Digital Monitoring in the Workplace: A Critical Review of Trust, Autonomy, and Stress in the Era of Performance Management Tools

There is no denying that the rapid proliferation of digital oversight has transformed how organizations manage employee performance, offering new capacities for tracking activity and output while raising serious psychological and social concerns. This systematic literature review (SLR) synthesizes empirical and theoretical evidence on the effects of digital monitoring (DMon) on employees' trust, autonomy, and stress at work. Eighteen peer-reviewed studies published between 2009 and 2025 were critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, drawing on the psychology, management, and information systems literature. The search strategy was broadened beyond the original core terms to include "employee analytics," "algorithmic control," and "workplace digital tracking systems," which surfaced additional empirical evidence from gig-economy and algorithmic-management contexts and improved the geographic and methodological diversity of the final sample. Thematic synthesis identified three key themes: (1) a "surveillance–trust paradox," whereby surveillance intended to increase accountability instead erodes interpersonal and organizational trust; (2) autonomy frustration and psychological reactance, as surveillance constrains discretion and provokes efforts to reassert control; and (3) stress-related experiences and coping strategies, including emotional exhaustion, resistance behaviours, and adaptive self-monitoring. Taken together, the findings support the view that perceived intrusiveness and non-disclosure of monitoring threaten basic psychological needs and relational cohesion. Rather than treating Organizational Trust Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Conservation of Resources theory as separate, parallel explanations, this review consolidates them around Social Exchange Theory (SET) as the single dominant integrative model: monitoring is interpreted as a signal within an ongoing exchange relationship, and it is through this exchange lens that autonomy frustration and resource loss acquire their stress-inducing meaning. A comparative appraisal of methodological quality across the 18 included studies is reported alongside the thematic synthesis. The review concludes that socially responsible surveillance grounded in transparency, participatory design, and ethical governance is key to reconciling organizational accountability with employee trust, autonomy, and well-being.

Digital monitoring, algorithmic management, employee analytics, organizational trust, employee autonomy, workplace stress, Social Exchange Theory

1. Ajunwa, I. (2020). The Paradox of Automation as Anti-Bias Intervention. In Cardozo Law Review (Vol. 41). https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/faculty_publications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alashwali, E., Peca, J., Lanyon, M., & Cranor, L. F. (2025). Work from home and privacy challenges: what do workers face and what are they doing about it? Journal of Cybersecurity, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyaf010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anteby, M., & Chan, C. K. (2018). A self-fulfilling cycle of coercive surveillance: Workers' invisibility practices and managerial justification. Organization Science, 29(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ball, K. (2021). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. In European Commission Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/5137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bernstrøm, V. H., & Svare, H. (2017). Significance of monitoring and control for employees' felt trust, motivation, and mastery. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 7(4), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v7i4.102356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Exchange and Power in Social Life, 1–352. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brinson, N. H., Amini, B., Lemon, L. L., & Bawole, C. (2024). Electronic Performance Monitoring: The Role of Reactance, Trust, and Privacy Concerns in Predicting Job Satisfaction in the Post-Pandemic Workplace. Cyberpsychology, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2024-5-10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. CASP. (2018). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists. Oxford: CASP UK. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. EU-OSHA. (2019). Digitalisation and occupational safety and health. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 13. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/digitalisation-work [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Felix, B., Dourado, D., & Nossa, V. (2023). Algorithmic management, preferences for autonomy/security and gig-workers' wellbeing: A matter of fit? Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1088183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1088183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gartner Research. (2024). Future of Work Trends Post-COVID-19. Gartner Research. https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/future-of-work-trends [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Giacosa, E., Alam, G. M., Culasso, F., & Crocco, E. (2023). Stress-inducing or performance-enhancing? Safety measure or cause of mistrust? The paradox of digital surveillance in the workplace. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), 100357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100357 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Glavin, P., Bierman, A., & Schieman, S. (2024). Private Eyes, They See Your Every Move: Workplace Surveillance and Worker Well-Being. Social Currents, 11(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241228874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kalischko, T., & Riedl, R. (2021). Electronic Performance Monitoring in the Digital Workplace: Conceptualization, Review of Effects and Moderators, and Future Research Opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(May), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kalischko, T., & Riedl, R. (2024). On the consequences of electronic performance monitoring in organizations: theory and evidence. Digital Transformation and Society, 3(1), 50–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-10-2022-0054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kayas, O. G. (2023). Workplace surveillance: A systematic review, integrative framework, and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 168(August), 114212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kidwell, R. E., & Sprague, R. (2009). Electronic surveillance in the global workplace: Laws, ethics, research and practice. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00228.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. König, C. J. (2025). Electronic Monitoring at Work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12(January), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-060758 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lițan, D. (2025). Psychological “effects” of digital technology: a meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1560516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mateescu, A., & Nguyen, A. (2019). Explainer: Workplace Monitoring & Surveillance. Data & Society Research Institute, February, 1–17. www.datasociety.net [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Microsoft. (2023). Work Trend Index Annual Report. Microsoft. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Moore, P. V., Akhtar, P., & Upchurch, M. (2018). Digitalisation of Work and Resistance. Humans and Machines at Work, 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58232-0_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2012). Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12514 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2686227 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sewell, G., & Taskin, L. (2015). Out of Sight, Out of Mind in a New World of Work? Autonomy, Control, and Spatiotemporal Scaling in Telework. Organization Studies, 36(11), 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Siegel, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022). The impact of electronic monitoring on employees' job satisfaction, stress, performance, and counterproductive work behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2000). Electronic monitoring in their own words: An exploratory study of employees' experiences with new types of surveillance. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00018-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sum, C. M., Shi, C., & Fox, S. E. (2025). “It's Always a Losing Game”: How Workers Understand and Resist Surveillance Technologies on the Job. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(2), Article CSCW004. https://doi.org/10.1145/3710902 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Thiel, C. E., McClean, S., Harvey, J., & Prince, N. (2023). Trouble with big brother: Counterproductive consequences of electronic monitoring through the erosion of leader-member social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(9), 1367–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Vitak, J., & Zimmer, M. (2023). Surveillance and the future of work: exploring employees' attitudes toward monitoring in a post-COVID workplace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Wolff, M. S., White, J. C., Abraham, M., Schnabel, C., Wieser, L., & Niessen, C. (2024). The threat of electronic performance monitoring: Exploring the role of leader-member exchange on employee privacy invasion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 154(February), 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zhang, L., Yang, J., Zhang, Y., & Xu, G. (2023). Gig worker's perceived algorithmic management, stress appraisal, and destructive deviant behavior. PLOS ONE, 18(11), e0294074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study