Remote work surveillance: Oversight or intrusion? | talkBIG podcast | Season 3 Episode 14

Introduction

Andrew Sykes (00:04)

How do organisations find the right balance between productivity, safety and privacy? Surveillance tech is on the rise, but where is the line between productivity and privacy? Remote work has become a permanent fixture in many businesses across industries. With this shift, employers are increasingly turning to surveillance technologies to monitor productivity, ensure data security and manage risk.

However, this raises critical questions about legality, ethics, employee trust and privacy. Hello, I'm Andrew Sykes and I've been a business accountant for over 30 years. I talk about business, money and the economy to help you get ahead. Welcome to talkBIG. Today, we're going to talk a bit about privacy, workplace surveillance and the range of tools that companies use to monitor remote workers depending on what they need to track. 

These may include time trackers to log hours, activity monitors that check which apps or websites are used and sometimes screen capture tools. Some platforms also offer AI-based productivity insights or GPS tracking for mobile staff and while these tools can be helpful with accountability and workflow visibility, it's important that they are used transparently. 

How much is too much monitoring? When is it invasive? And can it damage employee trust? In this episode of talkBIG, we're going to unpack some of those legal, ethical and human implications of remote workplace surveillance. Is it about safety or about control? And how can business strike the right balance?

Joining me today, I've got a couple of experts. I've got Bill Pardy, a director at BAL Lawyers, who specialises in employment law, and RSM Australia's very own Rebekah Mark, the director of people and culture for RSM Australia. So welcome to you both. Bit of background on our guests, Bill has 25 years experience as a lawyer across numerous jurisdictions and practice areas. He has a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws from University of New South Wales. He works with clients to manage people risk and achieve desired outcomes across industrial relations, work health and safety, and workers compensation and employment matters. So Bill's an expert in this area and works in various courts and tribunals.

Rebekah has been working in people and culture for over 20 years. She's worked in various industries, including telecommunications, banking, financial services and professional services. Rebekah has a Bachelor of Economics and a post-graduate in Human Resources and Industrial Relations and she has extensive experience and is one of my favourite people at RSM Australia. Welcome, Rebekah.

Rebekah Mark (03:05)

Thank you, Andrew.

Understanding the legal landscape of remote surveillance

Andrew Sykes (03:06)

So we've got some people here who know about this. So we'll jump straight into what I think is a fascinating subject and touches a lot of people’s freedom at work and freedom when you're working remotely to do your work. Let's start with discussing what that legal landscape of remote work surveillance looks like. Bill, what does the law say about how we can monitor employees?

Bill Pardy (03:34)

Thanks, Andrew. Well, that's a question that really depends on your location for starters. All of the legislative provisions are state-based, or territory-based in my case, given that I'm based in Canberra. So you really need to be aware of the specific context of the question and the arrangements that exist in the particular workplace. Now, that obviously becomes more complicated if you're in a business that spans different jurisdictions and there are also some federal considerations in terms of the Commonwealth Privacy Legislation, for example. 

Firstly, identifying what your obligations are is a task in itself sometimes and that's not only limited to the legislation that applies to workplace surveillance, but it also has broader context in relation to issues like work health and safety and any consultation requirements that might exist for businesses if there's going to be a change to introduce this kind of surveillance because of the provisions of things like awards or other industrial agreements that talk about consultation requirements for major workplace change. So in brief, it's a complicated picture with a lot of different variables depending on where you are, but essentially the source of the material is specific workplace legislation and that's the case in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. 

There's no specific legislation in other states and territories. For considerations in those areas, you need to look more broadly about what the privacy legislation says in general as opposed to specifically related to a workplace.

Andrew Sykes (05:07)

Yeah, so I suppose I'll ask you one question I think a lot of people would want to know. If I'm a remote worker, do I have to consent to being monitored?

Bill Pardy (05:17)

Again, that's a good question and it depends really on where you're employed and that's a separate question around where the contract is made from a legal perspective and the requirements differ between those jurisdictions, as I've just said. In New South Wales and the ACT for example, just notice to the employee is sufficient that the employer intends to conduct these activities or will have this as part of the work environment.

In Victoria it's slightly more nuanced because consent is notionally required. Although the Act does contemplate that there can be implied consent by virtue of being provided with either an employment contract or a workplace policy that sets out what the employer intends to do, or reserves the right to do, in relation to monitoring you while you're at work.

Employer perspectives on surveillance and employee trust

Andrew Sykes (06:03)

So Rebekah, broadly speaking in a general sense, you'd want to get consent from your employees just to cover yourself off. Rebekah, speaking from an employer's perspective, because RSM Australia has quite a large remote workforce, how does that kind of work from an employer's point of view? Then the requirement for some sort of surveillance.

Rebekah Mark (06:32)

So as Bill mentioned, it's different in different states and we are a national organisation so we need to be mindful of that. Our employment contracts do talk about, depending on which state the person is located, does mention the various requirements for that. It can be as simple as in New South Wales, we've recently moved offices and part of that, there are some cameras in the foyer area and so we had to actually go through a process of letting our people know that was a part of our new office. So definitely we think about that as we think about engaging with our employees.

The risks of overstepping surveillance boundaries

Andrew Sykes (07:05)

So Bill, going back to you and some of the legal aspects, what are the risks if employers overstep those boundaries in relation to surveillance?

Bill Pardy (07:18)

Well, there's obviously technical breaches of the relevant workplace surveillance legislation, if there is specific legislation that applies, and each of those different acts in the different jurisdictions, if they do apply, have provisions in relation to penalties if there are breaches. More broadly, though, it's important to think about considerations like your obligations from a work health and safety perspective.

Clearly the potentially intrusive nature of workplace surveillance, certainly if there's direct knowledge of it from an employee's perspective, can give rise to concerns like claims for workers' compensation for psychological injury, questions about whether you've breached your duties to your staff from a psychosocial risk management perspective. So there are a couple of instances, and we'll probably come to them later in the chat, about businesses that have potentially overstepped the mark and it's got not only legal but also potentially more broadly reputational consequences as well. So you really do need to think about not necessarily just what you can do legally but what you would like to be doing as an employer in relation to the way you relate to your staff.

Andrew Sykes (08:31)

Yeah, and I think that's a really good point, Bill and I suppose it probably brings us right back to the starting point and Rebekah, I'll ask you why. Why do employers need, what's the benefit to both the employer and the employee?

Rebekah Mark (08:48)

Building on what Bill was just saying, there are legal ramifications particularly in terms of work health and safety and psych safety. There are also business implications in terms of brand and reputation but I would actually say, and this is part of our role in people and culture, is there's even a bigger risk which is around the impact to the culture of the organisation as a whole and if we create a culture that creates a culture where people feel that they're not trusted, that they're not held accountable for deliverables of outcome, then they're not going to be engaged and being engaged is around putting in that discretionary effort. So then the focus of the employee becomes more around, I need to do this to meet compliance requirements, as opposed to I'm connected to the organisation and I want to really go the extra mile to deliver for our clients. So it actually has an even bigger risk that equals real dollar value.

The impact of surveillance on workplace culture

Andrew Sykes (09:41)

Is it that you end up with disengagement throughout your workforce?

Rebekah Mark (09:46)

100% and then if you kind of take that to the extreme that can be your current workforce, it can result in higher attrition which we know there's a direct cost for. It can result in difficulty in terms of attracting people because, apart from the business reputation for your clients, there's also the business reputation in terms of employees being attracted wanting to work for your organisation. So you can kind of plus plus plus the cost impact if you go about this in the wrong way.

Andrew Sykes (10:15)

Yeah, but then there are also obligations on the employer, aren't there, you know, things like the safety of your setup, your environment. How does that extend out of the workplace?

Rebekah Mark (10:28)

So definitely the organisation still has an obligation for that in terms of providing a safe work environment, and a safe work environment is both physical and mental. So again, it's broader than just how your desk is set up and making sure you don't have wires on the floor to trip over, but it is also the psychological safety of your work environment and the organisation does have obligations under WHS law regarding that, definitely.

Andrew Sykes (10:56)

Yeah, there's a fine line, and I think it's a fine line that exists in the office as much as out of the office, is that management versus micro management,and kind of that visibility in the office lends towards the belief that if you can see people, they're more productive. What's the research telling us, Rebekah, in terms of productivity of remote workers versus in office workers?

Rebekah Mark (11:07)

Interesting because there's quite a number of different articles, research articles on this. We have seen research that says actually people can be more productive when they're working from home because they're not wasting time having social conversations with people. They typically start earlier and finish later because they don't have that commute time and that commute time is often redirected towards work and often they don't even take lunch breaks. So in actual fact, there's some research that says you need to be careful of burnout where people are overproductive when they work from home, which is interesting because there can be a perception that there's actually lower productivity when people work from home and there definitely has been research to show that. Some organisations, so this obviously came about with COVID, some organisations, in particular call centres, saw an increase in productivity initially when we all had to work from home and then over a period of time saw that productivity decrease. That's a role where there are very clear outputs that are easily measured versus say a knowledge worker that is more around delivering a piece of work. So it's interesting. The research almost covers all gamuts of what it might mean to work remotely.

Transparency and consent in employee monitoring

Andrew Sykes (12:36)

Yeah, so it's one of those things with no clear answer to. When I get asked by clients, I tend to say, productivity is generally a leadership issue and you're still leading your remote workers and maybe you need to look at what that looks like. Part of that seems to be the trust element. We have touched on transparency, Bill.

What's the requirements around transparency legally?

Bill Pardy (12:59)

Yes, well, certainly, whether it is either requesting consent or just providing notice, the detail of the surveillance activities that are going to be undertaken should be made clear. It's really quite important not only from a legal compliance perspective, but because of some of those cultural and workplace safety factors that Rebekah spoke to, that people have an understanding of what is going to occur and probably more importantly, even why it's going to occur. 

Even better perhaps is that they actually have some input into deciding what kind of surveillance is appropriate from their perspective because clearly there's an interest from all employees’ point of view in that other employees do their job competently and they are not disproportionately burdened by a workload if other people are allowed to not perform at an appropriate level. So there is a genuine interest, in my view, in employees understanding what is going to be done, why it's going to be done and what the consequences are of underperformance, however it's assessed by the technological setup, is then identified and actioned and all of the transparency that you would expect in relation to the content of a workplace policy or an employment contract. And again, there's a debate to be had about whether one or both of those sort of source documents is the appropriate location but probably from a detailed perspective, the policy is what I recommend to clients, as having the more clear and detailed explanation about the kinds of surveillance that will be undertaken from time to time, not necessarily always, and why it's being done. So from that perspective, notice is, you know, a bare minimum. 

Consent is better and then informed consent is even better in the sense that you actually have a proper understanding of the activities in the workplace and why they're being undertaken from a management perspective. If you can actually have some input into the policy as staff, then that's even better again, because you're addressing in sort of one consistent way.

The role of leadership in managing remote workers

Bill Pardy (15:05)

A number of issues from a business's perspective. You're addressing things like psychosocial risk by actually taking a bottom-up approach to identifying things that may be of concern to your staff in the way they conduct their work and the way they interact with their employer so that it's more cohesive and offers the opportunity for more buy-in from staff perspective if there is genuine consultation. And then there is an understanding that, you know, certain things will be preferred not to occur probably from a staff point of view, but equally there's a business rationale for them to be undertaken, and then the real issue is determining once you've undergone that consultation process, where you can find the, you know, Goldilocks zone of not too hot and not too cold, but just right. So look, it's a difficult process potentially, but if you follow the right processes, you should get an outcome that everyone can live with moving forward.

Andrew Sykes (16:01)

So really some really good, not just legal, but leadership advice in there Bill. I love some of those points and it's really be as transparent as you can with your team. Explain to them why you're going to do this and get their input into the level of surveillance or accountability that they are comfortable with because you're balancing that trust versus accountability sort of equation.

When we look at that, as a remote worker, could I say, well, hang on, if I was doing my job in the office or the person doing the same job as me in the office doesn't have the same AI surveillance or screen capturing, that's not fair. I'm being monitored differently to somebody doing the same job, but because they're in the office.

Bill Pardy (16:43)

Yeah, and my response to that would be the business needs to clearly identify rationale as to why they treat those circumstances differently. My view is that monitoring of output, regardless of the form that takes, is appropriate in whichever context, either in the workplace or outside the workplace working from home. So my personal view on it is that, you know, things like

consistency of application of a policy is really useful from a business's point of view, because if you ever decide that you want to action underperformance based on some of the material or information that you've gathered, there won't be or there'll be an easy response to say, well, I've been targeted from a subjective, you know, worker's perspective. I've been unfairly dismissed. This has been inappropriate, being bullied or harassed virtually by virtue of the way in which I've been managed, et cetera. I think if you can point to not only foundation documents like an employment contract and a policy, but then also have evidence of the way in which the policy has actually been implemented, then you've got the foundation for saying, the reason why we took these steps is that we identified across our broader business, that there was a particular output issue in this team or with this particular individual. 

Clarity of explaining your decision-making is assisted by the data that you should have from that point of view and you should obviously always as a business be in a position to make proper business decisions. You still have the ability to run the business as you see fit, but you may be asked to show you're working in a legal context these days, particularly if you make claims for things like bullying and harassment, unfair dismissal or breach of general protections involving adverse action, including termination of employment. So trying to think a couple of steps ahead from a business's perspective is sometimes a little bit unpalatable because no one wants to think of everything or anything going wrong in these processes but equally, the best way to make sure that you have your position covered if you do need or want to action performance issues based on the data you've collected, is to have a clear rationale before it takes place as to why it's appropriate and then to demonstrate that it hasn't necessarily been targeted at an individual for any reason other than the fact that the data shows that there's a lack of performance compared to other staff.

When employee surveillance goes wrong

Andrew Sykes (19:10)

So you can't as an employer go and say, well Bill I've noticed you haven't been working very much lately, mate, we're gonna throw this on your computer to monitor your work. That's a bad way to approach it.

Bill Pardy (19:22)

I think it's not optimal. I wouldn't rule it out necessarily, but again, it's part of having a clear rationale for the action or the conduct and some basis to say look, this is something that we will approach neutrally and if the data demonstrates that the concerns that have been raised with us, or that we have, are not borne out by your performance during the monitoring period, then the conclusion will be based on that material. So I think so long as it was, you know, in that instance, if you were looking at it as a discrete part of, for example, a performance improvement or a performance management process, so long as it was explained as to why it was going to be introduced at a particular level and that there was a sufficient basis for the application of that technology at the beginning of the process, so that if the concerns were real or valid in the first place and you should have some basis for them, then the action you take isn't necessarily constrained by these concerns from a business' perspective, because ultimately you're still entitled to manage your staff and it's a question of the tools that you have available to do so. So again, from my point of view, from a legal perspective, finding the balance is tricky.

But you shouldn't necessarily have a fear of adopting new technology that actually might be important as a productivity measuring device or process. So long as there is an understanding of your staff that it may occur and then if it does occur, the rationale why it is occurring.

Andrew Sykes (21:01)

Yeah, I certainly find there's an appeal there. It resonates with what you're saying as part of a performance improvement discussion. I mean, we as leaders, we need to manage productivity and performance over time. Rebekah, can I ask you, we've got plenty of people who work from home. What are some of the decisions that we've made and some of the background to it in relation to workplace surveillance?

Rebekah Mark (21:30)

I think Bill has been talking to what are the legal implications and how you do need to think a few steps ahead. You made the point earlier around, it comes back to leadership and definitely it does. And if we think about, if we take the conversation up a level and it's around high performing teams, high performing teams happen when there is clear expectation of the outcome that's required, people are clear on their role and what they need to deliver. They feel connected to something. They feel like they're part of something bigger. So that's that purposeful, meaningful work. That is, and there's regular feedback, honest feedback. Again, a lot of leaders will avoid the feedback. So having regular feedback, not waiting till the performance review, but to say, hey, Fred, I noticed last week we had agreed you were going to deliver this proposal. It was a few days late. Can you help me understand what went on there?

Again, jumping to a conclusion that that is because Fred's lazy and is working from home and spending the time watching TV as opposed to working versus, actually, Fred got stuck on part of some research and wasn't sure who to go to or something happened that we weren't aware of. So really it comes back to good leadership practices and at RSM Australia that's one of the things that we really drive. Part of our employee value proposition, is around being really clear around meaningful purposeful work and our leaders being able to create that connection for our people. Leaders being really clear on delivery and what's required and delegating accountability and then creating a real culture of performance feedback where feedback is sought and given on a regular basis. That's actually what gives you high performance. And then if there are concerns around delivery, then to be able to have a conversation around what might we do, what might we need to put in place to manage that. But I sort of feel like from a people and culture perspective, surveillance is like your last resort tool. I think your leadership tool should definitely be the first tools that you're leveraging in those conversations.

The future of remote work and surveillance practices

Andrew Sykes (23:23)

Yeah, so there's an element there around compliance where we have to ensure psychological safety. We have to ensure a safe working environment, just like we do in the office. But really, it's probably potentially a poor leadership choice to go for surveillance to manage productivity versus exactly the same tools that we would use if it was an in-office worker where we'd have a talk to them and talk through issues rather than throw surveillance in there.

Rebekah Mark (24:03)

I think it's always, as the conversations come through today, it's about balance. So again, that's the approach we take at RSM Australia where even remote working is balanced. So our preference is that there is a mix we call hybrid working and there's a mix of how many days in the office and how many days remote. Remote might also in our world include at client sites, so it's not just working from home. So it's also thinking about that more broadly and that can apply to a lot of businesses as well. Not necessarily does everyone all physically work together all day and so that's something that we find is finding that balance of in-person working remote working, trying to get the best of all worlds.

Real life examples of employee surveillance

Andrew Sykes (24:44)

Yeah and look, I certainly have found that remote working has been really positive in my experience. You know, some very high value employees that may have had family commitments weren't able to work full time and now are able to work full time because they can fit work around either caring for parents, for children, for family, travel, distance from the office. There's a whole bunch of really good reasons and balance is that key thing. Bill, we tend to find that legal matters happen when that balance is not met. Have you've got any interesting recent cases where that's been the case, we've got some good legal matters that we've had lately.

Bill Pardy (25:26)

Yeah, look, there's a couple of matters that have obviously had some particular media attention specifically lately. Ironically enough, the use of this quite intrusive surveillance monitoring by a company that does training and compliance matters. I'm not sure if we should necessarily name them in the podcast here but they have come under criticism for essentially activating the recordings of microphones of their staff working remotely so that their laptops were actually receiving and recording sound without staff being aware of it. That's created quite a degree of controversy, particularly involving regulatory investigation ⁓ by the relevant work safety authority.

It's also had some reported implications in relation to claims for unfair dismissal or workers' compensation arising from actions that have been taken based on the data that's been collected without staff being aware of it. Clearly, the critique of that particular organisation is that the scope of the information they sought to collect and record and then obviously action in a couple of cases, was well beyond the scope of expected monitoring of activity from staff's perspective and while the company has defended its position to date by saying, well, you know, it's been disclosed and there's at least implied consent by virtue of the fact that we have a policy and there's an employment contract that deals with our ability to conduct this kind of surveillance. The fact is that the detail of that activity and its scope was well beyond the expectations of staff and probably more broadly, well beyond the expectations of society and indeed specifically the regulators who are looking at it. I think you really, on the question of balance, you need to have proportionality in your use of the technology from an employer's perspective. You need to have a clear understanding of the kinds of risks that, from the business's perspective, you're trying to address in terms of whether it be performance or in other contexts, perhaps safety. Another organisation that again has come to media attention recently and has got itself well and truly offside with the relevant union in that industry is involved in airport transfers. Things like moving luggage across tarmacs to load on planes and those sorts of things and they've obviously embarked on an intended process to actually conduct audio recording in their vehicles so that they understand from the business's perspective what communications are happening and why, And probably then they can raise, from their perspective, issues around safety and the degree of communication of their drivers and workers who are operating in quite a significantly potentially dangerous environment with airplanes, large vehicles, people moving. Anyone who's sat and watched an airport of any magnitude for half an hour while waiting for a flight will understand there's quite a lot of activity on the ground, on the air side.

The business in that case has said, we think there's a genuine interest in us recording this information. The union understandably doesn't agree. I think in that particular case, there's two different issues compared to the other business that I spoke about. One is that there's a discussion about it happening, not after it's already occurred, and people finding out about it later once those surveillance activities have been relied on to conduct some form of performance management, there's actually a prospective discussion around it. And secondly, I think there's a much more compelling argument from a safety perspective in recording the activities that occur in a luggage transport vehicle, however you want to describe it, because of the broader safety implications for their own workers and indeed other staff in those workplaces. So again, the question of proportionality is critical around how you go about and the reasons why you use the technology.

The reasons behind employers using surveillance

Andrew Sykes (29:34)

I find that fascinating. Rebekah, I can just imagine in our circumstances, imagine having to listen to hours and hours of accountants’ conversation. I mean, riveting, riveting. What I find really interesting and Rebekah, maybe you can reflect on this a bit, is the decision-making process and where employers think that because it immediately, when Bill, when you describe it, both of those cases sound like a really bad idea and sound really intrusive and just scream, I don't trust you, so I'm going to listen to everything you say to catch you out. Rebekah, how do those sort of decisions get made? I find that really interesting.

Rebekah Mark (30:17)

I think as Bill started at the very beginning of the conversation, it's about the why. I don't think you can go past the old Simon Sinek "Start with Why". Why are you doing it? So do we need to monitor surveillance, have surveillance on people because we're concerned about what their output is? Or is it because actually we're concerned about a safety risk? So potentially, actually there's a really good why as to why we might do some of this activity and as we said earlier in the conversation, consulting with people. So again, if we start with the why, what is the problem we're trying to solve for, then we have a conversation with our people and actually treat them as adults and engage them in solving the solution, designing the solution. So engaging with a group of people. We often do that at RSM Australia in focus groups, so getting a good representation across the organisation.

Putting the problem statement to our people and saying, here's a problem that we've identified, help us think through how we might design a solution that would solve this problem and often, people will come up with really great ideas that we haven't thought about. But it could well be that there's a clear case.

Andrew Sykes (31:25)

So there may be a point in time where, say for example, police, military, first responders have a requirement to put their recording devices on at certain points in time. So maybe those companies could have said, hey, here's the high, could have agreed with the employees, here's our high risk periods. We want you to record here and get consent and engagement to do it.

Rebekah Mark (31:38)

100%. That's right.

Bill Pardy (31:50)

Yeah, I think that's a good point, Andrew. I guess the other side of that question, though, is in any activity where you've got things that you perceive to be elevated or high risk, relying on the individual work is not typically an adequate response from a work health and safety perspective and I think that's where I would, from a legal point of view, suggest that perhaps the balance tips more towards technology being used to monitor activity if there are elevated risks. So that's the distinction I probably draw in relation to the two examples that we spoke about that you know, recording of conversations in the cabin of a work vehicle. Yes, you might pick up some incidental discussions between colleagues around what they did on the weekend or, you know, various other interpersonal topics, but there is a risk if you simply rely on the worker to say, now this is important, to then start recording themselves, because there are lots of issues that can happen, complacency, distraction. So I think, you know, if there was a debate to be had about whether the default should be that recording happens all the time, it really depends on the nature of the risk. So going back to Rebekah's why, and I think in a transport environment like an airport tarmac, I'd be more sympathetic to an employer's concerns about safety risks.

Wrap up

Andrew Sykes (33:12)

Yeah, rather than just a general office worker, because you want to make sure that they're being productive enough. Rebekah, from what I'm hearing from what you're saying though, is that it's quite often that balance between the legal and what is good productivity, sometimes there's risks, how you manage it. Is it fair to say that we tend to treat work from home differently because it's new?

Rebekah Mark (33:35)

Yeah, that's an interesting one. It is, isn't it? And obviously this exploded through COVID in particular. Not to say that working from home happened during, you it was happening before COVID, but that definitely put working from home on steroids overnight. Most locations had to flip to that way of working and now what's interesting from an employee value proposition, it's become largely the expected norm. So, previously it was seen as a benefit, it's now seen as a hygiene factor. I expect when I'm looking for a role that there will be some form of ability to work remotely. So employees are actually kind of requiring that when they do look for positions. It is new for leaders managing people in that way and so therefore it requires an uplifting capability for leaders. How do you lead people who aren't visible every day? How do you stay connected? How do you create the connection to the bigger purpose? How do you create a team atmosphere? How do you create the culture for the whole organisation? Because there is also some concern by leaders that when people work fully remote, that the cultural fabric starts to disintegrate and so there are some real concerns and they're valid concerns by leaders. Again, I think the reality is, this is about humans. So there is no one size fits all. There is no silver bullet. It is around assessing every situation for its own merits. What is your nature of your work? What is the nature of your workforce? What is the nature of your risks? And then with all of that information, making a choice around what is appropriate for you. There is no one, this is appropriate for everyone in every circumstance.

Andrew Sykes(35:19)

Yeah, thank you and unfortunately, we've come to the end of our podcast. There's some terrific discussion in that. And I really like the ideas around the line between oversight and intrusion, the requirement to build high performing teams and a culture of accountability, but without eroding autonomy because we get so much benefit from autonomy and engagement with our workforce.

I certainly think I've got a greater understanding from this discussion that accountability isn’t control, very much going back to our basic leadership principles. So high performing teams strive when expectations are visible, when you engage with your staff, when you define your roles well, and also have staff buy-in to how we do create a good working environment for them and the rest of their team.

Thank you Bill and Rebekah for your time today.

Listeners we would love for you to subscribe. So wherever you get your favourite podcasts, if you can click and subscribe and you'll get the next episodes of the talkBIG podcast. On behalf of myself, Bill, Rebekah and the talkBIG team, thank you for listening and we'll catch you next time on talkBIG. Thank you.

Bill Pardy (36:16)

Thank you.