The new Employment Rights Bill aims to increase worker protection and job security. It introduces day-one rights for protection against unfair dismissal and strengthens the right to request flexible working. The latter has always required a delicate balance and a light touch from HR and wider management.
But remote and flexible working arrangements can now take effect far earlier in an employee’s tenure – sometimes before a formal one-month appraisal. So we need to be sure we’re accurately, fairly and uniformly assessing employee performance from the very first day.
I wonder if a lack of clarity from HR in these circumstances could tempt managers to use AI-enabled tools already present in their organisation to assess remote and flexible worker performance, even if those tools weren’t designed explicitly for that purpose. I’m thinking particularly about sales, automated note-taking, and software that generates post-meeting minutes.
Read more: AI and data privacy: How can HR remain compliant?
These tools are designed to improve performance and efficiency but have interesting data privacy connotations. Take AI-enabled sales tools: a manager can search personal, deal-related information within an app, and sometimes across an entire organisation, including conversations and meeting transcripts. They might conclude that an employee is underperforming. But is that actually the case? Is the manager cross-referencing this information with agreed performance goals? Could an unofficial reprimand be on the cards for that employee? And might that be interpreted as harassment or bullying?
This got me thinking about whether anyone accessing these tools could run similar searches and make assumptions about their colleagues’ performance. Who actually has visibility of that data? And is that access appropriate for their job role?
HR doesn’t tend to be heavily involved in IT purchases or implementation strategies. But, given the implications AI adoption could have on employee welfare and wellbeing, perhaps this has to change, with some form of consultation before procurement and rollout.
At the very least, we need to have a discussion with other senior C-suite leaders about how data in AI-enabled apps is ring-fenced so that only authorised people can see it. I’d consider some questions along these lines to get the conversation started: Is there a trial period? What’s our evaluation criteria? Have we considered legal risks? Are we letting employees know why we’re rolling out these tools? Are we communicating how employee rights will be safeguarded?
Some of this is just good project management. But these questions take on a different significance and may solicit different responses from the wider business when asked by HR professionals. This comes back to finding our voice as advisors to the wider organisation – representing employee wellbeing and supporting the drive for growth and efficiency.
There’s also the question of how HR teams measure the quality of work employees produce using AI. There might be more lines of code and deeper sales analysis. But, with recent claims that some AI tools have summarised news articles with inaccuracies, what are the implications for content generated by employees? We need a balance between allowing staff to use these tools to enhance their productivity and ensuring their quality of work is maintained.
We have a duty to guide the correct use of AI-enabled tools by managers and staff, checking and, where necessary, strengthening existing performance measuring and monitoring policies and procedures. That way, we can provide the guide rails to help everyone navigate this new AI-enabled world in a way that respects employee rights, prevents misuse, maintains accountability, and encourages high standards of work.
Lindsay Gallard is chief people officer for IT services provider Six Degrees
This article was published in the March/April 2025 edition of HR magazine.
Subscribe today to have our latest articles delivered to your desk.
