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