The rise of remote work has sparked debate over employee productivity. According to the Office for National Statistics, as of 2024, 13% of employees were working fully remotely and 28% were hybrid. While many employees claim they are more productive working remotely, some employers argue the opposite. As such, organisations are reported to be using increasingly sophisticated technology to track whether employees are actively working via their computers and phones. This has led to discussions about the ethical implications of tracking remote employees.
Recently, big brands such as Amazon and Boots require employees to be a hundred per cent office based. To balance the pros and cons of remote and office-based working, organisations, such as the Civil Service, now require 60% attendance in the office.
For business owners, the rise in remote and hybrid working patterns has seen an increase in tracking methods and tools, such as time tracking, application and website usage, keystroke logging and screen recording. Equally, as fast as tracking technology is emerging, tools are being developed to circumvent the monitoring technology. For example, mouse jigglers, dual monitors (for work and non-work), automated keyboards and mouse actions and remote access tools. However, relying on these tracking methods raises a crucial question: What kind of workplace culture does this create?
The need for surveillance has the potential to create a spiral of distrust between employer and employee. Trust is the foundation of good leadership. Having a “Big Brother” approach has the propensity to create a culture where employees feel constantly watched. This makes workers feel undervalued and increases stress levels. It also breeds an environment of pressure and anxiety rather than engagement and motivation. Furthermore, monitoring employees may not be accurate, and it comes at a financial cost. Is it a worthwhile investment, or can those resources be better spent elsewhere, on employee development and support, for example?
Measuring activity is not necessarily an indication of productivity. Instead, consider measuring outcomes and the different types of roles within your organisation.
In some instances, tracking activity can be related to outcomes probability. For example, for a salesperson, measuring outward calls or emails might be considered a valid measure. But it should be tracked for both office-based and remote working. Conversely, if tracking activity is not directly associated with outcomes, for example, mouse movement by a marketing creative doing strategy, is there any value in measuring it?
When tracking employees, the quantity and quality of activity can be difficult to assess. For example, some employees may use alternative methods such as mind mapping in a notebook or conducting research calls by phone – activities that are not digitally recorded and therefore go untracked, leading to an incomplete picture.
Measuring activity is the easy option. However, measuring outputs requires a little more thought. But it can be incredibly empowering for leaders. When contemplating how to track results, you must be clear about the KPIs expected of every role. Communicate your expectations clearly and hold employees accountable to deliver their ‘number’. Actively support them to be successful with regular weekly check-ins. Support their learning as needed and provide timely feedback, both positively and developmentally.
Consider measuring specific numbers such as:
- Sales
- Leads generated
- Units produced
- Projects delivered
- Savings achieved
- SLA levels met
Also, remember, just because you can see someone at their desk does not mean they are being productive at their desk. People can successfully achieve deliverables using a range of different methods of working, which may vary according to age, job function, neurodiversity and length of service and expertise in the role. As a business owner, ask yourself if a “Big Brother” approach is going to accommodate these differences, or are you at risk of direct or indirect discrimination claims?
Take into account the impact on the employer/employee relationship and on future hires. Micromanagement is not attractive when needing to hire new team members. Surveillance can also create a loss of efficiency when employees are so focused on evading monitoring instead of doing great work.
Focus on what truly matters – ask yourself if you are measuring input and activity, or actual outputs and results. The latter is always far more important. Be consistent – ensure that expectations and standards apply equally to both remote and office-based employees. One should not be viewed as a lesser option. Invest wisely – instead of spending on costly monitoring tools, consider investing in employee learning and development. Working location will not be your biggest problem if a great team member gets fed up and decides to resign. Finally, follow through on insights – if data suggests there is an issue, act on it rather than ignoring it. Whether an employee is underperforming or exceeding expectations, managers must respond accordingly. Raise concerns and celebrate the ‘wins’, wherever they are working.
