The use of technology in workplaces often presents both opportunities mixed with challenges for workers.
An example includes a teacher in Nairobi at an elite private school that recently experienced stress after being placed under continuous electronic monitoring during her remote teaching sessions.
She noticed that even though she had not received negative feedback directly from the principal or the head teacher, the knowledge that her every move was tracked altered her teaching style. She replaced her creativity with caution, as she focused more on avoiding errors than engaging her students.
A similar experience occurred with a young lawyer in Kisumu in a regional office of a major law firm. His firm’s new electronic monitoring system tracked how he spent every minute of his workday. While initially it helped him manage time, over longer stretches, he felt increasingly stressed and untrusted.
Such cases demonstrate how workplace monitoring, though implemented with good corporate intentions aimed at improving efficiency, can instead affect workers in unintended ways.
New research by Rudolf Siegel, Cornelius König, and Veronika Lazar explains how monitoring affects employees.
Their study of electronic monitoring systems or electronic performance monitoring (EPM) in organisations found that while intended to increase productivity, these systems frequently resulted in staggeringly higher levels of stress and significantly lower job satisfaction among workers.
Workers subjected to intense monitoring reported feeling micromanaged and unable to trust their supervisors.
The findings suggest that entities must carefully consider the unintended psychological consequences of such systems.
The systems, when overused, can lead to a work environment where employees feel watched rather than supported, which negatively affects their overall productivity and mental well-being across a myriad of indicators.
A second new study, conducted by Daniel Ravid, Jerod White, David Tomczak, Ahleah Miles, and Tara Behrend, expands on the conversation by exploring EPM across various work contexts.
The meta-analysis, which included over 23,000 participants, revealed absolutely no evidence that EPM improves work outcomes. Instead, the research found that monitoring increased stress levels for workers, regardless of how transparent or invasive the monitoring process was.
The study highlights a critical aspect for employers; that transparency and reduced invasiveness in monitoring can lead to more positive attitudes from employees. Yet, even under the best conditions, the negative psychological effects of EPM remain concerning, raising important questions about how technology reshapes workplace dynamics.
Given findings from the two new research studies, it becomes important for firms to approach monitoring with caution. Employers must consider alternatives to continuous or invasive monitoring, focusing instead on creating trust-based environments.
Trust building involves clearly communicating the purpose of monitoring and ensuring that employees feel supported rather than scrutinised. The studies emphasise that the human aspect of work remains crucial. Employers need to find ways to support their teams, using technology to enhance performance without harming the mental well-being of employees.
On the other hand, in situations where employees find themselves under electronic monitoring, there are actually several steps they can take to protect their own well-being.
First, engage in open communication with management about the purpose and scope of EPM. Employees should request clarity on what precisely gets tracked, how the data will be used, and what protections are in place for personal privacy.
By understanding the reasons behind monitoring and the specific goals that the organisation aims to achieve, employees may reduce feelings of uncertainty and regain some control over their work environment.
Additionally, workers should advocate for transparency and fairness in how monitoring gets implemented. Everyone hates opaque work situations. If the monitoring feels intrusive or unfair, employees can voice their concerns collectively through employee groups, unions, or internal human resources channels enmasse.
Building a dialogue around the psychological effects of EPM can lead to better adjustments in monitoring practices and promote a healthier work culture.
Moreover, employees can adopt personal strategies to minimise the impact of monitoring on their individualised mental health. Taking regular breaks, engaging in stress-relief techniques such as mindfulness or breathing exercises, and creating clear boundaries between work and personal time can help reduce the pressure associated with being constantly monitored.
Employees should also focus on maintaining open lines of communication with colleagues and supervisors.
Establishing trust and reinforcing professional relationships can reduce feelings of isolation that often accompany monitored environments. Participating in company wellness programmes, if available, or suggesting the introduction of such programs, can provide additional resources for managing stress.
Additionally, staff can start building social capital through networking in order to find other jobs in better firms that do not obsess about senseless EPM.
In summary, organisations can implement measures such as reducing the duration or frequency of monitoring, offering workers periods free from tracking during the day, and involving employees in discussions about how monitoring will be used.
By balancing the need for productivity with respect for personal autonomy, companies can build more productive, satisfied, and less stressed teams.
