going on behind the digital footprint.

Roshni Raveendh: Exactly. The way to think about this, is the dichotomy between is the tracking done for informational purposes to provide you feedback about your own behavior? Or is the tracking done for evaluative purposes, which is to make judgments about who you are as a person? Are you a good employee? Are you a bad employee? And that purpose may not even be what the organization intends. It is the perception of that purpose from the employee’s standpoint that affects many of these things.

Ian Cook: Yeah. I think that’s a great point because again, if I follow the debate carefully, there were certain of these tracking tools would look at mouse clicks and mouse movement. And so, some smart developers made programs that they would put on their computer to move their mouse randomly at will. So it was almost like when you try to monitor people for that evaluative point of view, or even if they perceive it being, that’s even the important of key point, that perception, if they perceive it to be an evaluative piece, they will find ways to game your system.

And believe me, there’s no employer that’s smarter than all the employees put together. I have yet to meet them. So there’s certain implications around employee… I mean because I think there’s part of this debate which especially from the employee perspective is like, well whose data is this? Again, do you sort touch into that privacy and which information belongs to the employee versus which one belongs to the employer? What implications are there?

Roshni Raveendhran: Really interesting question. So my research doesn’t directly speak to these privacy issues, but from what I know about reading work in this area, when you sign up to work at an organization, you sign up for various things including giving access to some of these data about yourself at work. Now, the thing that becomes really tricky and probably touches upon a very murky space, is what kinds of data are off limits. For example, if your employer offered you a smart watch, which is tracking your heart rate or other kinds of things about your health, would it be okay for them to track things that are very personal to you like your health?

And if so, what are they doing with these data? And a lot of the times you’ll notice that employers are actually not interested in individuals data. They’re interested in aggregate data, because what they would do is potentially this department, this is the aggregate statistic for their health and wellbeing or whatever. And they use that to get some insurance benefits and things like that, because they have deals with the insurance companies. So in reality employers may not be interested in individual data, but it is the perception that they do have access [00:20:00] to your data and potentially could at some point look at individual data if they’ve wanted to potentially. And then the question becomes how do we protect the privacy of individual employees?

Ian Cook: Well that’s a great point. So we’re going to take a break here. We’ve talked about what monitoring is, we’ve looked at how it sits with employees. We’ve touched on the kind of complex issue of employers can do this, but should they do this and how would they do this? So when we come back we’ll get a little bit more into ways that employers can think about ruling out or using these kinds of technologies with their employees. So thanks Roshni. We’ll be back.

Roshni Raveendhran: Thank you.

Producer: There’s a gap between what CEOs think employees want and what employees actually want and need from their jobs. Where’s this gap coming from? What’s the harm when executives are so out of touch? How much do this disconnect matter? Download our whitepaper, The CEO Blindspot to find out.

Ian Cook: And so, we’re back. I am Ian Cook, the host of the Human Truth Podcast from Visier, and today I’ve been joined by Dr. Roshni Raveendhran, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business. I got that better at that time. And we’re talking about employee monitoring, a rich and complex topic, it’s top of mind for lots of people. We’ve touched on some really important stuff around what it is and what it means to employees.

What I’d like to go next Roshni, is how should a company, there’s this natural tension between I need to know because it can help me make my business better and I need to use that information the right way. I mean, before the break, you highlighted that employees are increasingly willing to have this data used. They have certain conditions they want met in order for that to be used. So what advice if a company says, “I want to get better understanding my employees and what’s really going on, I can’t see them, but I feel like I can sense them through this listening stuff.” How should they think about rolling that out?

Roshni Raveendhran: Great question. I think there are a couple of things that employers could do. The first thing is within their leadership, really understand and have an explicit idea about why they want to do the tracking. Now, a lot of the companies are defaulting to it, because oh, we have access to these technologies, why not? Let’s just do it. Then everything becomes post talk. How they use the data becomes a post talk decision. How they communicate with their employees about this becomes a post talk decision. What managers are required to do with it becomes a post talk decision.

So instead, I think there needs to be some explicit understanding of when and why they want to use tracking technologies. And the reason for this, is some of the statistics that we talked about earlier. When companies are explicit and transparent about why they’re using these tracking technologies, about 50% of employees are willing to say yes to this.

So if companies have a clear sense of what they’re using it for, how they’re going to use it, why they want to use it, and if they have a clear communication strategy and are able to explicitly and transparently communicate how these data are going to be used, that’s going to be the first thing to do. The second thing to think about, is employees want these data because it gives them useful information about their own behaviors. So the key here is to have an employee focus.

So using these data as a way to provide useful full-fledged information about someone’s behavior at work, is actually going to be incredibly valuable to them. Instead using it for a monitoring purpose is going to irk them and feel like they are not trusted, feel like this is not an organization that values their employees, leads to all kinds of backlash. So the second thing to really think about is how can you start leveraging this technology in order to ensure that this is used for an informational purpose rather than an evaluative purpose?

Because, this ties into the last piece, which is, we talked about this, do managers really want to have access to such micro data about their employees day to day? They have a ton of different things to focus on and they have so much going on. They’re not going to want to sift through tiny bits of data about how someone’s going from one tab to the next or whether they turned on their camera or not. Those are irrelevant details in most organizations. So your managers and decision makers and leaders don’t even want these data in the first place.

So then why don’t we put the power of the data in the hands of the employees and tell them, “Hey, these are your data. You’re going to get first dibs on these data. You can look at how you’re working throughout the day and you can come to your manager and tell your manager, Hey, I actually seem like I’m actually doing a really good job between say 9 to 3 when my son’s at school. So I would be happy to take on extra responsibilities during this time. And then if I need to come back, I’d like to do that after 7 when the child is at bed.”

So why don’t we actually put the power of these data on the hands of our employees, trust them with these data and then have them look at these data, make an interpretation, and then come to managers and say, “Hey, this is what I’m seeing with my data on how I’m doing. Can you help me become more efficient? Can you help me structure my work in a way where it’s going to benefit the team?” So it’s important to understand that everybody that’s coming to work is a person who can be trusted and who can have enough insight about how they want to conduct themselves at work. So the job of the leader and the job of the manager, is to enable them to get there. And these data by giving employees first dibs on these data would potentially help us get there.

Ian Cook: There is so much wisdom in what you’re sharing Roshni. It’s really, really cool. Because, often it’s like, “Well we can do this. We’ve got the tech.” It’s looking as an IT issues like, “Oh, we’ve got the technology, let’s just deploy and see what happens.” I think that tends to bring up the anxiety levels for most people. It’s like, “well what are you going to do with this?” So just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If you’re going to start, focus on something substantive you’re going to solve. So I mean just a quick example from within Visier, we recently launched a product called Workplace Dynamics. We look at collaboration circles and as we’ve been describing what that does and why it would be valuable, I think of myself as a manager. Anytime somebody joined my team, I would lay out who I thought it would be beneficial for them to meet directly and indirectly.

I want to understand their network, not just within the team that they’re in, but kind of broadly across the organization. This here is a pretty complicated business to run. So it’s the cross connection that actually keeps us successful. So as a manager, I can go back and I can sit and say, “Have you met so and so? Have you met so-and-so?” But if the employee has that live feed through to them saying, “Here’s how your network’s growing, here’s who you haven’t met, here’s who people like you have met.” I don’t know everybody. So again, when the system can start to help the employee see their network, see it grow, seek new connections in the network that may help them actually extend and build value in the business, then I think that’s a really nice example of this is how it can be a people-centric employee first kind of approach.

And then again, I think you’re right, because employees start to trust and benefit from the information which makes people more open. I was talking to some other colleagues recently about, it used to be completely unrealistic to do a non anonymous engagement survey. It used to be the defined view of the world was like, you always have to do it anonymously. But I would say between 40 and 50% of our clients are now doing confidential surveys. They’ve done similarly to what you’re suggesting, which is here’s our purpose, here’s our intent, here’s what will happen with the data, full transparency and following through on that transparency as part of doing that. Do  you have, again, other examples of what you think good would look like if you were continuing to advise the sort of rollout setup piece we’ve looked at? How do you think an organization sort of maintains and grows its use of that kind of technology?

Roshni Raveendhran: One really fascinating example that comes to mind for me, is these what’s called sociometric badges. There’s a company called Humanyze that many of you in the audience may have heard about. So  this is a company that actually has smart badges and these badges are able to capture various things about how two people communicate. For example, if we capture things like tone of voice, turn taking or people giving each other turns while talking? Who’s interrupting whom? Lots of different things about communication can be tracked with the microchips that are in the badges. Also, things like who’s talking to whom? Because, the two badges are able to communicate with each other and know who’s talking to whom. And I heard an example from the CEO of Humanyze when he came to give a talk at a conference that I was organizing. One of the things that was really fascinating was how people really in organizations use these data about who’s talking to whom.

If I were to just take out the context and say, “Well, we’ll all be wearing badges and I will know exactly who you’re going to be talking to on a day to day basis.” That sounds really scary and that sounds like monitoring and big brothery and feels like someone’s on my back all the time. But one example that this person gave, which was super helpful, was this company used these badges to understand who were the people that were the ones that informally helped a lot of people and formed those big networks. They’re not the people who are in formal positions of power, they’re not the people who are the leaders in the organization, but they are the people that everybody goes to for advice, everyone goes to and after speaking with this person, they become more efficient at whatever it is that they’re doing.

So the organization was able to identify an appropriately reward and incentivize these people who were going out of their way to be a good citizen and to help others. And this would never have happened [00:31:00] if these data didn’t exist. So it really isn’t about the technology itself. It’s very easy for people to turn around and say, “Oh my god, this technology is terrible. Why do we have this? It’s big brothery, it’s monitoring me all the time.” But it’s pretty much 99.9% of the time not the technology. It is almost always how that technology is implemented.

Any technology is neither good nor bad, it’s just a tool. It’s about how the leadership and visions really implementing that technology could that if the intention is to implement that technology and leverage it for good, then that technology can be used in those ways and people can benefit from it. If the intention is unclear or if the intention is no, I just want to watch how everything is happening, I want to monitor people, then of course you’re bound to have all the negative consequences of employee monitoring, which we are very familiar  with in the academic literature and in practice

Ian Cook: Well said there Roshni. I was just thinking, our CEO, Ryan Wong calls the peoples you described the quiet leaders and he’s actually very active in making sure that they are found and understood and acknowledged. So they are an essential, solid component of every business. They exist everywhere and often they aren’t seen and technologies can make them scene. That’s really powerful. And I think you’re right, I also love what you’re saying, it isn’t about the technology. Often the technology takes the blame and there’s sort of this lack of recognition that there’s people using the technology and it’s the intent… Sometimes the lack of decision or sometimes the assumptions that are being brought to the use of the technology, Gee, that’s actually what pivots it from being creepy or cool.

Roshni Raveendhran: Exactly.

Ian Cook: So last quick question, is this technology going away or is this technology just going to evolve and continue to grow inside organizations?

Roshni Raveendhran: I don’t think there is a future where this or any other type of technology is going away. As we all know, we are sort of in that space where we’re accelerating towards what I used to be thinking as the future of work, which feels like the present of work, which is our workplaces, our lives are going to be filled with a lot of technological tools. And that’s not a bad thing, because what technology can do is it can empower us, it can help us understand ourselves better. It can help organizations provide environments that feel more inclusive and equitable to all people.

So there are lots and lots of things that technology can enable us to do. So in particular, when we think about technologies that enable tracking, they’re not going away. But as we were talking about earlier, if they’re not implemented properly or with intention or with the understanding of how they would impact the psychology of those that are being tracked, then we’re running into a problem. And then it becomes something that needs a lot of repair before the true potential of that technology can be unpacked. So instead of going to a place where organizations and employers and leaders say, “Great, we have the money. Let’s go buy these technologies. Let’s go implement them.” Without clearly thinking about the psychology of how these technologies affect the people involved, then it’s going to really just be time until they have to decide how to prepare and how to make it better.

Instead, if they were to understand the research, if they were to understand what needs to be done to enable us to use these technologies for informational purposes and not evaluative purposes. And the key thing to understand is really, it is the perception of the people. So how do you make it feel like it is used for informational purposes? Provide the power of the data to the people and really give them first steps and understand that they can come to you with questions about how to use their own data. Just using the ways we talked about to implement them in the appropriate way would allow us to leverage these technologies for good. And I think that’s how we should be thinking about these technologies, because to your point, they’re not going away, but we need to be able to understand how to leverage them well.

Ian Cook: That makes a lot of sense. I think that’s a great kind of picture of the future in terms of the adoption use value is so significant that it’ll continue to evolve, but there may be some actors who don’t deploy them thoughtfully, they’ll be pushed back against that. [00:36:00] But actors who deploy them thoughtfully, what we call a people-centric view, where you think about the human at the heart first and the technology as an enabler second, rather than vice versa. Then the progress is going to keep going and probably keep going at quite a pace for some of the organizations we work with, they’re making great progress.

Roshni Raveendhran: Absolutely.

Ian Cook: So thanks Roshni. We’re going to wrap up here. And so, thanks for listening today. This has been an episode of the Human Truth Podcast and we’ve been delving into the why and how of employee monitoring at depth. I have to thank Dr. Roshni Raveendhran an absolute ton. We’ve been a pleasure to have you on the show. It’s been great to have your insights. So thank you very much.

Roshni Raveendhran:: Yeah, thanks so much Ian and I truly enjoyed the conversation and you’re very insightful questions, so thank you.

Ian Cook: Thank you. And I’m your host, Ian Cook, and we’ll be back next time discussing another fascinating workforce statistics that we take from the headlines. Thank you.

Producer: Thanks for joining this episode on the Human Truth Podcast presented by Visier. More links and information presented on today’s show are at visier.com/podcast. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. The Human Truth Podcast is brought to you by Visier, the global leader in people analytics, whose mission is to reveal a human truth that helps businesses and employees win together. Today’s episode was produced by Sarah Gonzalez with technical production by Gabriel Kava. Grace Shepherd is our assistant producer. Ian Cook is our host. See you next time. And until then, visit us at visier.com/podcast.