The modern workplace has quietly entered an era of constant visibility. What began with attendance registers and periodic reviews has evolved into sophisticated digital systems capable of tracking keystrokes, screen time, active hours, online status and even camera presence. As hybrid and remote work become permanent realities, organisations are seeking greater visibility into how work gets done.
But every new productivity tool raises an uncomfortable question: are companies creating accountability, or slowly replacing trust with surveillance?
For some leaders, tracking systems offer clarity, consistency and better management of distributed teams. For others, constant monitoring risks creating anxiety, encouraging performative activity and reducing work to what can be measured on a dashboard. After all, productivity, especially in knowledge-driven roles, is not always visible through clicks and status indicators.
The challenge, therefore, is no longer whether organisations should measure productivity. It is whether they can do so without weakening trust, autonomy and psychological safety.
Salil Chinchore, Group Chief Human Resources Officer, Rustomjee
Measurement is necessary, but surveillance without trust becomes counterproductive.
Measuring productivity is not new. Organisations have been trying to improve efficiency for more than a century. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s time-and-motion studies laid the foundation for many modern productivity systems, and workplaces have continued refining those approaches ever since.
But productivity measurement has always been one of the most sensitive aspects of management. Employees often perceive observation as surveillance. Today, with AI reshaping workplaces and increasing anxiety around job security, those concerns have become even sharper. What organisations see as process optimisation can easily be interpreted by employees as a precursor to restructuring or workforce reduction.
Manufacturing offers an important lesson here. In well-run factories, productivity studies are rarely conducted in isolation. Employees are first informed about why the exercise is happening, how the findings will be used and what changes may follow. Concerns are discussed openly before implementation begins.
That transparency matters.
Because productivity improvement cannot succeed through measurement alone. Organisations must create trust around intent, process and outcomes. Without psychological safety, even well-intentioned systems can create fear, disengagement and eventually damage morale and employer brand.
In an increasingly AI-led future, how organisations measure people may become just as important as what they measure.
Takeaway: Productivity measurement is not the problem; the real risk emerges when organisations prioritise monitoring over transparency and trust.
Jaya Suri, Chief Human Resources Officer, Kimbal.io
No, organisations should focus on alignment and outcomes, not surveillance.
The conversation should not revolve around tracking employee activity. It should revolve around aligning employees with meaningful organisational goals.
In high-growth organisations, objectives need to stretch beyond routine metrics. Employees should understand not only their own goals, but also how their work connects to broader business priorities and interdependencies across teams.
One important distinction is that goal-setting and performance evaluation should not become identical exercises. When every target is directly tied to ratings or scrutiny, employees naturally become conservative. People stop taking ambitious bets because they fear the consequences of falling short.
That is why accountability must come from ownership, clarity and alignment rather than continuous monitoring.
When employees understand expectations and feel trusted to deliver outcomes, organisations can build high accountability without creating a culture of surveillance. The focus should shift from watching activity to enabling contribution and long-term growth.
Takeaway: Strong alignment and shared ownership create accountability far more effectively than constant observation.
Ramesh Shankar, Senior HR Leader
No, excessive monitoring often creates more distrust than discipline.
Organisations sometimes overreact to concerns around productivity. In reality, only a small percentage of employees misuse flexibility. Building rigid monitoring systems around exceptions can end up damaging the larger culture.
The better approach is to create clarity around goals, timelines and expectations.
If an assignment should ideally be completed within two days, communicate that clearly. If a sales or marketing employee needs to gather customer feedback, define measurable targets and review outcomes periodically. Every role can be evaluated through parameters such as quality, timelines, effectiveness and cost.
Accountability does not require constant surveillance. It requires clarity, regular reviews and mutual trust.
Because once organisations begin operating from suspicion, employees eventually start distrusting the organisation too. And rebuilding trust is always harder than maintaining it.
Takeaway: Clear goals, defined expectations and periodic reviews create stronger accountability than constant monitoring ever can.