The rise of remote and hybrid work has brought productivity tracking into sharp focus. What was once limited to time-sheets and output reports has expanded into keystroke logging, screen monitoring and camera time tracking. Some organisations argue these tools provide necessary accountability in distributed work environments. Others warn they signal distrust, erode morale and ultimately push talent away.
The debate is no longer about whether data can be collected—technology makes that effortless. The real question is whether organisations should collect it, and if so, how they use it without destroying the very trust that makes high performance possible.
KT Rao, head – people & culture and communication, RHI Magnesita India
Yes, but only with transparency and employee involvement.
In a rapidly evolving business environment, the real question isn’t whether companies should track productivity—it’s how they involve and include employees in the process. Surveillance that hides behind keystroke loggers or silent cameras breeds suspicion and disengagement, while transparent systems that invite employees into conversation foster trust.
When employees help shape what is measured, understand why it matters and see how the data supports—not critiques—them, monitoring becomes a tool for empowerment rather than control. Involve and include is the key: accountability thrives when people feel respected, not watched.
As a truly global organisation, our workforce collaborates daily with cross-functional teams across multiple time zones, demonstrating agility and accountability. While we are a data-driven company that values measurable accountability, we also recognise that performance is driven by trust, collaboration, culture and the seamless combination of flexibility, global connectivity and responsibility. We continue to build an industry-ready workforce prepared to lead the challenges of tomorrow.
Takeaway: Productivity tracking works only when employees help shape what’s measured and understand how data supports—not critiques—them.
Sonia Kutty, senior vice president, people & culture, Quest Global
Metrics can inform, but trust must come first.
At Quest Global, we believe trust, transparency and respect for our people are non-negotiable. While productivity metrics can offer valuable insights, we believe data should be used to support our teams—highlighting areas for growth or helping us understand when someone might need extra support, not to monitor every move or create anxiety.
It’s important to focus on outcomes, innovation and how we solve challenges for our customers, rather than on tracking hours. When we use information responsibly and communicate openly about why and how it’s collected, we can empower our employees and build a culture where they feel valued and trusted.
High-performing teams are built on trust and partnership.
Takeaway: Use data to support teams and identify growth opportunities, not to monitor every move—high performance requires trust, not surveillance.
Ravi Mishra, Head-HR, BITS Pilani
No—surveillance measures compliance, not productivity.
Productivity is not the same as compliance. Surveillance cannot really measure true productivity. You need to rely on actual data for that. There is a difference between output and outcome.
Cameras can only measure action and compliance and to some extent the output. But organisations are unable to sustain this kind of measurement system because ultimately they need to know how good the quality and accuracy of the output is. In iPhone manufacturing, surveillance can record the number of units being produced but whether those are as per quality parameters, that cannot be gauged by surveillance.
Man and machine are different. Machines go by specifications but people go by sentiments, emotions and trust. The moment a machine is used to supervise somebody’s output or outcome, it erodes trust. People are smart when it comes to the number game. They become smarter when they know the company is tracking them for action and not output.
Best output comes only when someone owns the work. Today, more than physical wellbeing of employees, it is the mental wellbeing that is a challenge for organisations. It all starts with emotions and the strongest motivating point is trust. For human beings, trust is a basic instinct, and surveillance erodes that.
Increasing the number of police stations does not bring down the number of crimes. There are companies that do not believe in recording attendance. Unless employees themselves admit they are absent, they are considered to be present. Such an environment of trust has worked wonders for some organisations.
When compliance is imposed, there is pressure. Employees may be pressured to arrive at exactly 10 am and leave by 6:30 but that cannot ensure they put in their best during work hours. There is no guarantee that they will be creative or innovative.
Takeaway: Surveillance measures compliance, not creativity—best output comes from ownership and trust, not from cameras tracking actions.