In a world where technology can enable companies to track every click, keystroke, or chat log, it’s tempting for organizations to think staff monitoring is the path to managing a productive workforce. According to one Apple employee's recent lawsuit, evem some Apple middle-managers gave in to this fallacy, yet worker-surveillance is already well-known to cause more harm than good: it can corrode trust, disempower employees, and shift leadership’s attention to the wrong metrics. But dont take my word for it.
I recently spoke with a colleague in another industry whose project team was undergoing a rollout of a employee-tracking tool and, unsurprisingly, he's already lost 2 SMEs over it. He likely will have to crash his project's schedule before a premature wind-down.
I am going to use my poor friend's situation for some good, and share my thoughts about how tech workers can face measures of productivity that are deceptively shallow, and why misguided data collection can backfire. I will also get into Why employee surveillance stems from a vertically-stupid way of thinking in private companies. And, most importantly, I'll go into why companies should be hiring people they can trust in the first place (hint:[slow to hire, fast to fire](https://hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast is one way to get this done).
The Mirage of In-Person “FaceTime” as a Productivity Metric
One of the oldest faux-productivity yardsticks is the notion of “face time.” In a traditional office, there’s an assumption that when people are physically present—seated at their desks or strolling the halls—they’re producing results. Yet we’ve all seen how easy it is to fake “busy-ness” without actually getting meaningful work done:
• Present Yet Unproductive – Employees can linger in the office, attend every meeting, and manage to do relatively little of value. The mere fact that you see them doesn’t prove they’re getting things done. Employees knowing there is technology in place watching them (and they always figure it out) usually leads to a common outcome: quiet-quitting.
• Illusion of Control – Some managers feel more “in control” when they can physically see people working, but it’s really a comfort blanket. This visual check-in doesn’t guarantee any actual accomplishments.
• Remote Work Blowback – Ironically, many workplaces scrutinize remote workers more heavily because managers can’t see them. In reality, if the focus is on deliverables, remote professionals often outperform peers who are skilled at appearing busy in person.
In short, face time is just a simple heuristic—not a real measure of productivity. It's just a guess based on presence, and if you rely on it, you risk micromanagement instead of meaningful engagement.
“You Can’t Value What You Don’t Measure”—But Measure Thoughtfully
A truism that I say a lot is: “You can’t value what you don’t measure” -- and it underscores that an organization must track certain metrics to gauge outcomes. However, what we measure should align with actual business value and meaningful results. Here is what I mean, by this:
• Identify the Real Goals – Before putting any surveillance technology in place, step back and ask: What are the real goals of the work my team does? These goals might be sales revenue, product launches, research breakthroughs, or delivering quality service—things that can be tracked through performance outcomes, not "time-watching".
• Outcomes Over Outputs – Instead of fixating on how many hours someone is seated in their home office or how many lines of code they wrote, measure whether the project was completed successfully, on budget, and on time.
• Use Tools, Not Tracking – There are plenty of project management tools that help clarify roles, deadlines, and responsibilities. These facilitate collaboration and accountability without verging into invasive surveillance.
In other words: measure the outcomes that genuinely matter to the business, rather than pulling in a torrent of data that may not translate to real impact (or actual true understanding of employee output).
“What Gets Measured, Gets Managed”—So Choose the Right Metrics
Another truism that I like to say a lot is: “What Gets Measured, Gets Managed”. And, like the concept above, if you're measuring the wrong things: you're probably managing the wrong things.
When leaders measure an activity, their energy (and their entire team’s energy) goes into optimizing that metric, sometimes to the detriment of other more vital considerations. This can lead to so-called “teaching to the test”—where employees figure out how to do well on the metric being measured rather than actually producing high-quality results.
• Quality vs. Quantity – Focusing on high-output metrics (e.g., lines of code, number of calls handled) might overlook the quality of the work.
• Innovative vs. Safe – If your metric punishes mistakes rather than assessing overall innovation, you’ll discourage the kind of risk-taking that might lead to genuine breakthroughs.
• Short-Term vs. Long-Term – Some metrics measure short-term wins but undermine strategic planning and long-term investments. Over-monitoring can drive employees to meet daily or weekly targets, neglecting bigger-picture initiatives.
Leaders should (no, must) think critically about which metrics will help drive success, not just create "busy-ness". If you’re measuring hours logged in a time-tracking tool, for example, you might get employees who are good at clocking hours but not necessarily at delivering results.
This leads me to the ENTIRE POINT of this blog post- the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION that I believe needs asking...
Why Are You Hiring People You Think You Need to Surveil?
At the heart of anti-surveillance thinking is a simple question: If you don’t trust the people you hire, why did you hire them in the first place?
• Erosion of Trust – Once you implement intrusive surveillance, you send a clear message: “I believe you might slack off if I’m not watching.” This undermines the trust-based contract that encourages employees to be loyal, creative, and engaged. To know if you can trust someone to work hard, and be productive -- you have to first trust them, and give them the opportunity to reward (or betray) Trust. Digital software logging keystrokes is not how you do that.
• Turnover & Talent Drain – Skilled professionals prefer workplaces where they’re treated with autonomy and respect. Surveillance-heavy cultures risk driving the best performers and smart talent elsewhere.
• Opportunity Cost – Time and resources spent on building and managing surveillance systems could be reallocated to leadership development, improved processes, or benefits that actually boost morale and productivity.
BONUS: HIRE SLOW, FIRE FAST
You should give hiring the respect it deserves, and not just check a box: thoroughly vetting candidates to find the best cultural and skill fit, before extending an offer, is how you hire people you don't need to surveil. When you hire fast, you get the opposite. Hiring slow needn't take long: it just means multiple interviews, at least one skill assessment, and team interaction interview if you can swing it (during final interview the candidate meets some or all of the team). By taking the time upfront, organizations avoid costly mismatches and onboarding struggles. At the same time, when someone proves to be a poor fit: decisive removal ensures minimal disruptions and protects team morale. And removes the need to install digital surveillance tools.
Building a culture of trust and accountability is more effective in the long run than controlling people’s every digital move. People who feel trusted are more willing to tackle challenges proactively, communicate openly about obstacles, and truly go the extra mile. Surveillance creates the opposite of these things. Every time. But hey, don't take my word for it.
Moving Toward a Productive, Trust-Centric Workplace
I can't believe I had to write any of this, but my friend's situation at his company gave me pause. And it allowed me to think-through my own thoughts on all of this.
So what’s the alternative? (I thought you'd never ask)
1. Focus on Deliverables – Define clear deliverables and objectives for each role and project. Let people manage their own time to hit these milestones, within reason.
2. Encourage Open Communication – Instead of relying on digital “big brother,” cultivate an environment where employees feel comfortable discussing when they need help, more time, or resources.
3. Offer Meaningful Feedback – Replace constant monitoring with regular check-ins that provide constructive feedback and guidance. Don't "be nice" or sugar-coat, either, give your reports and project SMEs direct and timely feedback. That is on you to do, and for them to take and run with it. Adn when you trust your reports, that is 90% of the time what they'll do.
4. Celebrate Wins & Accountability – When employees do meet or exceed expectations, recognize and reward them. This fosters an ecosystem of mutual respect and shared success.
5. Create Spaces for Innovation – Trusting employees frees them to explore new ideas. And if they make mistakes, treat these as learning experiences rather than triggers for increased scrutiny. To know if you can trust an employee to grow and innovate -- you have to first trust them!
tl;dr The Takeaway
Ultimately when a company provides employees with computing devices, they can install whatever they want. But nothing is free: surveilling workers does little more than create stress, mistrust, and a fixation on questionable metrics. Many of the “productivity signals” companies cling to—like face time or keystroke logs—are easy to fake and tell us horribly little about genuine value creation. If you want your team to perform at its best, measure what truly matters, and above all, trust the very people you brought on board to do the job.
When you’re tempted to reach for surveillance tools, ask yourself: Am I hiring too fast, without good vetting? Why risk hiring people I don’t trust? By grounding your organization in autonomy, accountability, and clear objectives, you can build a culture that thrives on real productivity rather than micromanaged illusions.