In today’s fast-paced, tech-driven world, the pressure to maximize efficiency has never been greater.
With the rise of robotics, artificial intelligence, and other technologies, employers now have the tools to streamline operations like never before.
But while automation promises productivity gains, there’s a darker side to this pursuit of efficiency — increased workplace surveillance.
An article featured on The Conversation cited recent reports highlighting how technology is reshaping the workplace—often in ways that raise concerns about worker well-being and trust.
Woolworths, for example, has faced backlash for setting what some consider “unrealistic” productivity targets for its warehouse pickers, aiming for 100% efficiency.
Those who fall short face mandatory coaching programs to improve performance.
But is this constant monitoring and tracking the key to boosting productivity? Or could it be undermining employee performance and morale?
The power of measurement – does it drive performance?
The adage, “What gets measured, gets done”, underpins many efficiency-driven workplace strategies.
This idea dates back to the early 20th century when scientific management principles were developed to optimize production processes.
Back then, workers were viewed as mere cogs in a machine, and the goal was clear – get the most output with the least input.
Fast forward to today, and while the methods have evolved, the underlying logic remains similar.
Technology now makes it easier than ever to track every move an employee makes, whether in a warehouse, factory floor, or remote office.
Does more surveillance lead to better performance?
A 2023 study by Elisa Giacosa from the University of Turin explored this very question. The findings of 57 empirical studies on the impact of digital surveillance on employee performance were mixed.
Some research showed that knowing they were being monitored motivated workers to perform at a higher level, as they understood exactly what was expected of them and saw clear, objective metrics that could lead to rewards.
However, other studies revealed the opposite effect. Employees under constant surveillance often felt demoralized, even retaliating against the perceived intrusion.
The psychological burden of always being watched, combined with unrealistic expectations, led to lower performance, not higher.
Trust vs control
While the research is inconclusive, one thing is clear: monitoring employees raises important questions about trust.
When companies implement strict surveillance measures, they gain greater control over employee activities—but at the expense of fostering a culture of trust.
By definition, monitoring employees closely signals a lack of faith in their ability to do their jobs independently.
Workers may feel they are being treated as machines rather than human beings, which can erode morale.
Over time, dissatisfied employees may seek better working conditions elsewhere, leading to higher turnover.
The resulting churn creates inefficiencies, as companies must invest time and resources into recruiting and training new staff—who may, in turn, also leave once they feel the sting of constant surveillance.
A 2023 survey by Slack found that 25% of office workers felt their employer didn’t trust them.
What’s more, employees who felt distrusted were twice as likely to search for new job opportunities.
This highlights a crucial point — when employees feel trusted and valued, they are far more likely to stay and perform at their best.
The toll of excessive scrutiny
While tracking tools can help eliminate time wasted on non-work activities like chatting or browsing the internet, they can also create significant psychological discomfort.
Constant monitoring fosters a sense of anxiety, stifling creativity and innovation.
When workers feel they are constantly under the microscope, they become less likely to take risks or think outside the box.
Innovation thrives in environments where employees feel psychologically safe and are encouraged to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from them.
However, employees may feel pressured to deliver results without room for trial and error when the focus shifts to merely meeting productivity quotas.
This can stifle creativity and limit the potential for breakthrough ideas.
Balancing efficiency with trust
So, is there a way to boost productivity without resorting to surveillance and micromanagement? Experts argue that employers should focus on creating environments where employees feel trusted and empowered.
Instead of relying on invasive monitoring systems, companies could invest in processes that foster intrinsic motivation, such as providing clear expectations, offering professional development opportunities, and supporting work-life balance.
Automation, where appropriate, can also play a role in improving efficiency. By automating repetitive tasks, companies can free up workers to focus on higher-value, more creative aspects of their roles.
But this requires a shift in mindset—from focusing on measuring every minute of an employee’s day to empowering them to perform at their best.
When employees feel safe to experiment, innovate, and grow, they are more likely to deliver high performance—not because they are being watched but because they are driven by pride in their work and a sense of accomplishment.
The bottom line
The drive for efficiency is natural, but it’s crucial for employers to carefully consider the methods they use to achieve it.
While technology can improve productivity, surveillance and micromanagement may have unintended consequences.
Employers must balance the desire for control with the need to trust and support their employees.
In the end, fostering a culture of trust and respect may be the most effective way to boost morale and performance in the long run.
After all, employees who feel valued and trusted are far more likely to go the extra mile—without needing to be constantly watched.