All templates

Workplace AI rules for employees and contractors

A workplace policy tells employees and contractors which tools and activities are approved, what information they may enter, when they must review or disclose output, and where to request approval or report a problem. Security, privacy, HR, legal, operations, and business owners should set the rules together.

Updated:

Sample workplace policy

Employees and contractors may use organization-approved AI tools for authorized work within the permission matrix. Approval of a tool does not approve every data type or business use. Personal accounts and unreviewed embedded AI features must not be used for protected organizational information.

Do not submit credentials, confidential business information, personal or customer data, privileged material, regulated records, or nonpublic source code unless security, privacy, contractual, and business owners have approved the tool and intended use. Minimize permitted inputs and follow retention and access requirements.

A responsible person must review AI-assisted work before it informs employment, eligibility, safety, legal, financial, or other consequential decisions. Published or customer-facing material requires factual, rights, brand, and security review. AI output is not evidence merely because it sounds confident.

Report suspected exposure, unsafe behavior, inaccurate consequential output, or unauthorized use promptly to the designated reporting contact. Preserve useful context without redistributing sensitive material. Exceptions require a recorded owner, purpose, safeguards, and expiry.

Example workplace matrix

The matrix should connect an activity to both data and consequence. Example Company is an illustrative name, not a customer or precedent.

  • Internal draft made from public facts — Allowed in an approved tool; author reviews every claim before circulation.
  • Customer information in a prompt — Approval required; confirm contract, privacy basis, minimization, location, retention, and access.
  • Confidential source code for debugging — Prohibited by default; a separately approved development environment and repository rule may allow a narrow use.
  • Published marketing copy — Conditional; verify claims, rights, attribution, brand voice, and required disclosure.
  • Employment recommendation — Human-led only; assess law, bias, explainability, accessibility, and appeal before any authorized AI support.

Tool approval checklist

Tool review is use-specific. Reassess material model, terms, hosting, or feature changes rather than treating approval as permanent.

  • Document the intended users, purpose, prohibited uses, and accountable business owner.
  • Review training-on-input settings, retention, deletion, access controls, subprocessors, locations, and incident commitments.
  • Map permitted data classes and verify contractual, privacy, confidentiality, records, and intellectual-property requirements.
  • Test output quality, security abuse cases, bias, accessibility, human review, and a non-AI fallback.
  • Define logging, monitoring, employee notice, training, renewal, suspension, and exit procedures.

Write your policy

Customize this template

Choose a permission approach

A restrictive approach is suitable where data sensitivity or consequences are high and approved uses are few. Permission-based rules work when teams need a clear menu. A broader approach can support experimentation with public or synthetic data while retaining boundaries for high-impact decisions and protected information.

Use the company preset to add ownership, approvals, training, a review schedule, and optional governance sections. The draft does not imply that these controls already exist.

Example wording

Employee disclosure

I used the approved assistant to propose an outline and simplify two paragraphs. I checked the underlying data and claims, rewrote the final text, and did not provide customer or confidential information.

Sample policy

Example Organization Workplace AI Use Policy

The names are placeholders. Review the rules and fill in the missing details before using this policy.

Read the sample policy
Audience
Company or nonprofit
Scope
organization
Owner
To be designated
Status
Draft
Version
0.1
Effective date
To be confirmed
Review date
To be scheduled

Summary

  • Company or nonprofit policy. Status: Draft. Version: 0.1.
  • Activity permissions: Allowed: 2; Allowed with conditions: 4; Approval required: 3; Prohibited: 0.
  • This draft approves no tools. Designate approved tools before use.
  • Secrets are never permitted in general-purpose AI tools; sensitive data requires exact data-type, tool, and use approval.
  • Consequential decisions require accountable human review and separate authorization.

1. Document control and scope

This policy applies across Example Organization to people and work covered by its authority. Owner: designated policy owner. Status: Draft. Version: 0.1. Region, if supplied, is review context only and does not establish local legal compliance.

2. Purpose and approach

This policy sets the rules for AI use and assigns accountability. Use is permission-based. AI may be used only for activities permitted in the activity matrix and subject to every listed condition.

3. Definitions

“AI tool” means software that generates, transforms, ranks, or analyzes content using an AI model. Assistive editing improves presentation without replacing professional judgment. Substantive generation creates or materially rewrites analysis, code, recommendations, or communications. “Approved tool” means a tool designated for a particular use and data type through the applicable approval process; familiarity or public availability is not approval.

4. Roles and responsibilities

The designated policy owner maintains this policy and coordinates its review. the designated approver decides requests to approve tools, exceptions, and uses within their authority. the person responsible for the work checks outputs before anyone relies on or releases them. Workers use approved tools and protect organizational and third-party information. Managers do not delegate employment or other consequential judgment to an AI system.

5. Approved tools and approval process

No tools are currently designated as approved. Before use, the designated approver must approve the tool, intended activity, account or deployment, and data types involved. Public availability or prior use does not constitute approval.

6. Permitted-use matrix

The activity matrix is part of this policy. For each activity, its permission, conditions, and clarification apply. All listed conditions must be met.

Activity permissions and required conditions
ActivityPermissionConditions and clarification
BrainstormingAllowedNo activity-specific conditions. The policy's data and human-review safeguards still apply.
Internal draftsAllowedNo activity-specific conditions. The policy's data and human-review safeguards still apply.
Customer communicationsApproval required
  • Obtain written approval before use
  • A person must review the output before use
CodingAllowed with conditions
  • Use only an approved tool
  • Disclose the AI assistance
  • Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
ResearchAllowed with conditions
  • Use only an approved tool
  • Disclose the AI assistance
  • Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Data analysisAllowed with conditions
  • Use only an approved tool
  • Disclose the AI assistance
  • Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
Meeting notesAllowed with conditions
  • Use only an approved tool
  • Disclose the AI assistance
  • Verify facts, quotations, citations, and sources
PublishingApproval required
  • Obtain written approval before use
  • A person must review the output before use
Consequential decisions about peopleApproval required
  • Obtain written approval before use
  • A person must review the output before use

7. Prohibited uses

The matrix contains no activity marked prohibited, but all stated boundaries still apply. Do not use AI to fabricate evidence, impersonate a person, evade security controls, violate rights, or make an unauthorized consequential decision. Do not use AI where law, contract, professional duty, or a controlling organizational rule prohibits it.

8. Data, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property

The only data categories selected for possible use are: public. Selecting a category does not by itself permit its use. Data may be entered only when the specific tool and proposed use are approved for that data type. Do not enter confidential information, personal data, student data, customer data, or other sensitive data unless the tool and proposed use have been expressly approved for that exact data type. Credentials, passwords, access tokens, private keys, authentication codes, and other secrets must never be entered into general-purpose AI tools. Inputs and outputs remain subject to access, retention, intellectual-property, contractual, and confidentiality requirements. If unsure, stop and ask the policy owner.

9. Output verification and human accountability

A person remains accountable for AI-assisted work. Before using or releasing it, check factual accuracy, calculations, citations, originality, bias, security, rights, and suitability for the intended audience. AI output is neither an authority nor a verified source. A matrix prohibition cannot be overridden. Where the matrix permits consideration of a consequential decision about employment, access, eligibility, safety, rights, or services, accountable human review and a separate authorization process are still required. Matrix approval alone does not supply that authorization.

10. Disclosure and attribution

Disclose AI assistance in external, published, customer-facing, or assessed work. A declaration must accurately describe the use. The following example is not a declaration on the user's behalf. A suitable disclosure identifies the tool, the task it performed, material changes made by a person, and the person who verified the result.

11. Workplace rules

AI use for source code, confidential work, customer communications, or published material remains subject to security, intellectual-property, contractual, quality, and release controls. A designated owner must review tools and material changes. Employment and other consequential decisions about people require separate authorization, meaningful human judgment, an opportunity to correct relevant information where applicable, and the records required by the authorized process.

12. Review, reporting, and exceptions

Report concerns to the designated policy owner through the usual organizational channel. Report suspected data exposure, unsafe output, rights concerns, or material misuse promptly. The reviewer must preserve relevant information, hear affected people where appropriate, and follow the organization's authorized investigation and corrective-action process. Exceptions must be written, limited in scope and duration, approved by the designated approver, and retained by the policy owner.

13. Training, communication, and acknowledgment

Before covered users begin AI use, the policy owner will provide onboarding on the matrix, approved tools, data limits, disclosure, verification, and reporting. Covered users will be asked to acknowledge that they received and understood the policy; acknowledgment does not waive rights or replace training.

14. Review and version history

The policy owner will review this policy annually and after a material incident, tool change, or change in applicable obligations. Changes require the designated approval process and notice to affected people. Confirm the effective date before adoption. Schedule the next review date. Version history: Version 0.1 | Status: Draft | Change: Initial draft.

Decisions to confirm

  • Name the policy owner.
  • Name the role or person authorized to approve tools and exceptions.
  • Designate tools, deployments, intended uses, and approved data types.
  • Set an effective date before adoption.
  • Schedule the next review date.

Implementation checklist

  • ☐ Confirm and name the policy owner.
  • ☐ Review the sensitive-data rules for each proposed data type and use.
  • ☐ Designate approved tools before permitting AI use.
  • ☐ Resolve 5 open decisions before adoption.
  • ☐ Complete the authorized approval process; this document remains Draft.
  • ☐ Communicate the matrix, safeguards, disclosure rules, and reporting route.
  • ☐ Schedule the annually review.

Acknowledgment

I received the Example Organization Workplace AI Use Policy and had an opportunity to ask questions. I understand where to find the current activity matrix and how to report concerns. This acknowledgment does not replace training or waive any rights. Name: ____________________ Signature: ____________________ Date: ____________________

This policy draft is not legal advice. Have the appropriate people review it before adoption.

Frequently asked questions

Should employees use personal AI accounts for work?

Not for protected work information unless the organization has explicitly approved the account, tool, data type, and use. Enterprise controls may change risk, but they do not replace purpose-specific review.

Can AI make employment decisions?

Do not assume it can. Employment uses may trigger significant legal, discrimination, privacy, labor, accessibility, and due-process obligations. Require specific expert review and meaningful human authority.

How should source code be treated?

Treat nonpublic code, vulnerabilities, secrets, and repository context according to security and confidentiality classifications. Approve development tools separately and never enter credentials or tokens.

Is an acceptable-use policy enough for a company?

It can communicate daily rules, but usually does not replace governance for procurement, risk ownership, incidents, monitoring, training, exceptions, and revision. See Acceptable Use Policy.

Sources and references

These drafts have not been reviewed by a lawyer or subject-matter expert. Have your legal or policy team review them before use. They are not legal advice or proof of compliance.

NIST AI Risk Management Framework

NIST describes its AI Risk Management Framework as voluntary guidance for managing AI-related risks and incorporating trustworthiness into AI use.

Use it as a review reference when assigning owners and considering risks, safeguards, and ongoing oversight. This generator does not perform a NIST assessment.

UNESCO: Guidance for generative AI in education and research

UNESCO’s guidance emphasizes a human-centred approach, data privacy, and age-appropriate use of generative AI in education and research.

For school, university, and classroom policies, review student data, age restrictions, access, and the learning purpose of each permitted activity with the appropriate institutional owners.

Pangram: Useful AI policies for educators

Pangram’s classroom-policy article compares blanket restrictions with a tier-based approach that allows different levels of AI assistance for different assignments.

Use the examples to discuss classroom boundaries, then choose your own permissions in the generator. These approaches are options, not a requirement to adopt a particular rule.

NIST AI RMF Playbook

Public reference selected for the workplace ai rules for employees and contractors page.

Read the original source in its own context. It does not replace qualified local review or establish that this draft is compliant.

ISO/IEC 42001 — AI management systems

Public reference selected for the workplace ai rules for employees and contractors page.

Read the original source in its own context. It does not replace qualified local review or establish that this draft is compliant.

References do not imply endorsement.

Create your AI policy