Does following your employees actually make them more productive?

Should employers prioritize efficiency at all costs? It might seem like a good idea. More processes than ever before can now be automated with robotics, artificial intelligence and other technology.

But in case after case, we’ve also seen technology usher in a whole new era of workplace surveillance. Companies have powerful new tools to track employees and monitor their productivity in detail, which raises obvious concerns.

The Guardian’s reporting this week only highlighted the most recent example. Woolworths has been criticized for allegedly having ‘unrealistic’ expectations about the productivity of its warehouse pickers – workers who travel from aisle to aisle to select the products needed.

A new framework, introduced by the supermarket giant last year, is reportedly aimed at helping pickers achieve 100% efficiency, putting those who fall short into a coaching programme.

Regardless of whether efficiency measurement practices are right or wrong in a moral sense, a more fundamental question arises. Does increased monitoring and productivity measurement actually improve employee performance?

What gets measured gets done, right?

Scientific management approaches that treat workers as cogs in a machine have a long history and were originally developed to optimize production output.

You would think that we would have moved on to something that is more people-oriented by now. But the rise of constant monitoring for employees – both on-site and remote – suggests otherwise.

This was likely helped by the shift to remote working in the wake of the pandemic, which pushed digital surveillance technology into the mainstream. Bosses around the world had to grapple with a new workplace reality.

But given the newness of many of these technologies, there has been limited research on their effectiveness.

A 2023 systematic literature review by Elisa Giacosa and colleagues at the University of Turin examined the results of digital monitoring of employee performance and other measures. Of the 57 empirical studies published on this topic, results were mixed.

Some studies found that monitoring employees had a positive effect. Employees who knew they were being observed felt more motivated to perform at a high level, recognizing the benefits of being measured objectively.

Greater objectivity helps employees know what it takes to be viewed positively by their employers, and this can translate into subsequent rewards.

But other studies showed the opposite effect. Employees who knew they were being watched performed poorly, perhaps in retaliation for being constantly observed or timed.

When the evidence is mixed, researchers cannot conclude whether the intervention – in this case digital surveillance – is effective or not. But that hasn’t stopped companies from adopting such ambiguously effective approaches in the meantime.

Read more: A matter of trust: should bosses be able to spy on employees even if they work from home?

Trust is also important

There appears to be a paradox between surveillance and performance, which goes beyond discussions of its effectiveness. When supervision is enforced, employers have more control over the work that can be performed by employees. But it can also indicate a lack of trust.

Seizing more control is by definition incompatible with expressing trust. Companies that choose to monitor the keystrokes of remote workers or the number of items that can be picked by warehouse workers may only be maximizing short-term results.

Dissatisfied employees who are tired of being treated like robots with a heartbeat will often look elsewhere for better conditions. An increase in employee turnover creates massive inefficiencies as new employees need to be recruited and trained, who may also turn away in search of more fulfilling work.

A recent survey from Slack found that about 25% of desk workers felt uncomfortable at work. Those who felt this lack of confidence were twice as likely to look for other work.

Employers must proceed with caution

Employers should carefully weigh the pros and cons when considering this topic.

Tracking techniques can reduce the amount of time employees spend on non-work activities, such as chatting at the on-site water cooler or surfing social media remotely. Such monitoring could even help employers identify certain security and safety issues.

But monitored employees will discover the lack of confidence and feel anxious under constant supervision and unrealistic goals. Their creativity can even be stifled if they feel like they don’t have time to solve problems or think critically.

Excessive control creates psychological discomfort, which hinders risk-taking and experimentation – essential building blocks for creativity and innovation.

Given the lack of consistent evidence on this topic, those considering implementing surveillance technology may first want to consider alternative ways to improve efficiency.

This can be done by automating processes that can be automated. But it can also include creating psychologically safe workplaces for employees, developing their internal motivation to perform and thrive.

When employees feel confident and safe to experiment and make mistakes, they are driven to high performance by their own sense of pride and achievement – ​​regardless of external rewards or punishments.

Read more: Why Woolworths workers can’t sleep at night: Inside the supermarket giant’s controversial ‘Framework’