Passive listening has a trust gap. What organisations can learn from it?

A measurable trust divide is emerging around passive listening in the workplace, writes Justin Angsuwat.

New data from a poll of HR leaders, conducted by Culture Amp, shows that nearly seven in 10 vice presidents and C-suite leaders trust their organisation to use passive listening data fairly. Among directors, managers, and individual contributors, that figure falls to between 27 per cent and 38 per cent.

The gap is significant, and it reflects how differently passive listening is experienced across organisational levels.

In a world defined by significant uncertainty, passive listening is a way that leadership often responds by attempting to bring structure and sense-making to the complexity of an organisation. It’s a way to find a signal among the chaos.

For senior leaders, passive listening is an analytical tool – a way to surface engagement signals earlier or improve oversight. Many employees, however, expect passive monitoring data will be used to inform disciplinary decisions. Many also doubt that passive analytics could outperform manager judgement in identifying top talent.

Experience changes perception

The data highlights an important nuance.

Where passive listening is already in use, support nearly doubles. In organisations using the tools, favourable views rise to 67 per cent, compared with 35 per cent in organisations where passive listening is not in place.

That shift suggests resistance isn’t fixed. Exposure and clearer operating context seem to materially influence perception.

At the same time, governance structures remain underdeveloped. Only 17 per cent of respondents report their organisation currently uses passive listening tools. Nearly two-thirds place low or no priority on expansion in 2026. And 65 per cent report their organisation has no formal policy defining acceptable monitoring limits.

Leaders may be confident because they see the opportunity, but many organisations have yet to create clear visibility for employees around how passive listening works and how the data will be used.

Considerations for CHROs considering passive listening

Define boundaries before scale.

A majority of organisations lack formal policies outlining monitoring limits. Publishing purpose, scope and explicit red lines before expansion reduces ambiguity and prevents worst-case assumptions.

In any performance system, people perform better when the rules are clear. When employees understand what is being measured – and what is not – they can focus on doing the work rather than interpreting the system.

Own the stewardship mandate.

For chief human resources officers (CHROs), this is an important leadership moment. We’re already at the centre of AI adoption and workforce transformation, and employees see HR, not executives, as the steward of people data. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents say HR should be the primary advocate for how employee data is used, compared with just 12 per cent who assign that responsibility to executive leaders. That expectation matters: it signals that employees view data stewardship as a people issue, not simply a technology or executive one.

Position analytics as augmentation, not automation.

Scepticism about algorithms outperforming managers remains strong. Many employees still believe human judgement is better at identifying performance and potential. Positioning passive listening as an additional signal (rather than an automated verdict) aligns with how employees already understand performance decisions.

Used well, passive listening can highlight where attention is needed. But it should inform managerial judgement, not replace it.

An inflection point for workplace analytics

Taken together, the findings point to trust in passive listening being shaped less by the technology itself and more by how clearly it is governed.

Where the purpose and limits of passive listening are undefined, employees understandably default to worst-case assumptions, particularly around disciplinary use. Where scope, boundaries and oversight are explicit, perceptions shift.

Responsible use, in this context, is not an abstract principle. It means written guardrails, visible accountability, and clear articulation of what the data will (and will not) be used for. It means defining limits before scale.

Ambiguity carries a productivity tax. When employees don’t understand the boundaries of passive listening, attention shifts from doing the work to managing perceived risk.

Passive listening doesn’t have a fixed trust problem. It has a governance problem, and how organisations formalise its limits will determine how it is judged and ultimately whether it can be successfully deployed.

Justin Angsuwat is the chief people officer and customer engagement officer at Culture Amp.