The Benefits of Eavesdropping on Office Conversations
Kanebridge News
Share Button

The Benefits of Eavesdropping on Office Conversations

Employees—and bosses—can learn a lot of useful information by listening in on the chatter around them

By Alina Dizik
Tue, Jun 13, 2023 9:16amGrey Clock 4 min

It is one of the hardest things about working in an office: You are constantly overhearing other people. Sometimes it is just distracting chatter. Sometimes it is the proverbial “too much information” about people’s lives or projects. And, of course, sometimes other people are listening in on you.

But what if the ability to eavesdrop is a benefit for your work life, not a negative?

Workers can gain a host of insights from the buzz of conversations around them, some executives and researchers say. Eavesdropping not only can deliver information about what is happening at the company, it can help people understand their colleagues’ mind-sets, workloads and moods. It can help people learn who’s who in the organisational structure and pick up tips on how to have certain kinds of conversations. Some workplaces are even trying to create opportunities for this kind of informational osmosis to occur.

This new respect for eavesdropping is driven in part by the return to work after the pandemic. Employees are starting to realise how much they benefited from the information they absorb by seeing co-workers in person—anything from weekend plans to forthcoming work projects.

“They have more opportunities to listen in on the water-cooler conversations,” says Johnny Taylor, chief executive of SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management.

Chattering classes

Robert Burns, a marketing director at Sunnking, an electronics recycler in Brockport, N.Y., says that he often eavesdrops on co-workers as they make their business calls. It helps him better understand how they speak about the company to clients or vendors, which, in turn, helps him pick up tips on what does and doesn’t work, he says.

After overhearing them, he also has given co-workers “talking points” to help them use less industry jargon when discussing the recycling business. The object, he says, is to make it easier for them to relate to clients. “It benefits me in this role and my team to hear what everyone is doing—whether they like it or not,” he says.

Burns is careful of what is said in more hushed tones around the office. When he overhears information being said in a whisper, he is more hesitant about bringing it up later or in meetings. “I can probably hear it, but I don’t need to acknowledge it,” he says. “It’s kind of an unwritten understanding.”

The biggest benefits to eavesdropping go beyond hearing what is said, according to researchers. Seeing who is talking to whom can make it easier to accurately map out other people’s networks, says Hillary Anger Elfenbein, professor of organisational behaviour at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the topic. With that knowledge, employees can better understand how to influence company decision makers based on whom they know or where to turn to find information.

In her research, she found that most employees find it difficult to accurately define these networks without in-person opportunities. Even if the chat is muffled, “you hear about the relationship between them,” she says, through cues like body language.

In recent years, when fewer people are in the office, being in a situation to overhear conversations is also “more valuable for the eavesdropper,” says Elfenbein. With fewer chances for in-person conversations taking place, every chance to listen in is all the more important.

Deploying design

Many companies are starting to see the benefits of promoting awareness of workplace behaviours, including overheard conversations, and are exploring office layouts that encourage the practice, says Brian Stromquist, who leads the technology workplace practice at design and architecture firm Gensler. Specifically, he is seeing more interest from companies that want eavesdropping to serve as an informal way of mentorship between junior and senior employees. A newer employee can benefit simply from overhearing a more senior person participating in a meeting, solving a problem or leading a project.

“Eavesdropping is seen as a subset of observation where junior employees can observe leadership qualities,” he says.

From a design perspective, that means Gensler is now creating more spaces where there are different areas that are explicitly designed to encourage and discourage listening, “allowing for a spectrum of acoustic privacy,” says Stromquist, who is based in San Francisco. For instance, an area of open desks may make it purposely simple to overhear conversations, while another part of the floor may use music or white noise to create an atmosphere more conducive to privacy, he says. Deep-focus spaces or quiet libraries are explicitly places where employees should not be listened to, he adds.

“As people are re acclimating to the office, they’ve kind of established this new set of protocols that really recommend how you might use new spaces within the office,” he says.

Mind your manners

Of course, no one recommends purposely seeking out private or personal conversations to listen in on. And you should only act on information that you overheard without violating somebody else’s privacy.

“You don’t want to create a culture where people feel like you’re big-brothering them and hearing everything they say,” says Adam Struck, founder of Struck Capital, a venture-capital firm based in Los Angeles.

It is possible that employees in certain roles are more likely to be in need of eavesdropping for success, says Leila Bighash, assistant professor of communication at the University of Arizona, who studies social eavesdropping. Previous research showed that nurses, physicians and hospital staff were more likely to consider eavesdropping at work as integral to their job because they could overhear information at a cardiac intensive-care unit that was critical to a patient’s health.

People in a cutthroat work environment may also benefit more from eavesdropping, Bighash says. In those workplaces, people may be more reluctant to share information in direct conversation with certain people. So employees who listen to others can learn about projects outside of their department, or potential conflicts or challenges.

Digital eavesdropping

Eavesdropping doesn’t have to be confined to in-person conversations. With so many people keeping in touch with far-flung co-workers digitally, there are now more companies replicating the office environment by offering more opportunities for digital eavesdropping, says Paul Leonardi, professor of Technology Management at UC Santa Barbara.

One opportunity to digitally eavesdrop is through Slack channels or other messaging apps that allow for many participants, he says. Another is for people to access company materials and presentations online or by listening to recorded Zoom calls that aren’t directly related to their work, says Leonardi.

Leonardi suggests using messaging apps, including Slack, to get a sense of other employees’ lives, especially outside of work. In his research, he finds that information from this kind of digital eavesdropping—such as details about a vacation—makes a good ice breaker when approaching these same workers offline.

“People’s comfort at reaching out to other people on whose information they have eavesdropped increases if they know stuff about them,” he says.

But be cautious when using overheard information, says Deborah Grayson Riegel, an executive coach in Chapel Hill, N.C., who works with large companies on communication. Much of the time, employees need to be aware that some of the information may be confidential, jeopardise company initiatives or simply be interpreted incorrectly.

“You need to understand that you are hearing it out of context, and it’s not the full story,” she says.



MOST POPULAR

Borrowers cannot control the Reserve Bank, but they can control how exposed their household budget is to its next decision. The RBA meets on 29 September with inflation concerns still elevated and major-bank economists increasingly bringing forward their rate-rise calls. Fixed mortgage rates have also been moving, reducing the value of waiting for perfect certainty. …

Australian shares finished higher on Tuesday, September 22, as a technology rally and lower oil prices outweighed weakness in energy companies and continued anxiety about domestic interest rates. The S&P/ASX 200 closed 25.9 points, or 0.30 per cent, higher at 8,757.8. The All Ordinaries gained 0.36 per cent to 8,951.0, while the All Technology index …

Related Stories
Lifestyle
The Hidden Agenda Behind the AI Panic
By 22/09/2026
Lifestyle
Paramount Discussed $1.5 Billion California Investment to Clear Merger Hurdle
By 21/09/2026
Lifestyle
Forget the AI Apocalypse—the Real Threats Are Already Here
By Christopher Mims 17/09/2026
The Hidden Agenda Behind the AI Panic

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.

By
Tue, Sep 22, 2026 4 min

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

MOST POPULAR

Ophora Tallawong has launched its final release of quality apartments priced under $700,000.

Odd Culture Group brings a new kind of after-dark energy to the CBD, where daiquiris, disco and design collide beneath the city streets.

Related Stories
Motors
ROLLS-ROYCE MARKS A CENTURY OF PHANTOM WITH ULTRA-LIMITED PRIVATE COLLECTION
By Staff Writer 27/10/2025
Lifestyle
Jeff Goldblum on Leather Jackets, Fist Bumps and His ‘Darn’ Oura Ring
By Marshall Heyman 18/11/2025
Property
DWINDLING SUPPLY WILL DRIVE PREMIUM CBD RENTS
By Jeni O'Dowd 22/09/2025
0
Your Cart
Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop