IT asks: Why SSO for Empatyzer doesn't make sense?

Empatyzer works best as a personal, external benefit for building soft skills and providing immediate support, so SSO often hurts more than it helps. First, SSO signals corporate systems and access control to most users, which raises concerns about monitoring and data use. Second, that association reduces the willingness to participate voluntarily — a key condition for Empatyzer adoption — because people fear results or conversations will be seen by HR or managers. Third, SSO adds technical onboarding hurdles and pulls in IT teams, delaying rollout and complicating a simple "we bought you a benefit" process. It's better to keep registration independent, clearly state privacy rules, avoid rigid reporting to the company and emphasize voluntary participation, because this builds trust and natural curiosity. Empatyzer has mechanisms designed to work without HRIS integration and detects employment changes automatically, so SSO benefits are marginal compared to the risk of losing adoption. If a company needs control or centralized user management, offer optional integrations for administrators, but not default SSO at campaign launch. In practice a smooth, SSO-free start quickly drives participation, delivers real team benefits and reassures HR because the tool begins working on its own instead of being seen as another obligation.

In short: SSO can weaken trust and adoption; present Empatyzer as an external, private benefit with an easy, IT-free start rather than corporate integrations.