Employers who spy on their remote workers do so at their own peril

In the brave new world of hybrid work, where the lines between office and home are blurred, employers are navigating uncharted waters. Some have resorted to a draconian approach, implementing surveillance measures to monitor their employees’ productivity. Yet evidence is mounting that such Big Brother tactics may be not only ineffective but also detrimental to productivity and morale.

The federal government has also started cracking down on employee surveillance. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy recently requested public comments on employers’ use of monitoring technology. In turn, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board recently announced “her intention to protect employees, to the greatest extent possible, from intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management practices.”

Such surveillance is widespread, with high-profile companies such as J.P. Morgan, Barclays Bank, and UnitedHealth Group reportedly tracking everything from employees’ emails to their keystrokes. This trend stems from an insidious “productivity paranoia” — managers not trusting that their employees are doing their job while working outside the office.

However, the data tell a different story. According to a recent Glassdoor survey of 2,300 U.S. professionals, 41 percent report feeling less productive when they know their bosses are monitoring their work devices. This sentiment is particularly strong among workers in the finance and tech sectors, who report that surveillance negatively affects their work output.

Further insights into the counterproductive nature of employee surveillance can be gleaned from a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review. This study surveyed over 100 U.S. employees, some of whom were subjected to workplace monitoring and some of whom were not. The findings were striking: Those monitored were substantially more likely to engage in various rule-breaking behaviors, such as taking unapproved breaks, disregarding instructions, damaging workplace property, and even stealing office equipment.

To determine causation, the researchers conducted a second experimental study, in which they told half of 200 U.S.-based employees that they were under electronic surveillance while performing a series of tasks. The employees were then given an opportunity to cheat. Astonishingly, those who believed they were being monitored were more likely to cheat than those who thought they were not.

This effect is akin to an employee being handed a speed limit sign and then hitting the accelerator. It is a paradoxical response, but it underscores a profound misalignment between the intended and actual effects of surveillance.

What’s driving this paradoxical behavior? The study suggests that surveillance can undermine employees’ sense of moral agency. Monitored employees are more likely to feel that the authority figure overseeing their surveillance is responsible for their behavior. This reduction in agency makes monitored employees more likely to act contrary to their own moral standards, leading them to engage in behavior they would otherwise consider immoral.

The findings highlight the crucial role of an internal moral compass in driving proper conduct. While some situations require an external response to misconduct, many workplace contexts depend on employees’ sense of morality. When surveillance impairs this moral compass, the results can be counterproductive and damaging.

This study underscores the importance of fostering a work environment that values autonomy and trust over surveillance and control. By acknowledging employees’ moral agency and treating them as responsible adults, employers can cultivate a workplace culture that encourages ethical behavior and discourages misconduct.

In the hybrid work era, trust, mutual respect, and a sense of personal responsibility are key to unlocking the full potential of the hybrid workforce.

Perhaps the most critical flaw in the surveillance approach is the false equivalence between presence (whether physical or digital) and productivity. In reality, the quality of work is not determined by the number of keystrokes or hours logged into a system. True productivity is about results, and these are more likely to be achieved when employees feel trusted and valued, rather than policed and scrutinized.

In the hybrid work era, employers need to shift their mindset. Rather than focusing on surveillance, they should aim to cultivate a culture of trust, mutual respect, and autonomy. To achieve this, leaders can employ a variety of strategies, such as setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and encouraging open communication. In this environment, employees are likely to feel more engaged, motivated, and, ultimately, productive.

The future of hybrid work should not be a dystopian landscape of constant surveillance and eroded trust. Instead, we need to foster environments where individuals are empowered and trusted to perform their best. The hybrid model offers an opportunity to reshape traditional work norms and practices. Let’s seize it to build better, more trusting workplaces, rather than succumbing to productivity paranoia and surveillance overkill.

In the end, the choice is clear. We can either stumble into a future of fear-driven surveillance or stride confidently into a new era of trust, autonomy, and human-centric work practices. That’s what the federal government intends to facilitate with its efforts to counteract intrusive surveillance. It’s making the right choice for employee productivity, engagement, and morale. The success of our hybrid work endeavors hinges on this critical decision.

Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.