When leaders roll out workplace monitoring software, it’s usually framed as a productivity move.
“We just want visibility.”
“We need to manage capacity.”
“We’re trying to understand workflow.”
Reasonable goals. Wrong tool.
Because the moment you start measuring activity, time in apps, time in meetings, time in chat, you don’t just observe behaviour. You change it. And what you change it into is rarely what you actually want.
The core mistake: confusing motion with value
In knowledge work, the most valuable work often looks like “nothing” from the outside.
- Thinking through a messy problem
- Reading and synthesizing
- Writing a plan that prevents rework
- Having a hard conversation that clears a blockage
- Pairing with someone to prevent a defect you’ll never see
Monitoring tools don’t see that. They see clicks, windows, and minutes.
So if the scoreboard is “minutes in the right places,” people will naturally start playing to the scoreboard. Not because they’re dishonest, but because they’re adapting to the system you created.
You’ll get:
- More meetings (because meetings are visible)
- More chat activity (because it’s trackable)
- More “checking in” (because silence looks risky)
- Less deep work (because deep work looks like absence)
That’s not productivity. That’s theatre-by-metrics. (And yes, I hate that phrase too, but you get the idea.)
Monitoring creates a new job: looking compliant
Once surveillance enters the room, employees inherit a second job: managing perception.
Even in healthy cultures, people start asking:
- “What does this data imply about me?”
- “Who’s interpreting it?”
- “Will it be used against me later?”
- “What happens if I’m an outlier?”
And when people don’t know the answers, they default to safety.
Safety looks like:
- Being constantly “available”
- Avoiding experiments that might dip output short-term
- Choosing easy work over important work
- Escalating less (because escalation creates a trail)
- Telling you what you want to hear
So the monitoring tool doesn’t just measure productivity. It reshapes the risk landscape. And that risk landscape pushes people away from the very behaviours that create high performance: honesty, learning, and smart trade-offs.
The signal-to-noise problem nobody talks about
Even if leaders have good intentions, monitoring creates a data problem.
You get a flood of numbers that feel objective but are deeply context-dependent:
- A role that requires collaboration will “look” productive
- A role that requires deep thinking will “look” unproductive
- A team with unclear priorities will “look” busy
- A team doing prevention work will “look” slow
So leaders end up doing one of two things:
- Over-trusting the data and making bad decisions with confidence, or
- Ignoring the data because it’s messy, after damaging trust anyway
Either way, you don’t get what you came for.
The better approach: measure the system, not the person
If what you want is better throughput, delivery, service, and outcomes, start with the system.
Here are five moves that outperform surveillance almost every time:
- Define “productive” in outcomes, not hours Pick a small set of outcome measures that match the work (quality, cycle time, customer impact, rework, incident rates, etc.).
- Make decision rules explicit Most “productivity issues” are actually decision bottlenecks: unclear priorities, slow approvals, constant context switching.
- Measure flow Work item age, queue size, handoffs, rework loops, meeting load. That’s where the drag lives.
- Reduce meeting load before you track meeting time If meetings are out of control, tracking them won’t fix them. Redesign how decisions get made.
- Create psychological safety around reality If people can’t say “this process is broken” without consequences, you’ll never get the truth you need to improve.
The uncomfortable truth
Surveillance is often a symptom of something else: leaders don’t trust the system, and they don’t trust what they can’t see.
But high-performing organizations aren’t built on visibility. They’re built on:
- Clarity
- Decision speed
- Good constraints
- Honest feedback loops
- Leaders who can handle reality without punishing the messenger
If you want productivity, don’t start by tracking people.
Start by fixing the conditions that make good work possible.
If you're trying to build agility without wearing your people down, book a focused call: https://meetings.hubspot.com/jberriault Bring one team that looks "fine" from the outside but feels stretched underneath. We'll look at what's contributing to the strain- system, behaviour, or both- and find the first change that helps people breathe, speak honestly, and work in a healthier way. What's the earliest sign you notice when a team is starting to burn out?
Sources: