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

Abstract

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.