Leaders want visibility. That’s not unreasonable. But, visibility doesn’t automatically create better performance — and too often, it turns into surveillance instead. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study estimates that 80% of companies monitor remote or hybrid workers. This prevalence makes California’s recent rejection of an anti-surveillance bill more significant, as it transitions the discussion from monitoring’s legality to its effectiveness.Â
Is monitoring creating productive and engaged workers, or does it create a culture of fear that leaves employees rushing for the exit?
Visibility Looks Like Control
The real issue is visibility leaders choose to create.
There’s a difference between knowing whether work is progressing toward clear goals and monitoring every click along the way. One builds accountability, the other builds anxiety.
Leaders can do a visibility vs. control gut check by evaluating whether the company’s surveillance efforts and reasoning for those efforts cross any lines. Imagine an all-hands meeting where the CEO explains what the business is tracking or plans to track, why the monitoring is important to the business, and how it benefits employees. If the CEO cannot complete this talk credibly and convincingly, then employees will see it as intrusive monitoring instead of support, and they may seek workarounds instead of complying.
Activity vs. Impact
Workplace surveillance such as keyboard monitoring or cameras measures activity, not impact.Â
When employees know monitoring is in place, they adjust their workday to fit the tracking metrics. A recent survey about workplace monitoring trends and sentiment found 24% of employees report using tactics to fake productivity, including keeping apps open unnecessarily, scheduling emails to suggest constant activity, or using software like mouse jigglers that keep the mouse active and clicking while the worker is away.
The focus shifts from doing meaningful work to generating just enough activity to avoid scrutiny. They learn how to game the system with performative busyness instead of prioritizing the most important tasks and growing in their roles.
What high-performing organizations learn over time is that performance isn’t driven by observation — it’s driven by clarity and trust. It begs leadership to question whether surveillance is tied to measurable business outcomes that really matter, or if they are looking to punish employees for perceived inaction.
Addressing the Wrong Problem
Before implementing AI monitoring, leaders should consider what problems they are trying to fix.Â
For example, if there’s a communication gap between managers and employees, surveillance won’t fix it. If teams lack alignment, tracking software won’t create it. Monitoring activity may provide more data, but it doesn’t create clarity.Â
In many organizations, employees struggle not because they aren’t working hard enough, but because expectations aren’t clear. Goals are vague. Feedback is inconsistent. Check-ins are infrequent. When that happens, surveillance becomes a substitute for leadership.
Instead of addressing unclear priorities or weak management habits, monitoring shifts attention to employee behavior. The implication is that productivity is the issue, when the real problem is alignment, among other things.
Performance isn’t a function of hours logged or keystrokes captured. It’s driven by shared priorities, smart decisions, and ongoing dialogue. When surveillance becomes the strategy, it often signals dysfunction and not discipline.Â
Surveillance is a control mechanism while performance enablement creates a growth system.
Measure What Matters, Enable What Works
The more sustainable path is continuous performance management: a system built on aligned goals, regular check-ins, real-time feedback, and transparent progress. It replaces backward-looking evaluations with forward-looking conversations.Â
Instead of judging performance once a year, it enables performance every day.
Here are some of the things high-performing organizations do instead of monitoring effort:
- Align company and individual goals so every employee understands how their work ladders up to business priorities
- Make regular 1:1 check-ins the norm, creating space to remove roadblocks and recalibrate expectations in real time
- Track progress against outcomes, not hours or activity
- Capture feedback and recognition continuously, eliminating bias and the year-end memory test
- Use AI to augment conversations, surfacing insights and coaching managers — not monitoring employees
- Adapt goals as the business shifts, rather than locking them in for a year and hoping for the best
Leaders can collect more data about activity, but that rarely translates into better outcomes. What actually moves the needle is alignment on knowing what matters to the business, having regular conversations about progress, and building trust through transparency.
The organizations that outperform are the ones creating clarity through performance enablement and reinforcing it every day.
