ARTICLE
5 June 2023

Is Technology Disrupting How Employers Measure Performance?

NR
Norton Rose Fulbright

Contributor

Norton Rose Fulbright provides a full scope of legal services to the world’s preeminent corporations and financial institutions. The global law firm has more than 3,000 lawyers advising clients across more than 50 locations worldwide, including London, Houston, New York, Toronto, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney and Johannesburg, covering Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East. With its global business principles of quality, unity and integrity, Norton Rose Fulbright is recognized for its client service in key industries, including financial institutions; energy, infrastructure and resources; technology; transport; life sciences and healthcare; and consumer markets.

For research scientists, the Hawthorne effect is a well-known problem of human behaviour reactivity - where individuals modify an aspect of their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed.
United Kingdom Technology

For research scientists, the Hawthorne effect is a well-known problem of human behaviour reactivity - where individuals modify an aspect of their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed. We see a similar effect in the context of workers being monitored remotely by employers' technology to track their activity, as discussed in a recent Guardian article. Whether that is avoiding meetings during monitored hours or pausing the tracker when taking written notes, as these count as a 0% activity that will bring down their score.

Putting aside any ethical view point relevant to the use of such applications, employers should consider carefully the legal limitations on the use of such technology in workplace. Data protection, fair processing, and human rights issues are perhaps obvious ones, but where AI is being used to support decisions affecting workers based on AI driven data points, such as appraisal results or flexible working, employers should also consider the scope for bias in results. On the face of it, it can be easy to think that AI actually removes the possibility of bias with a focus purely on data, however, time after time we have seen a risk of algorithmic bias.

It's also important to remember that, in contrast to proving direct discrimination, when proving indirect discrimination a claimant need only show that the disadvantage has been caused by the AI and not to show why the AI has caused the disadvantage. The cause of the discrimination must be proved, but the reason for it doesn't.

AI is increasingly being used in the workplace, and, as with any new technology, it comes with both benefits and risks that must be managed accordingly.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More