Some companies today can find out how many hours an employee spends at a computer, how long it takes them to complete a task, and even their error rate at work. At the click of a button, managers can view detailed data that was not so readily available to them in the past.

But having this information raises an important question: Does the ability to monitor employees mean an organization is better able to understand their productivity?

When Work Is Under Surveillance

In the Human Resources Management course at Al Yamamah University, the course material presented by @Dr. Prasad Varanasi explores the concept of Electronic Performance Monitoring (EPM). These systems use computer and network technologies to track aspects of employees’ work, such as the speed and accuracy of their performance and the time spent on tasks.

The material notes that these systems can help improve productivity, but may also be associated with higher levels of stress among employees.

Suppose a Saudi customer service company uses a system that measures the number of calls each employee handles and their average duration. This data may help management identify delays and improve the distribution of work, but it does not necessarily reveal the quality of the solutions provided to customers.

An employee who handles twenty calls quickly may appear more productive than a colleague who handled fifteen, even though the latter may have dealt with more complex issues and resolved them without the need for follow-up calls.

This is where the difference between measuring activity and measuring the actual value of work becomes clear.

Does Monitoring Become Pressure?

Digital monitoring gives organizations information to help them oversee operations, but it can also change employees’ behavior when they feel that every minute of their day is being recorded and analyzed.

Employees may focus on improving the metrics tracked by the system, even when those metrics are not the best measure of their work quality. They may also hesitate to spend time helping a colleague or addressing a complex problem if doing so could negatively affect their productivity figures.

These possibilities illustrate the limitations of relying on data; they are not inevitable outcomes of every monitoring system.

The problem is not the use of technology itself, but how the information it produces is interpreted. Measuring how quickly a task is completed may be appropriate for repetitive work, but it is less suited to roles that rely on analysis, creativity, and decision-making.

Organizations therefore need to distinguish between metrics that reflect work outcomes and those that merely track activity, while taking into account the impact of continuous monitoring on employees.

Technology may tell a manager what an employee does during working hours, but it cannot always explain the value of what they accomplish.

Ultimately, an organization’s ability to monitor its employees does not necessarily make it more productive, because what can be measured electronically is not always everything worth measuring.