{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02100840336134454, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021008403361344537, 'mean_word_length': 5.807142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Recorded Work Meetings and Algorithmic Tools: Anticipated Boundary Turbulence

Meeting recordings and algorithmic tools that process and evaluate recorded meeting data may provide many new opportunities for employees, teams, and organizations. Yet, the use of this data raises important consent, data use, and privacy issues. The purpose of this research is to identify key tensions that should be addressed in organizational policymaking about data use from recorded work meetings. Based on interviews with 50 professionals in the United States, China, and Germany, we identify the following five key tensions (anticipated boundary turbulence) that should be addressed in a social contract approach to organizational policymaking for data use of recorded work meetings: disruption versus help in relationships, privacy versus transparency, employee control versus management control, learning versus evaluation, and trust in AI versus trust in people.