Using surveillance software may deliver short-term gains, but it will cost employers in the end, writes Paul Armstrong
As dystopias go, the workplace surveillance economy is right up there. Advanced monitoring tools, from keystroke trackers to AI-powered webcams, are no longer just pandemic stopgaps; they are reshaping workplaces into data-driven dystopias. The goal? Mega efficiency. The reality? A trail of distrust and employees pushed to limits in the pursuit of the almighty profit. ‘Tis the season for metrics over morale.
With the global market for employee monitoring tools projected to reach $7.2bn by the end of 2028, companies like Hubstaff and Teramind aim to boost productivity by tracking everything from mouse movements to real-time facial expressions. Sneek even snaps webcam photos throughout the day, promoting “remote collaboration”. Others report wifi taps and ‘fatigue monitoring’. Construction workers and supermarket workers are being asked to use biometric sign-in, GPS and handheld devices to track (and gamify) movements. For leaders addicted to surveillance, these tools are more than tempting – they’re irresistible. But does efficiency come at too high a cost?
Poor performance or poor leadership?
Surveillance software (aka ‘bossware’) doesn’t just track employees; it exposes organisations. A study by Activtrak revealed nearly 50 per cent of employees monitored by these tools reported increased anxiety, while 43 per cent said morale suffered. Meanwhile, companies employing invasive monitoring report turnover rates 25 per cent higher than industry averages. These figures aren’t anomalies – they’re warning signs.
Is the real problem poor performance or poor leadership? Companies leaning on invasive tools reveal an inability to set clear objectives or foster trust. The mirror surveillance provides is a harsh one, reflecting cultures where employees are treated as resources to be optimised, not assets to be nurtured. It’s an approach that highlights a patriarchal mindset, where control and compliance take precedence over empowerment and collaboration, stifling innovation and eroding employee morale. Beyond this, overbearing surveillance can damage trust, cause stress and actually reduce productivity.
Surveillance taps into the same dopamine-driven mechanisms as social media. Managers obsess over metrics like keystrokes, mistaking activity for achievement. Such gamification of productivity undermines autonomy, creativity and innovation. The result? A shallow, performative workplace masquerading as high efficiency that encourages staff to betray the business.
The cost to trust
The real casualty is trust. What does it say when a company feels the need to monitor every keystroke or gaze? It suggests employees are unworthy of autonomy—a conclusion that erodes the very engagement and loyalty leaders claim to seek.
It’s not just about technology; it’s about culture. It’s about what you believe good business looks like. Surveillance tools reflect back deeper organisational insecurities. Do leaders trust their teams to work without constant oversight? Or are they more focused on micromanaging than empowering? Moreover, are they willing to really fix problems rather than monitor them?
A rebellion is brewing. Entire markets exist for anti-surveillance tools like mouse jigglers and webcam covers. Gen Z are recording bad behaviours, Glassdoor’s traffic is up, and return-to-office policies are starting to feel a bit desperate. Amazon is selling mouse jigglers in droves, signalling growing resistance from workers tired of being watched. Don’t make your workers work against you.
Treating people like machines may deliver short-term gains, but it erodes trust, morale, loyalty and costs you in the end
This backlash reflects more than discomfort; it’s a warning. A culture of surveillance can lead to a cycle of disengagement and attrition. Research shows that employees who feel monitored are more likely to experience burnout, and 78 per cent of those working under heavy surveillance report feeling less engaged with their roles. Aside from that, the costs to hire well are going up.
Leaders who want to leave a legacy should take note: the same technology they use to monitor can also empower. AI and analytics can be redirected to identify bottlenecks in systems, not people. Refocusing on this area improves processes instead of scrutinising individuals, a subtle but crucial reframing.
Some companies are already pushing back against the tide. Patagonia, for instance, has rejected invasive monitoring tools entirely, doubling down on its commitment to trust and employee autonomy. The result? Higher retention rates, happiness, increased productivity and a reputation as a global thought leader who shuns norms.
But others remain open (or openly addicted) to surveillance, gambling on short-term efficiency gains at the expense of long-term loyalty – a dangerous strategy. The more organisations rely on tracking, the more they risk alienating their workforce, fostering resentment instead of respect. Ultimately they offer reasons for their people to leave rather than stay.
What surveillance says about employers
Surveillance technology forces organisations to confront an uncomfortable truth: what kind of workplaces are we building? In a capitalist world under constant economic pressure, efficiency is essential – but grinding people down in cubicles or at home is a choice, not a necessity. A choice that isn’t likely to change without drastic measures per the Leesman Index Office Survey. “Return-to-office (RTO) has plateaued, on average, globally, and employee behaviours do not seem to be shifting in either direction,” says Leesman managing director Kyle de Bruin. “The trust that was granted [during the pandemic] being retracted is adding fuel to the fire on RTO.”
The “surveillance economy” highlights a leadership failure. Treating people like machines may deliver short-term gains, but it erodes trust, morale, loyalty and costs you in the end. ‘Discretionary effort’ – that elusive give-a-damn factor so many organisations long for – cannot be demanded or tracked into existence. It’s earned through respect, autonomy, and a willingness to value people as human beings.
Leaders have a choice. Poor leaders will cling to invasive tools, alienating their workforce and sowing resentment. They’ll excuse it as the price of survival in tough times. But good leaders will confront the root causes, embrace transparency and prioritise worker empowerment. Uncertainty, making people sick, unhappy and tempting absenteeism isn’t just a short-sighted strategy that only tightens the noose on long-term success, it’s a reflection of who you have leading the organisation.
Workplaces reflect the priorities of those who shape them. Surveillance can either reinforce toxic cultures or inspire meaningful change. Technology isn’t inherently dystopian. Used wisely, it can foster collaboration, streamline workflows and build resilience. Used irresponsibly, it becomes a weapon for self-sabotage – eroding trust and dismantling the foundations of a healthy, productive workplace. Take the quieter weeks ahead to really review and reflect on how you’re getting the best into, and out of, your people.
Paul Armstrong is founder of TBD Group and author of Disruptive Technologies