Case-in-Point: Productivity vs Privacy

Company: Synapse Digital (fictitious), a fast-growing IT services company with 3,500 employees operating in a hybrid work model.

Background:
Something is slipping. Since Synapse Digital shifted to hybrid work two years ago, the numbers have started to tell an uncomfortable story. Ticket resolution times are slower. Fewer lines of code are being shipped. Deliverables are arriving late—not catastrophically so, but consistently enough to worry the CTO and CFO.

The productivity dip hovers between 5-7 per cent. Not a crisis. But enough to spark a question that now dominates leadership meetings: Are people actually working?

The Proposal:
The CTO has a solution. Deploy an AI-based monitoring system across all remote and hybrid employees. The tool would track:

• Keystrokes and mouse activity
• Screen time and application usage
• Periodic webcam snapshots every 10 minutes to verify presence
• Meeting attendance and engagement scores

Some senior managers are supportive. “What gets measured gets done,” they argue. “If people are working, they have nothing to hide.”

To them, this is not surveillance. It is accountability.

The Pushback:
HR conducted employee focus groups. The reaction was swift and emotional.

“This feels like we’re criminals being watched.”

“You hired us as professionals. Now you want to treat us like children?”

“I’ll start looking for another job the day this is implemented.”

Younger employees, especially in tech roles, are particularly vocal. They value autonomy and trust. To them, webcam snapshots every 10 minutes are not productivity tools—they are violations.

HR’s internal pulse survey reveals something more alarming: 40 per cent of employees would “seriously consider leaving” if monitoring is implemented. Attrition is already at 22 per cent annually. Losing another wave of talent could cripple project delivery.

The Dilemma:
Should HR endorse digital monitoring to address the productivity dip and satisfy leadership’s demand for visibility? Or reject it to protect employee trust, privacy, and retention—risking further performance decline and losing credibility with the executive team?

What’s really at stake:
This is not a debate about software. It is a referendum on what kind of workplace Synapse Digital wants to be—one built on control, or one built on trust. Once you implement surveillance, you cannot unwind it. The relationship changes permanently.

And if 40 per cent of your workforce walks out the door, the 5-7 per cent productivity gap will seem quaint.

What HR leaders said:

Ravi Kumar, G-CHRO, Puravankara

“Monitoring tools are becoming common, but they rarely improve productivity in any meaningful way. Instead, they create anxiety and distrust. Worse, they are easy to game. People learn to simulate keystrokes or keep screens active while doing nothing. You end up measuring activity, not output.

Performance should be measured through outcomes, not surveillance. Set clear goals—annually, monthly, weekly. Align individual objectives with organisational priorities. Then ask a simple question: are milestones being met?

If someone completes their work efficiently in four hours, does it matter if they were not at their desk for eight? A milestone-driven approach identifies performance gaps early and allows for course correction—without invading privacy.

Technology should assist in goal tracking, not human tracking. If the CTO is worried about productivity, the answer is not more cameras. It is clearer expectations.”

Atul Mathur, EVP & Head – L&D, Aditya Birla Group

“The key to productivity in hybrid work is not surveillance—it is connection.

When people work remotely, they can feel disconnected from the organisation. They lose the informal conversations, the sense of belonging, the emotional ties that make work meaningful. The real question HR must ask is: do employees feel included, trusted, and part of something larger?

No one likes being watched. Productivity is not about hours logged. It is about the quality of work delivered and the discretionary effort people choose to give.

HR’s role is to foster engagement—through virtual interactions, team activities, even involving families in the organisational culture. When employees feel valued and empowered, they go the extra mile. Surveillance, on the other hand, creates pressure and fear. And fear never inspires great work.

Build belonging, not monitoring systems. That is how you unlock productivity.”

Biren Anshu, CHRO, Hi-Tech Robotic Systemz

“The organisation needs accountability. Employees demand autonomy. Digital monitoring in isolation is a flawed solution—but structured visibility into work progress can help teams stay aligned, especially in large, distributed setups.

The key is transparency and consent. Before any tool is introduced, employees must understand why it is being implemented, what data will be tracked, and how it will be used. When people see monitoring as a means of improving collaboration rather than policing behaviour, resistance drops significantly.

Shift from activity monitoring to output dashboards. Let teams voluntarily update their progress and challenges. Such systems build accountability while fostering ownership and self-discipline. Trust and transparency can coexist—and when they do, productivity follows naturally.

HR’s role is to bridge the gap. Leadership needs assurance about business outcomes. Employees need to feel respected and informed. Balancing data-driven visibility with empathy-driven culture is what defines a sustainable approach to hybrid productivity.

“This is not about choosing sides. It is about designing systems where both trust and accountability thrive.”

Your Turn: What would you do? Share your response in the comment box or share on LinkedIn with #HRKathaCaseInPoint