World Mental Health Day: Key Lessons for HR Professionals

Author: Eleanor Hecks As workforce analytics becomes more sophisticated, organizations have more ways to understand how work gets done. But introducing these tools without clear communication can create uncertainty around privacy, data use and employee trust. HR leaders should make the purpose and boundaries of these tools clear from the start. The Rise of Employee Monitoring The workforce analytics market has reached $2.92 billion in 2026 as organizations pursue hybrid-work optimization, data-driven talent decisions and AI-powered analytics. Within this broader market, organizations are increasingly using tools such as productivity-monitoring software, keystroke logging, application and activity tracking and other systems that analyze employees' work patterns. These technologies can give HR greater visibility into workloads, staffing needs, productivity and broader workforce trends. However, as these tools become more sophisticated, HR also needs to consider how employees will understand and respond to data collection. What Can Go Wrong When Employers Introduce Productivity Trackers? Problems can arise when employees do not know what information the organization collects or how it will use it. Workers may worry that screenshots or time away from a device could become measures of their value or performance. These concerns are worth taking seriously. The American Psychological Association found that 45% of workers who experienced workplace monitoring said their work environment had a negative impact on their mental health. The finding highlights why HR should consider the employee experience when introducing these tools. Building Trust in Workforce Analytics Introducing monitoring works best when employees understand the decision and see themselves as part of the process. Transparency and early communication often build confidence and trust. Address Employee Concerns Before They Become Questions HR should explain the basics before introducing the software, including which activities the system will track and which it will ignore. Managers should also let teams know whether the tracker data can influence performance decisions. Proactively explaining the tool's capabilities and limitations can help prevent an unexpected discovery from becoming a trust issue. Have a Clear Purpose for the Technology HR should identify the specific problem before choosing a solution. This becomes especially important as organizations race to adopt emerging technologies without defining clear objectives first. This pattern is visible in how many companies are currently approaching AI adoption. A survey found that about half of organizations have deployed AI or plan to do so this year, but only one-third have a strategy for it. These numbers show that organizations are implementing tools simply because they feel like they “should,” faster than they can define what success looks like. Workforce analytics tools — many of which now include these AI-powered features — present the same challenge. “We need to use more tools that integrate AI” or “Everyone else is tracking productivity” are not strategies. Without a clear purpose, HR may collect more data than it needs or track metrics that don't align with actual business decisions. Before selecting a monitoring tool, HR should determine what it needs to learn and what decisions the data will support. Explain the Difference Between Aggregate and Individual Data Employees should understand whether HR is looking for broader workforce patterns or evaluating individual behavior. Aggregate data might show that a department is consistently handling a heavy workload, while individual data could reveal how a specific employee spends their time. Making this distinction clear can reduce uncertainty about how the organization will use employee information. Build Trust Through Inclusive Practices Employee involvement should begin before committing to a vendor or a tool. Representatives can help assess what a system collects and whether intrusive features align with organizational goals. HR can invite employees to ask questions and solicit their feedback on monitoring policies. California's proposed AB 1883 illustrates the emerging regulatory conversation around workplace monitoring. The bill seeks to prohibit employers from using workplace surveillance tools that predict emotional states or collect neural data. As proposed legislation, it is not currently a requirement for California employers, but it demonstrates how policymakers are beginning to address newer forms of workplace surveillance. Trust Starts Before the Monitoring Does Workforce analytics can deliver real insight into workforce needs. Organizations that communicate openly about purpose and involve employees often create monitoring systems that support better resource allocation and planning.

Each year on August 26th, Women’s Equality Day offers an opportunity to reflect on progress toward gender equity while recognizing the work that remains. While legislative milestones have helped create a more equitable foundation, the lived experiences of women in today’s workplaces tell a more nuanced story. To explore this further, we invited a group of women leaders to share their perspectives on equality in practice, the barriers that persist, and the actions needed to drive meaningful change. Their responses highlight both the progress made and the opportunities ahead. Contributors: Chelsea Harper, Director of Human Resources, Stoppler Hughes Christine Dagenais, Founder and CEO, Bright Wire Leadership Development Connie De Ciancio, Chief Commercial Officer, Strathcona Resources Michelle Dulmadge, Executive Vice President Human Resources, Surerus Murphy Rosy Makkar-Sethi, Portfolio Head of HR, Volaris Group Sabrina Brock, Vice President Human Resources, TriSummit Utilities Inc. To guide the discussion, we asked each contributor to reflect on three questions: What does women’s equality truly mean to you in today’s professional or leadership context, beyond formal policies or stated commitments? From your experience, what structural or cultural barrier continues to limit women’s advancement, and where do you see the greatest opportunity for progress? What is one action by leaders or organizations that can meaningfully advance women’s equality, and why does it matter now? Across responses, women’s equality was described not just as a policy outcome, but as a lived experience of fairness, recognition, and opportunity. As Chelsea shared: “It requires acknowledging that women have historically been conditioned differently in the workplace and society. The goal is to build workplaces where women are valued, compensated, and developed equitably enough that gender eventually becomes irrelevant to the conversation.” Connie emphasized fairness in assessment: “It is when people are genuinely assessed on their capability, judgment, performance, and leadership potential, not on assumptions or labels. It is not about lowering the bar or advancing someone because of gender; it is about making sure the best person has a fair opportunity to step forward and be recognized.” Sabrina reflected: “It is the experience of truly feeling valued for who you are as a professional and as a leader, where gender is not a topic of conversation. It also means being surrounded by more women in senior leadership roles due to equal access to stretch roles, equivalent tolerance for risk-taking, and performance judged by the same standards.” Despite progress for women in the workplace, certain barriers remain and are often invisible to those who have not experienced it. Chelsea reinforces the deeper context behind these challenges: “A true commitment to women’s equality requires acknowledging that history and understanding how deeply it still impacts confidence, negotiation, leadership presence, and career progression today.” Rosy names it directly: “A persistent barrier I continue to see is the reliance on subjective notions of leadership potential, often shaped by familiarity and unconscious bias. In my experience, this disproportionately impacts women, and even more so women of colour, whose strengths and leadership styles may not align with the traditional model. I have seen how this can limit access to opportunity despite clear capability and performance.” Subjectivity, when left unchecked, defaults to familiarity. Familiarity tends to favour the dominant group even when it is not intentional. This habit will continue to be consequential in the workplace. Sabrina offers a common example of how this bias shows up in practice: “If the behaviour is assertiveness, men may be seen as strong, confident, decisive leaders; however, when a woman behaves that way, they may be seen as aggressive, difficult, or abrasive.” The good news: Michelle calls for organizational accountability. “When equity is treated as a business discipline, not just a values statement, it becomes measurable and sustainable.” Christine adds the human dimension: “Real progress happens when women stop waiting for permission and start taking their seat at the table and when men in leadership actively sponsor and advocate for women, not simply as a diversity initiative, but because it strengthens teams and organizations.” Together, they point to the same truth: meaningful advancement requires both systemic intention and individual confidence. These examples are not seeking for exception, but consistency. Women want to be seen clearly, assessed fairly, and given the same opportunities to rise, or stumble, that their peers receive without having to ask. Building on this, one theme emerged clearly in how contributors see progress taking shape: the importance of sponsorship. Respondents highlighted the impact of leaders actively advocating for capable colleagues - particularly those who may not yet recognize their own potential or have had opportunities to demonstrate it. Rosy emphasizes the role of leadership influence, noting that “When leaders use their influence to advocate for women in succession discussions, critical assignments, and promotion decisions, opportunities for women increase significantly”. Similarly, Michelle reflects on the tangible impact of sponsorship in practice: “In my career, the moments that accelerated growth were when a leader put my name forward for something I had not yet been given the chance to prove at scale. Those decisions build confidence, capability, and visibility in ways that formal development programs cannot”. The urgency of this approach is reinforced by Connie, who notes, “This matters now because organizations need the strongest possible leaders, and they cannot afford to overlook capable people who may simply need a push to step up.” Christine expands on this broader organizational impact, stating “The leaders who understand this do not see equality as a favour or a quota. They recognize, as research continues to show, that advancing women’s equality is a strategic advantage. And importantly, they understand that creating greater equality is not a zero-sum game. When women rise, organizations, teams, and communities benefit alongside them.” Collectively, these perspectives highlight key actions: sponsorship, creating meaningful opportunities for growth, and encouraging individuals to recognize and step into their potential. Advancing women’s equality requires intention, advocacy, and action - turning insight into impact by championing talent and ensuring no potential goes overlooked.