Survey reveals surge in UK employers using ‘bossware’ to monitor staff emails, browsing and screen time
A growing number of British companies are turning to so-called “bossware” to keep tabs on their employees, with a third of organisations now using technology to monitor staff emails, browsing and even screen activity, according to new research.
The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) surveyed hundreds of managers across the country and found that private sector employers are the most likely to use surveillance software, with one in seven companies now reviewing or recording what appears on workers’ screens.
The findings point to a sharp rise in computerised surveillance. Just two years ago, a study by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) suggested fewer than one in five workers believed their activity was being monitored. The CMI notes that the latest figure may still underestimate the true extent, as almost a third of managers admitted they were unsure of what monitoring their organisation actually carried out.
Bossware systems typically allow employers to track everything from idle time and log-in activity to the use of social media or AI tools. Some go further, offering real-time screenshots, keystroke tracking and app usage analysis. Proponents argue such systems can help prevent insider threats, protect sensitive information and identify productivity issues.
But the practice is proving divisive. The CMI found a large minority of managers believe digital snooping undermines trust with staff and risks intruding on personal privacy. One insurance manager whose firm is testing AI to analyse employee screen activity described the move as “unsettling”, adding: “Do they not trust their employees to do their jobs and are they looking to replace them with AI?”
The ICO has warned employers that any surveillance must be transparent and proportionate. “Bosses must make their employees aware of the nature, extent and reasons for monitoring,” it said. “Excessive monitoring can undermine people’s privacy, especially if they are working from home. We will take action if necessary.”
Last year, the watchdog stepped in to stop outsourcing giant Serco from using fingerprint scanning and facial recognition to track attendance at leisure centres.
Petra Wilton, director of policy and external affairs at the CMI, said organisations risk serious consequences if they fail to handle monitoring properly. “If it is being used, it is incredibly important employers are open. Otherwise that’s going to cause significant problems in terms of data privacy and protection.”
Among managers aware of surveillance in their organisations, 35% said emails were being monitored, while tracking log-on and log-off times remained the most common form. Overall, just over half of managers supported the practice, but 42% opposed it — most citing the damage it causes to trust, fears over misuse, or doubts that it improves performance.
One former transport authority employee who experienced diary and email monitoring branded it “intrusive and downright harassment”. They added: “It started with surveillance and it ended with me leaving because I was so infuriated.”
The study also found that one in six managers would consider leaving their job if their organisation introduced new monitoring measures.
Examples of workplace monitoring continue to surface. HSBC is reported to be fitting its new London headquarters with more than 1,700 cameras and biometric access controls, while PwC has introduced a “traffic light” system to check staff comply with its three-day office attendance rule, using data from pass swipes and Wi-Fi logins.
PwC said the system was “accepted by the vast majority” of staff. But critics argue such measures risk pushing employees away.
The CMI’s Wilton warned: “Monitoring often amounts to checks that inappropriate content isn’t being accessed. But there’s a longer-term impact if people feel this is Big Brother-like and they are being watched.”