CHRO/HRD asks: What default privacy settings should Empatyzer use at launch?

TL;DR:

  • Default to moderate openness for relational benefits
  • Enables more accurate collaboration and feedback guidance
  • A permanent hide option must always be available
  • Trust grows over time; openness can increase gradually

How does Empatyzer let users control their privacy level?

Privacy settings allow the user to consciously decide about their visibility, so they can use Empatyzer at a level of openness that they consider safe.

Set default privacy to balance usefulness and safety. Moderate openness lets Empatyzer see enough context to suggest how to talk, give feedback and de-escalate tensions, which speeds onboarding and helps resolve everyday frictions without HR involvement. At the same time, every user should have a simple, always-accessible option to hide their data or disable comparisons. A hide feature reduces control concerns and allows trust to build gradually. Be transparent during rollout: explain that the company will not access raw scores and that use is voluntary. Initially avoid SSO and deep HRIS integrations to underline that Empatyzer is a helpful external benefit, not an evaluation tool. Monitor adoption and let people choose their visibility; as trust increases some users will naturally open up. From HR's perspective, default collective openness provides faster network effects and practical advice without exposing individuals. Remind users they can delete their account and that aggregate data is used only for culture analysis. This default setup minimizes resistance and maximizes the tool's value in the first weeks.

Summary: start with moderate openness, enable a hide option and build trust through clear communication.

Sources and research

  1. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. Source
  2. European Data Protection Board. (2020). Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default (Version 2.0). Source
  3. Martin S. Hagger; Kaylyn McAnally Star (2026). Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Stress and Health, 42(1), e70151. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70151 DOI: 10.1002/smi.70151
  4. Bart A. De Jong; Kurt T. Dirks; Nicole Gillespie (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110 DOI: 10.1037/apl0000110
  5. Ravid, D. M., White, J. C., Tomczak, D. L., Miles, A. F., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12514 DOI: 10.1111/peps.12514

Author: Empatyzer

Published:

Updated:

 

""