Why monitoring remote workers crosses the line and destroys workplace culture

As the business world continues to navigate the complexities of hybrid and remote work, HR professionals must champion approaches that build rather than erode trust, writes Karlie Cremin.

Five years on from the COVID-19-era work-from-home boom, many Australian businesses have adapted remote or hybrid working set-ups for the benefit of their employees, their culture, and their bottom line. But this significant cultural shift hasn’t been all smooth sailing, with several businesses becoming unwitting case studies for the danger of adopting a remote working culture without one fundamental element: trust.

Recently, a leading provider of compliance training and solutions in Australia and New Zealand was alleged to have secretly recorded employees through their laptop microphones while working from home, using surveillance software that captured audio and screens without proper consent – a story that has sent shock waves through the Australian business community.

The blurred lines of digital surveillance

The law on employee monitoring is clear: there are strict rules about what can be collected, how it’s used, and the limits on surveillance. But blurred boundaries with consumer technology mean invasive practices are being normalised.

We’ve all grown accustomed to our phones and TVs listening to us, so some employers wrongly assume ‘it must be fine’ to apply the same mindset at work. It isn’t. The casual acceptance of surveillance in our personal lives doesn’t create a legal or ethical precedent for the workplace. When employers make decisions based on what tech giants do with consumer data, they’re fundamentally misunderstanding both the legal framework and their duty of care to employees.

This normalisation is dangerous. Just because we’ve become desensitised to privacy erosion in our personal lives doesn’t mean we should extend that tolerance to professional relationships built on mutual respect and trust.

Treating employee privacy casually not only breaches trust, but also undermines culture and puts businesses at risk. More often than not, employees know when they’re being watched or monitored, and that sense of mistrust is corrosive.

The irony is that businesses that resort to covert surveillance often do so because they lack confidence in their team’s productivity or engagement. Yet surveillance itself becomes the very thing that destroys the trust and psychological safety required for high performance. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that transforms capable adults into suspects in their own workplace.

High-trust cultures are directly correlated with high-performance cultures. When we spend our energy building conditions in which people can thrive rather than trying to catch them out, we create environments where productivity and innovation flourish naturally. The alternative – a workplace characterised by suspicion and monitoring – inevitably leads to disengagement, higher turnover, and diminished results.

The adult-to-adult contract

There are endless reasons why conducting covert surveillance on your team is never acceptable. At its core, however, it all comes down to a simple principle: businesses employ adults and expect them to act as adults, and as such, it’s reasonable for them to expect us to treat them as adults.

This adult-to-adult contract forms the foundation of effective remote work arrangements. When we undermine this by treating employees like children who can’t be trusted without constant supervision, we damage not just individual relationships, but the entire cultural fabric of our organisation.

It’s not just trust and cultural consequences at risk, either. Victorian police are investigating the allegations against the compliance training and solutions company, and multiple employees have reportedly taken legal action against the company, highlighting the serious legal risks businesses face when they cross surveillance boundaries. HR teams need to be across these issues because the responsibility for advising company leaders on employee monitoring decisions will inevitably fall to them.

The legal framework around employee monitoring varies between states, but the core principles are the same: transparency, proportionality, and legitimate business purpose. Any monitoring must be disclosed, justified by genuine operational needs, and implemented with appropriate safeguards for employee privacy.

Monitoring tools have their place in certain industries, particularly where safety, security, or regulatory compliance create specific requirements. However, the vast majority of organisations can achieve their objectives through clearer expectations, regular communication, and outcome-focused performance management.

Before implementing any form of employee monitoring, HR leaders should ask fundamental questions: what specific business problem are we trying to solve? Can we achieve our objectives through less invasive means? Have we been transparent with employees about what we’re monitoring and why? Are we prepared for the cultural consequences of our decisions?

Rather than asking whether we can monitor employees, we should ask whether we need to. Strong leadership, clear goal setting, and regular check-ins create accountability without destroying trust. When people understand what’s expected of them and have the support to meet those expectations, surveillance becomes unnecessary.

As the business world continues to navigate the complexities of hybrid and remote work, HR professionals must champion approaches that build rather than erode trust. Those who fail to do so need only to look to the abovementioned allegations to see what happens if organisations lose sight of this fundamental principle. Remote working is here to stay, which means future success will belong to organisations that can create high-performance cultures without resorting to the digital equivalent of looking over employees’ shoulders.

Karlie Cremin is the managing director of DLPA.