iscover
In the evolving landscape of hybrid work, where the boundaries between professional and personal spaces are increasingly nebulous, employers face a daunting challenge. A worrying trend has emerged among some organisations, veering towards an oppressive surveillance model to monitor employee productivity. However, mounting evidence suggests that this Orwellian approach may not only be ineffective but could also be actively harming both productivity and employee morale.
The downside of digital oversight
A revealing Glassdoor survey involving 2,300 US professionals unearthed that 41 per cent felt their productivity dip under the watchful eye of their employers. This sentiment resonated strongly in the finance and tech sectors, with employees indicating a negative impact on their output due to surveillance. A significant 36 per cent were in the dark about whether they were being monitored or not.
In their quest to anchor the floating ship of hybrid work, several high-profile companies, including JPMorgan, Barclays Bank, and UnitedHealth Group, have reportedly tracked employee activities, ranging from email exchanges to keystrokes. This trend is fueled by a deep-seated “productivity paranoia”, especially as many offices across major US cities struggle to reach their pre-pandemic occupancy levels. Yet, this reactionary stance towards surveillance lacks the nuances of a well-thought-out strategy.
Despite 96 per cent of remote-first employers acknowledging some form of employee monitoring, as per a ResumeBuilder survey, the primary motive cited is boosting productivity. Contrary to these claims, the Glassdoor survey and other studies suggest that surveillance could be escalating stress levels, eroding trust, and undermining performance rather than enhancing it.
Questioning the moral compass under surveillance
A study in the Harvard Business Review offered further insights, surveying over 100 US employees. Those under surveillance were more prone to rule-breaking behaviours, from minor infractions like unauthorised breaks to more severe ones like property damage and theft.
An experiment within this study involved informing half of 200 US employees about being under electronic surveillance during tasks, with an opportunity to cheat. Intriguingly, those who believed they were monitored were more likely to indulge in dishonesty.
This finding suggests that surveillance may inadvertently weaken employees’ sense of moral responsibility, transferring it to the monitoring authority. Consequently, monitored employees might act in ways that conflict with their moral standards.
The study emphasises the critical role of an internal moral compass in guiding appropriate conduct. While some situations might necessitate external intervention, many workplace environments rely on the individual’s moral judgement. When surveillance interferes with this intrinsic compass, it can lead to counterproductive and detrimental outcomes.
Autonomy over surveillance
These revelations highlight the need for a workplace environment that prioritises autonomy and trust over control and surveillance. In the hybrid work era, the challenge lies in balancing oversight with independence. Over-reliance on surveillance can have numerous unintended and biased consequences. Fostering a culture of trust, respect, and personal responsibility could unlock the true potential of a hybrid workforce.
The fundamental flaw in the surveillance approach is equating physical or digital presence with productivity. Real productivity hinges on outcomes, not on logged hours or keystrokes. Employees are more likely to deliver quality work when they feel trusted and respected rather than closely watched and judged.
In the context of hybrid work, employers should pivot towards building a culture of trust and autonomy. Strategies could include setting clear goals, providing regular feedback, and promoting open communication. Such an environment would likely foster higher engagement, motivation, and productivity. This is the approach I advocate for when consulting clients on measuring and managing performance in a hybrid model.
Shaping the future of hybrid work
The future of hybrid work should not devolve into a dystopian reality marked by relentless surveillance and dwindling trust. Rather, it should be an era where empowerment and trust are the cornerstones. The hybrid model presents an opportunity to reframe traditional work norms and practices towards more trusting and respectful workplaces, steering clear of productivity paranoia and excessive surveillance.
Ultimately, the choice is stark. We can either drift into a future marred by fear-driven surveillance or march towards a new age of trust, autonomy, and human-centric work practices. The trajectory of our hybrid work initiatives depends heavily on this pivotal decision.
Gleb Tsipursky is the chief executive at Disaster Avoidance Experts.
RELATED TERMS
In a hybrid work environment, individuals are allowed to work from a different location occasionally but are still required to come into the office at least once a week. With the phrase "hybrid workplace," which denotes an office that may accommodate interactions between in-person and remote workers, "hybrid work" can also refer to a physical location.
Professionals can use remote work as a working method to do business away from a regular office setting. It is predicated on the idea that work need not be carried out in a certain location to be successful.
Jack Campbell
Jack is the editor at HR Leader.
