A technology company
proposes installing AI-based employee-monitoring software that tracks keyboard
activity, screen usage, and online working patterns. Management believes the
system will improve accountability and identify inefficiencies. However,
employees argue that continuous surveillance undermines trust, invades privacy,
and fails to measure the quality of intellectual work.
Assume that you are the
Human Resources Director. Prepare a persuasive memorandum of 250–300 words
recommending an appropriate employee-performance evaluation policy. Balance
managerial accountability with employee privacy, consider the limitations of
digital monitoring, evaluate alternative performance measures, and present a
convincing recommendation to the executive committee. (12 Marks)
Model Answer: Persuasive Writing on AI-Based
Employee Monitoring
A. Planning and Developing the Persuasive Argument
1. Identify the issue
The technology company
proposes using AI-based software to monitor keyboard activity, screen usage and
online working patterns.
The central issue is how to
ensure employee accountability without compromising privacy, trust or fair
evaluation of intellectual work.
2. Identify the audience and purpose
- Writer: Human
Resources Director.
- Audience: Executive
Committee.
- Purpose: Persuade the
committee to adopt a fair, transparent and effective employee-performance
evaluation policy.
- Appropriate tone:
Professional, balanced, respectful and solution-oriented.
- Required format: A
memorandum, rather than a letter.
3. Take a clear and defensible position
Recommend an outcome-based
performance evaluation policy supported by regular managerial feedback and
limited, transparent use of digital data.
The argument should not
reject accountability. Instead, it should distinguish meaningful performance
assessment from continuous surveillance.
4. Establish Ethos: credibility and trust
The Human Resources
Director should demonstrate credibility through balanced judgement, recognition
of organisational needs and fair treatment of employees.
The argument should:
- Acknowledge
management’s legitimate concern about accountability.
- Recognise employees’
concerns about privacy and trust.
- Avoid assuming that
every use of monitoring is inappropriate.
- Recommend clear
safeguards and human review.
- Avoid unsupported
claims or invented research findings.
Suggested expression:
“As Human Resources
Director, I support clear accountability, but our evaluation policy must assess
meaningful contributions and provide fair procedures.”
5. Present Logos: evidence and logical reasoning
Use the details supplied in
the case and explain the limitations of the proposed measures.
|
Proposed digital measure |
Limitation to consider |
|
Keyboard activity |
Records typing activity,
not necessarily the value or accuracy of work. |
|
Screen usage |
Does not, by itself,
establish whether an employee is producing useful results. |
|
Online working patterns |
May not adequately
represent time spent thinking, planning or discussing solutions. |
The central reasoning is
that activity data should not automatically be treated as evidence of work
quality.
Suggested expression:
“An evaluation system
should distinguish visible computer activity from valuable work rather than
assume that the two are equivalent.”
6. Create Pathos: appropriate emotional appeal
Connect the recommendation
with employees’ concerns about dignity, professional autonomy and fair
recognition.
Suggested expression:
“Employees should feel
accountable for their contribution, not anxious that every pause will be
interpreted as poor performance.”
This appeal supports the
argument without portraying management as uncaring or employees as unwilling to
accept responsibility.
7. Anticipate the counter-argument
Present management’s
strongest objection fairly:
“Without continuous
monitoring, managers may struggle to identify disengagement, unequal workloads
or inefficient working practices.”
This recognises the
business concern behind the proposal.
8. Provide a reasoned rebuttal
Respond by proposing
another route to accountability:
“Agreed targets, documented
deliverables and regular reviews can provide a basis for accountability without
making continuous surveillance the default.”
The rebuttal should
acknowledge that alternative measures also require safeguards against
unfairness.
9. Evaluate alternative performance measures
|
Alternative |
Contribution to evaluation |
Limitation or safeguard |
|
Agreed objectives and
deliverables |
Focuses assessment on
expected results |
Targets must be realistic
and appropriate to each role. |
|
Quality assessment |
Considers accuracy,
usefulness and professional standards |
Criteria should be
defined clearly. |
|
Regular managerial
reviews |
Provides opportunities
for feedback and clarification |
Reviews should be
documented and consistent. |
|
Project milestones |
Makes progress visible
before final completion |
Milestones should
accommodate justified changes. |
|
Peer or client feedback |
Adds perspectives on
collaboration and service |
Feedback should
supplement, not determine, ratings. |
|
Limited digital data |
May provide supplementary
context |
Its purpose, access and
retention should be clearly defined. |
These are proposed policy
options for the case, not guaranteed solutions.
10. Use AI as a debate partner
Students may use the
following prompt:
“Act as a critical
opponent. Challenge my recommendation for outcome-based employee evaluation
instead of continuous AI monitoring. Identify weaknesses in my assumptions,
proposed measures, privacy safeguards and approach to accountability.
Distinguish reasoned objections from claims requiring external verification.”
For this model, the
following points illustrate critical evaluation; they do not represent a
separately obtained AI response:
- Useful point:
Outcome-based assessment must account for differences in task difficulty
and employee responsibilities.
- Possible limitation:
An opposing argument may assume that digital activity data are
automatically objective or accurate.
- Claim requiring
verification: Any assertion that monitoring software increases productivity
by a particular percentage.
- Additional
counter-argument: Managerial assessment may introduce bias, so replacing
digital monitoring alone does not guarantee fairness.
11. Refine the recommendation
Strengthen the policy by
including:
- Role-specific
objectives and quality standards.
- Regular, documented
feedback.
- Recognition of
individual and team contributions.
- Consistency checks
across managers.
- A clear process for
employees to challenge ratings.
- Transparent limits on
any digital monitoring.
- A pilot and review
before wider implementation.
This refinement responds to
objections rather than simply repeating the original position.
12. Distinguish persuasion from manipulation
The memorandum should
persuade through balanced reasoning, not fear or distortion.
It should avoid:
- Suggesting that all
monitoring is necessarily abusive.
- Implying that privacy
removes employees’ responsibility to perform.
- Presenting proposed
benefits as proven results.
- Inventing statistics,
legal requirements or employee experiences.
The ethical position is to
protect both organisational accountability and employees’ ability to understand
and question how they are evaluated.
13. Conclude with a clear call to action
Ask the Executive Committee
to approve a time-bound pilot of the proposed evaluation policy, with employee
consultation, manager training and a review before wider adoption.
B. Final Model Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To: Executive Committee
From: Human Resources Director
Date: 26 October 2026
Subject: Fair and Accountable Employee-Performance Evaluation
I recommend adopting an
outcome-based performance evaluation policy rather than continuous AI
surveillance. Accountability is essential, but employees should be assessed
primarily on the quality, timeliness and value of their contributions, not
keyboard activity or screen time.
The proposed software may
reveal patterns requiring investigation. However, digital activity alone cannot
establish the quality of intellectual work. Reading, planning and discussing
solutions may involve little keyboard activity. Treating these indicators as
performance scores risks confusing visible activity with meaningful
achievement.
Management may argue that
continuous monitoring offers consistent evidence and identifies disengagement.
This concern deserves attention; nevertheless, agreed deliverables, project
milestones and regular reviews provide a more relevant basis for assessing
contribution. Managers should investigate performance concerns through
discussion and documented evidence rather than automated assumptions.
I propose role-specific
objectives covering output, quality, deadlines and collaboration. Monthly
check-ins should address progress and obstacles, while quarterly reviews should
combine managerial assessment with relevant peer or client feedback. Because
these alternatives can also introduce bias, managers should use shared
criteria, review ratings for consistency and provide an employee appeal
process.
Employees deserve to
understand how their work is judged without feeling that every pause is
suspicious. Any supplementary digital monitoring should therefore have a
clearly stated purpose, limited data collection, restricted access and defined
retention periods. It should not independently determine disciplinary
decisions.
I request approval for a
90-day pilot developed through employee consultation. Human Resources should
train managers, publish the assessment criteria and review fairness,
administrative costs and usefulness before recommending wider adoption. This
policy would uphold managerial accountability while respecting employee privacy
and professional judgement.