Digital surveillance has become embedded in contemporary work through electronic performance monitoring, algorithmic evaluation, people analytics, platform infrastructures, and systems that capture behavioral traces. These arrangements can support coordination, safety, feedback, and resource allocation, yet they may also redistribute visibility, discretion, and authority in ways that employees experience as unjust or distrustful. This integrative review examines how surveillance forms and purposes connect with procedural, distributive, and interactional justice, organizational trust, and employee behavioral and relational responses. It combines conceptual, qualitative, experimental, observational, longitudinal, and review evidence through a transparent, bounded synthesis that preserves differences among research designs and contexts. The evidence suggests that surveillance effects depend less on technological presence alone than on purpose, data sensitivity, task measurability, transparency, contestability, relational quality, employment dependence, and institutional protections. Findings converge around risks associated with opaque evaluation, decontextualized quantification, privacy invasion, asymmetrical authority, and limited redress, but they conflict regarding performance, autonomy, acceptance, and the consequences of transparency. The review proposes an Integrated Surveillance–Justice–Trust Framework in which surveillance architecture shapes justice appraisals, trust attributions, employee responses, and recursive managerial interpretation. This framework is an original synthesis rather than a validated causal model. Its practical implication is that monitoring should be governed as a sociotechnical authority arrangement, not merely a data-collection tool. Longitudinal, multilevel, comparative, and intervention-based research is required to test the proposed relationships and determine when safeguards reduce harm without undermining legitimate organizational purposes.
