The Trust Dilemma in Monitoring Employee Behaviour

As cyber threats become more sophisticated, organisations are coming under increasing pressure to monitor employee activity more closely. From detecting insider threats to preventing data leaks, behaviour monitoring has become a standard security policy within many organisations.

However, there is an uncomfortable truth that many security leaders face: when security is viewed as spying, trust begins to erode. Employees who believe that every click, message, or keystroke is being tracked may come to feel that they are not trusted colleagues, but potential suspects. This tension is at the heart of what behaviour ethics calls the trust dilemma: the balance between protecting the organisation and maintaining personal autonomy and psychological safety.

The Slippery Slope from Protection to Pervasiveness

Surveillance in itself is not wrong. It is primarily required in most cases. But the line between appropriate monitoring and intrusive supervision is thinner than we’d care to consider.

View these examples:

  • Filtering email for malicious attachments is widely regarded as an essential security feature.
  • Keylogging or taping private conversations without specific consent is something that crosses a boundary that feels secretive and vengeful.

Studies have shown that the perception of being watched can damage morale, lead to disengagement and even exacerbate the very danger it is intended to mitigate. Individuals are less likely to report mistakes or near misses if they feel they are being watched, in case they are criticised or reprimanded. This is counter to the psychological safety culture that fosters early intervention and learning, which is so vital.

The Role of Behavioural Ethics

Behavioural ethics describes the intense response to monitoring. People judge the appropriateness and justice of monitoring not only by what is being done, but by why and how it is being done. Four elements shape these perceptions:

  • Transparency – Are employees informed of what is being tracked and why?
  • Proportionality – Is the surveillance proportionate to the actual risk?
  • Purpose – Is the primary function to safeguard, or to police?
  • Voice – Do employees have any voice in the design or implementation of monitoring?

When monitoring is viewed as sneaky, intrusive or retaliatory, it tends to evoke feelings of injustice and resentment. This, in the long term, erodes the trust between employees and the security team.

Balancing Security and Psychological Safety

We can observe in a way that protects while still allowing trust, but in a human-focused and deliberate manner.

Transparency matters. If employees are given a clear understanding of why monitoring is being done and can see that it is tightly focused on true risk, resistance vanishes. That means not only talking about what data is being collected, but also how it’ll be used, stored, and kept secure.

Equally vital is proportionality. One-size-fits-all can be stifling for low-risk-profile teams. Calibration of monitoring intensity to the specific role, threat model and environment sends a message of respect and care.

Leaders must model openness, too. When monitoring policies are written with the input of staff and employees, trust will be more likely to thrive than die.

Trust as a Strategic Asset

Cybersecurity depends not only on controls but also on the willingness of individuals to report potential issues, take ownership of the error, and seek advice. If employees are in fear of being watched, they will conceal mistakes or refuse to seek help. Over time, such secrecy creates blind spots that sophisticated attackers can exploit.

Trust, in that sense, is not this warm, fuzzy feeling – it’s a strategic asset. It’s established through the balance of vigilance with respect and through the design of monitoring practices consistent with shared values.

Towards Ethical Monitoring

The following are three questions that leaders can use in assessing monitoring practices:

  • Would I want to share this plan openly with everybody in the company?
  • Does the monitoring actually lower risk, or is it principally reassuring leadership?
  • Are we fostering a culture where employees feel secure in reporting mistakes and seeking help without fear of reprisal?

There might not be easy responses to these questions, but they are well worth asking. The most sustainable organisations are those in which people feel protected and respected.