Helen Pethybridge is the Managing Director of Chiltern Coaching
Remote work is a growing trend, and it has led to a debate about employee productivity. Office for National Statistics reports that by 2024, 28% of employees will be working hybridly and 13% fully remote. Some employers claim that employees are less productive when they work remotely. Organisations are reportedly using sophisticated technology to track whether employees actively work via their computer and phone. Discussions have been prompted about the ethics of tracking remote workers.
Recenty, large brands like Amazon and Boots have required their employees to work in the office 100 percent of the time. Organisations, like the Civil Service now require 60% office attendance to balance the pros of office and remote working.
The rise of remote and hybrid working has led to an increase in tools and methods for business owners. These include time tracking, website and application usage, keystroke recording, and screen recording. As fast as new tracking technologies are developed, so too are tools to bypass the technology. There are many tools that can be used to circumvent monitoring technology, such as mouse jigglers or dual monitors for work and personal use. But relying solely on these tracking tools raises an important question: what kind of culture is created by this?
Needing to monitor employees can create distrust between employers and their staff. The foundation of a good leader is trust. A “Big Brother” attitude can create a culture in which employees feel watched constantly. It makes employees feel undervalued, and stress levels increase. This creates an atmosphere of anxiety and pressure, rather than one of engagement and motivation. Monitoring employees can be inaccurate and expensive. Can these resources be spent better elsewhere, such as on employee support and development?
Measurement of activity does not always indicate productivity. Consider measuring the outcomes of your organisation and different types roles.
In certain instances, tracking activity may be related with outcomes probability. As an example, a salesperson might consider measuring emails or calls made to customers as a valid measurement. It should be measured for both office and remote work. Is it worth measuring tracking activity if the results are not directly related, such as mouse movements by a marketing strategy?
It can be challenging to determine the quality and quantity of employee activity when tracking them. Some employees use other methods, such as mind-mapping in a journal or making research calls on the phone. These activities are not recorded digitally and so cannot be tracked, resulting in an incomplete picture.
It is easy to measure activities. Measuring outputs takes a bit more thought. It can also be an incredibly powerful tool for leaders. You must know the KPIs that are expected for each role when you’re deciding how to track your results. Hold employees accountable for delivering their “number”. Regular weekly check-ins will help them succeed. As needed, support their learning and give timely feedback both positively and developmental.
Measure specific numbers, such as:
- Sales
- Leads generated
- Units produced
- Projects delivered
- Savings are achieved
- SLA levels met
Remember that just because someone is at their workstation does not mean that they are productive. There are many ways to achieve the same results, depending on age, job function and neurodiversity, as well as length of service, expertise and experience. Ask yourself as a business owner if you are at risk of discrimination or direct claims if you adopt a “Big Brother’s” approach.
Consider the impact of your actions on the relationship between the employer and employee, as well as on future hiring. When you need to hire new members of your team, micromanagement is not appealing. Surveillance may also lead to a loss in efficiency if employees focus on avoiding monitoring rather than doing excellent work.
Focus on what really matters. Ask yourself whether you’re measuring outputs and activities or inputs and activities. It is important to focus on the latter. Consistency is key – make sure that the same expectations and standards are applied to remote employees and those who work in an office. The one should not be seen as a less desirable option. Instead of investing in expensive monitoring tools, invest in the employee’s learning and development. If a team member decides to quit, the location of their office will not be a problem. Final step: act on data if it indicates an issue. Managers must react accordingly, whether an employee underperforms or exceeds expectations. Raising concerns and celebrating the “wins” wherever they work is important.
The original version of this article Big Brother: Is it fair that companies track remote employees? appeared first on Human Resources News.
