For browbeaten office workers, liberation — or, at least, a better-mannered boss — may be nigh. A growing category of software is using AI to detect workplace bullying, raising the prospect that toxic managers could soon have fewer places to hide.
One such platform, Smarsh Inc., which serves the Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Morgan Stanley and other financial companies, promises to “uncover hidden intent,” according to its website, so employers can spot bullying and harassment “even when it’s subtle.” Global Relay Communications Inc., another software provider, says its systems ensure “bad conduct is spotted and escalated instantly,” allowing companies to locate “patient zero” before a “contagion” of toxic culture takes hold.
The software can, in theory, flag bad behavior by anyone. But it’s especially significant when the offender is a manager: someone with the power to assign work, block promotions and make daily life unbearable.
While forms of employee-surveillance software have been around for decades, the advent of large language models marks an inflection point. Earlier generations of surveillance software relied on keywords (for example, four-letter words and colorful insults) and rudimentary natural-language-processing techniques to detect abusive language and behavior. With newer, more sophisticated artificial intelligence systems, employers can take context, tone and recurring patterns into account across thousands of conversations to help identify problematic managers before trouble emerges.
“We never had a keyword list for belittlement. How would you even suggest that? It’s almost like you have to read between the lines to catch that somebody’s doing that, and we can do that now,” says Donald McElligott, vice president for compliance supervision at surveillance software company Global Relay. “The AI can read between the lines.” Several dozen clients are piloting this capability, which Global Relay introduced a little over a year ago.
Some companies have become enthusiastic adopters of the tech. One on the West Coast is analyzing every indicator it can — including small workplace infractions like not completing training on time or failing to regularly change passwords — to create something like an employee social credit score, says Susan Frank Divers, a consultant and the former chief ethics and compliance officer at Aecom, a provider of global infrastructure services. The business, which Divers declined to identify because the work isn’t public, can run employee-sentiment surveys if a pattern emerges to see if there’s a problem and intervene if necessary. “The Holy Grail in ethics and compliance for a long time has been to try to figure out what are those predictors for unethical behavior,” Divers says. “There’s a lot written on the culture of ‘the organization’ and whether it tolerates a--holes as managers.”
The implications are just beginning to percolate through the ranks of chief executive officers, human resources specialists and employment lawyers. When Roxanne Bras Petraeus, co-founder and CEO of compliance startup Ethena Inc., asks companies’ lawyers whether they’re using AI to monitor work calls for signs of bullying or harassment, many are taken aback: They hadn’t even considered it. “I’m just starting to see it click,” she says of executives grasping what’s now possible.
The Misery of Modern Management
• Being a CEO Totally Stinks Now • The Great Middle Management Purge • Americans Really Don’t Trust CEOsRead more from the series here.
The first corporate surveillance software boom started in the late 1990s, when Wall Street regulators ordered companies to preserve their accumulating mountains of email in case of misconduct. The sector later expanded beyond financial compliance to help businesses investigate discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying; demand grew when the pandemic pushed more white-collar work online. While companies offering employee surveillance software hope to bring in new clients, the technology remains most popular in finance and other industries in which businesses are legally obligated to keep an eye on internal communications.
But even there, companies are exploring newer options. One major private equity outfit surprised McElligott when it seemed much more keen on HR surveillance software — which scans for bullying, discrimination and harassment — than on financial compliance products. Global Relay tested the HR tools for the PE firm, McElligott says, which flagged two incidents the client had to investigate. Because a strict firewall is in place between the company and its customers, McElligott never learned exactly what happened. “But I’m dying to know,” he adds. Global Relay plans to release an update later this year that will allow companies to adjust the sensitivity of their settings.
Employers are more able than ever to use AI to fight bad behavior, but adoption hasn’t exactly been swift. Most companies have yet to overhaul the way they turn up toxic bosses, says Tracy Billows, a veteran employment lawyer. But she says she expects AI will become more central to the workplace misconduct-prevention playbook in the next few years by “helping organizations investigate and respond to that misconduct in a more timely and, hopefully, effective manner.”
Cost is a major concern: Smarsh’s largest customers process 30 million to 40 million messages a day on their platform, and running each through a system that relies heavily on LLMs can be expensive. Prices vary widely based on the volume of communications being surveilled and the number of risks being monitored, says Emily Wright, a compliance consultant who works with financial services companies. But in general, the more issues the system flags, the more companies may have to spend on staff to review them.
There’s also the issue of privacy. An alarm goes off “when you use the word ‘surveillance’” or mention monitoring employees, says Robert Cruz, vice president for regulatory and information governance at Smarsh. This puts companies in a paradoxical position: The tools that could expose a bad boss depend on a level of oversight that many workers see as excessive. Cruz says every organization has to do its own “mud wrestling” to decide for itself where to draw the line between business priorities and privacy concerns.
Finally, businesses “don’t necessarily want to go fishing for a problem,” Billows says. “As I like to say to clients, ‘Don’t open a door you’re not prepared to walk through.’ You’re going to have to be ready to take the steps necessary to respond. That’s where I think you might see a little bit of reluctance.”