Should we monitor employee productivity?
Question
Should we monitor employee productivity?
Activity-tracking software — keystroke and mouse logging, app and website monitoring, periodic screenshots, "active time" and idle-time scores — went from niche to default the moment large parts of the workforce went remote. Buying something is the easy call; the hard call is what you actually point it at. There is a world of difference between monitoring outputs (did the work get done, to standard, on time) and monitoring activity (was the cursor moving, was the app open, how many keys were pressed).
This brief is for leaders deciding whether to put their people under activity surveillance — and, if some monitoring is unavoidable, how to do it without buying a trust problem that costs more than the productivity it was meant to protect. The real decision is trust versus surveillance, and the evidence on which one actually raises productivity is clearer than most vendor decks admit.
Evidence
These findings frame the decision. The headline is that the case for activity monitoring as a productivity lever is weak, and the case for its side-effects is strong.
The largest evidence base finds no proof that monitoring raises performance — but a reliable link to stress. A 2023 meta-analysis of electronic performance monitoring (Ravid and colleagues, Personnel Psychology) pooled dozens of independent samples and tens of thousands of workers. Its headline result is blunt: it found no evidence that electronic performance monitoring improves worker performance, while the presence of monitoring was associated with increased worker stress regardless of how it was done — though organisations that monitored more transparently and less invasively saw less negative attitudes. This is a cite-only source (paywalled journal), but the result is the single most important fact on this page: the productivity premise behind most monitoring purchases is not supported by the best available synthesis.
Monitoring can make people more likely to break the rules, not fewer. The intuition behind surveillance is deterrence. Controlled research points the other way: in experimental studies, employees who believed they were being monitored were more likely to cheat, take shortcuts, and break rules than those who didn't — because monitoring strips their sense of agency and lets them morally disengage ("I'm being watched, so it's the system's responsibility, not mine"). This finding (Thiel, Bonner and colleagues, reported by Harvard Business Review, 2022) is a cite-only source, but it reframes the entire deterrence argument: surveillance can manufacture the very behaviour it was bought to prevent.
Surveillance signals distrust — and distrust is itself a productivity and retention cost. Reviewing the surge in monitoring during lockdown, three Victoria University of Wellington academics writing in The Conversation note plainly that "mistrust undermines productivity", and that as monitoring rises "stress and sick days increase, morale drops and staff turnover rises." They document the demand spike directly — one vendor, Hubstaff, "boasted a three-fold increase in New Zealand sales during the first month of lockdown alone." The mechanism matters: surveillance is, by definition, a withdrawal of trust, and withdrawn trust shows up on the cost side of the ledger.
On whether tracking actually makes people more productive, the research is genuinely mixed — and that itself is the finding. Melissa Wheeler of RMIT University, writing in The Conversation (2024), summarises a 2023 systematic review of 57 empirical studies: results were mixed — some workers, knowing they were watched, were motivated to perform; others "performed poorly, perhaps in retaliation." She adds that "excessive scrutiny creates psychological discomfort, inhibiting risk-taking and experimentation — essential building blocks for creativity and innovation." When the best review of the field can't show a consistent positive effect, "it boosts productivity" is not a claim a leader can lean on.
The one place monitoring shows positive effects is narrow and conditional: developmental, transparent, output-linked. It would be dishonest to say monitoring never helps. A 2025 study in Behavioral Sciences (Zhang, Sun & Jin, CC BY), a two-wave survey of 223 employees in China's fintech sector, found that both developmental and preventive electronic performance monitoring positively affected job performance, with self-efficacy as a partial mediator — i.e. monitoring framed as helping people improve (feedback, capability) can land positively, partly by building confidence. Read the caveats honestly: it is self-reported, single-industry, single-country, and the positive cases are exactly the developmental, transparent end of the spectrum — not covert keystroke surveillance. It sharpens, rather than overturns, the verdict: how and why you monitor decides whether it helps or harms.
Disagreement
| View | The claim | Where it holds — and breaks |
|---|---|---|
| "You can't manage what you don't measure" | Activity monitoring gives managers visibility, deters slacking, and protects productivity — especially with remote teams. | Holds for outputs and for transparent, developmental feedback, where there's real (if modest) positive evidence. Breaks for activity surveillance: the largest meta-analysis finds no performance gain, monitoring reliably raises stress, and experiments show it can increase rule-breaking. It measures motion, not contribution. |
| "Surveillance is always corrosive" | Monitoring is a trust violation that damages morale and should be avoided. | Holds as a default and for covert/invasive tracking — distrust is a genuine cost. But it overcorrects: some monitoring is lawful and necessary (security, regulated industries, safety), and transparent, minimal, output-focused monitoring is far less harmful than the covert kind. The harm is in the design, not the existence. |
The real split isn't monitor vs. don't monitor. It's that two very different practices share one word: monitoring outputs (results, quality, deadlines — what good management already does) versus monitoring activity (keystrokes, screenshots, "active minutes" — a proxy for work that often punishes the wrong things). Treat them as the same decision and you'll buy expensive surveillance to solve a problem that better-defined outcomes would solve for free.
Peoplense Verdict
Don't buy activity surveillance to fix a productivity problem you haven't defined. Measure outcomes; monitor minimally, transparently, and developmentally — or not at all.
- What to rely on: the strongest, best-synthesised evidence — that activity monitoring shows no reliable performance gain and a reliable rise in stress, and can backfire into more rule-breaking. Where monitoring does help, it's the transparent, developmental, output-linked kind. Anchor the decision there.
- What to avoid: covert tracking, keystroke/screenshot surveillance, and "active time" scores used as performance proxies or for discipline. They erode trust and moral agency, raise turnover and sick days, and chill the experimentation that creates real value — for a productivity benefit the evidence does not support.
- The point that matters: monitoring is a trust decision before it is a tech decision. If you can define and measure outputs, you rarely need to surveil activity. If you genuinely must monitor (security, compliance, safety), the evidence says do it openly, narrowly, and with the data visible to the person it's about — that's the version that doesn't poison the well.
What to do today
- Define the actual problem in one sentence before evaluating any tool. "We can't tell if remote staff are working" is not a productivity problem — it's a measurement problem. Write down the specific output you can't currently see (missed deadlines? quality slips? uneven workload?). If you can't name it, you don't have a monitoring problem; you have a goal-clarity problem.
- Audit what you already track — most teams surveil more than they realise. List every tool that captures activity data: VPN/login times, Teams/Slack "active" status, badge swipes, MDM on laptops, productivity dashboards bundled into your HRIS. Vendors quietly ship monitoring features in updates. Decide deliberately what stays on.
- Move one team from activity metrics to output metrics this quarter. Replace "hours active / keystrokes / screenshots" with 3–5 concrete deliverables and a quality bar. Discretionary effort follows clear, valued, going-somewhere work — not surveillance. Compare results after a quarter.
- If you must monitor, write the one-page rule first — and make it transparent. State what is collected, why, who sees it, how long it's kept, and that it will never be covert. Give employees access to their own data. The meta-analytic evidence is explicit that transparent, less invasive monitoring produces less harm than the covert kind — transparency is the single biggest lever you control.
- Never make "active time" a performance or discipline metric. This is the highest-risk move and the one with the weakest evidence behind it. Judge people on outcomes and contribution. If presence genuinely matters (coverage, safety), measure that directly and openly — don't proxy it through surveillance.
GCC Relevance
For Gulf leaders, the question is not only "does it work?" but "is it lawful, and how will it land in this workplace?" Two of those have a real regional dimension.
Saudi Arabia's PDPL makes employee monitoring a data-protection decision, not just a procurement one. The Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL), in force since 2023 and enforced from 2024 under SDAIA, applies squarely to workplace surveillance — CCTV, biometric entry, email and productivity monitoring all fall within scope. Two constraints bite hardest:
- Sensitive and biometric data carry the highest bar. Biometric data (used in many "presence" and access-monitoring systems) is treated as sensitive and generally requires explicit consent or a specific statutory basis, plus enhanced safeguards. A camera- or biometric-based monitoring tool is a legal-review question before it is an IT one.
- Consent in an employment relationship is shaky ground. As with GDPR — the framework PDPL most resembles — consent given by an employee whose job depends on it is not freely given, so relying on a signed consent form to justify intrusive monitoring is legally fragile. This is the same caution this platform flagged for AI in performance reviews. Cross-border transfer adds a second layer: most monitoring vendors host data outside the Kingdom, which triggers SDAIA authorisation and risk-assessment requirements. (PDPL's cross-border framework is still maturing — treat specifics as a live legal-review item, not settled rule.)
Regional remote and hybrid growth is what's driving the buying pressure — exactly where the evidence is weakest. The surge in monitoring globally tracked the shift to remote work, and the Gulf's flexible-work expansion (see our Saudi flexible-work policy template) creates the same vendor pressure here. The honest caution: the urge to "see" remote staff is strongest precisely where activity surveillance performs worst.
Honest scope on culture: the core empirical evidence on monitoring is not Gulf-specific — the meta-analysis and experiments are largely US/European, and the one positive study is from China. We have no published Gulf-specific monitoring research to cite. Two informed hypotheses, labelled as such: in the Gulf's more hierarchical, high-power-distance workplaces, employees may be less likely to push back openly against intrusive monitoring — which means the trust damage is quieter, not absent, and harder to detect through normal feedback. And monitoring built on relationship-blind activity metrics may sit awkwardly with workplaces where trust is heavily relational. Diagnose locally before assuming the Western findings transfer cleanly.
Sources
Library sources (open-licensed — verified in the Peoplense library):
- Hooper, Anderson & Blumenfeld (2020), A question of trust: should bosses be able to spy on workers, even when they work from home?, The Conversation — original. Licence: CC BY-ND 4.0 (The Conversation's standard republishing licence). Supports: "mistrust undermines productivity"; monitoring → "stress and sick days increase, morale drops and staff turnover rises"; Hubstaff's three-fold lockdown sales jump.
- Wheeler (2024), Does tracking your employees actually make them more productive?, The Conversation — original. Licence: CC BY-ND 4.0. Supports: 2023 review of 57 studies found mixed effects (some motivated, some "performed poorly, perhaps in retaliation"); "excessive scrutiny … inhibiting risk-taking and experimentation."
- Zhang, Sun & Jin (2025), Effect of Electronic Performance Monitoring on Employees' Job Performance: A Social Information Processing Perspective, Behavioral Sciences (MDPI), 15(3):256 — original. Licence: CC BY 4.0 (verified on page). Supports: two-wave survey of 223 fintech employees; developmental and preventive monitoring positively affected performance via self-efficacy — the narrow, transparent, conditional case.
Cited findings & further reading (named and linked, not republished):
- Ravid, White, Tomczak, Miles & Behrend (2023), A meta-analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes, Personnel Psychology — article. The strongest synthesis to date: no evidence EPM improves performance; monitoring associated with increased stress regardless of design; transparent, less-invasive monitoring yields less negative attitudes. Cite-only (paywalled; abstract findings only — not reproduced).
- Thiel, Bonner, Bush, Welsh & Garud (2022), Monitoring Employees Makes Them More Likely to Break Rules, Harvard Business Review — article. Experimental evidence that monitored employees were more likely to cheat/break rules, via moral disengagement. Cite-only.
- American Psychological Association (2023), Work in America Survey — APA summary. Monitored workers reported worse psychological outcomes than non-monitored (e.g. 56% felt tense/stressed vs. 40%). Cite-only (survey, not republished).
- Saudi Data & AI Authority (SDAIA), Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) and Implementing Regulations — official Saudi data-protection framework governing employee/biometric data and cross-border transfer. Referenced for the GCC legal dimension; verify current text and cross-border rules with counsel.
Validation note (admin draft): the three library sources were fetched and licence-verified on 2026-06-19 — The Conversation = CC BY-ND 4.0 (confirmed via the publisher's official republishing guidelines; the per-article licence widget is JS-injected and absent from static HTML, so it does not appear in a raw-HTML grep — this is expected for The Conversation and consistent with prior briefs); the Behavioral Sciences article carries an inline CC BY 4.0 statement. The two strongest empirical claims (no meta-analytic performance gain; monitoring increases rule-breaking) rest on paywalled journals/HBR and are therefore presented as named, linked cited findings, not as CC library sources and not republished. No statistic, study, author, or source on this page is unverified or invented.
Before flipping this brief to public: add the Arabic sibling should-we-monitor-employee-productivity.ar.md, obtain founder sign-off, and confirm the live PDPL cross-border specifics (still maturing) with the source-permissions register / counsel. The ≥3 LIBRARY-source bar is met (2 CC BY-ND + 1 CC BY, all verified 2026-06-19).
Get the Monday Brief
Evidence-based people development research, summarized weekly. Free. No ads. Every article links to its source.
Email used only to deliver the brief. Unsubscribe anytime.
Want to join the editorial team?
We're building this slowly, with people-development practitioners across the GCC. If you'd like to help shape what gets published, tell us about yourself.
Tell us about yourself