The Economics of Time Theft: Productivity, Surveillance, and Remote Work

When you are at work, how often are you disengaged or focused on non-work tasks?  A tremendous debate has erupted in recent years regarding how much time it takes many white collar workers to do their jobs.  During the Covid pandemic in 2020, millions of white collar workers suddenly shifted to remote work during the mandatory lockdowns.  Although most discovered that they could indeed do their jobs remotely, companies have begun calling them back to the office.

Debate Over Remote Work Productivity

Many bosses have declared since the end of the Covid pandemic that remote work was not as productive as being in the office.  This has sparked heated debates, with lots of workers pushing back and arguing that they are more productive at home, with the need to embark on long and draining commutes.  Supporters of in-office work have since returned volley by stating that being in the same rooms with colleagues leads to better focus and collaboration.  

Defenders of Remote Work

Those who resist return-to-office mandates tend to say that too much energy is wasted on non-productive tasks when going to the office, ranging from commuting to water cooler chitchat.  Working from home, they insist, lets them direct more energy and focus toward the work itself, with fewer office distractions.  They also argue that, by being happier and more satisfied, enjoying a better work-life balance, they are more likely to be loyal employees who support their company.  This reduces turnover and the business costs of having to recruit and hire replacement employees.

Defenders of Returning to the Office

Fans of being in the office - usually managers and executives - directly rebut remote workers’ claims about fewer distractions at home and greater company loyalty.  They argue that energy, company culture, and collaboration are fostered by face-to-face interactions.  There are also questions about the quality of work generated by remote workers, especially post-Covid hires who were not already experienced at the job before going remote.

A Workaround?  Attempts to Monitor Remote Workers

It did not take long during the Covid lockdowns for stories to emerge about how little remote workers were actually working.  From blog posts to Tik Tok, stories ran wild about white collar workers finishing their daily tasks in minutes…with some even using their excessive “free time” to pick up additional full-time remote jobs.  This became known as overemployment, and allowed some remote workers to amass tremendous income.  Unhappy at potentially paying full-time salaries for remote workers only logging a couple of hours at the keyboard, many companies began using employee monitoring software.

Productivity-Tracking Software

If you are working on a company-supplied computer or on a company website, there is a good chance you are being monitored by some type of bossware - employee monitoring software.  While it is unlikely that many bosses are watching remote employees work all the time, this software tracks metrics like time logged in to various sites, numbers of work functions completed, and the pace of completing tasks, including keystrokes and mouse cursor movements.  The prevalence of remote worker monitoring is not fully known, but is assumed to be high.  Controversially, many remote workers do not know whether their daily work is being monitored, raising ethical questions.

Effects of Employee Monitoring on Productivity

The rise of bossware has sparked a new debate over the effects of such monitoring.  Do employees work more if they know, or assume, that they are being monitored in real time?  Electronic monitoring of employees has increased in all sectors, including in-office jobs and blue collar fields, thanks to cameras growing ever cheaper and more convenient.  Many businesses have cameras fully monitoring all workspace, and police officers and delivery drivers often have dash cams recording whenever their vehicle is on.  However, there are mixed reports on whether constant monitoring and surveillance of employees increases productivity in the long run.

Increasing Productivity

Some research does show a measurable boost in productivity when remote workers are monitored electronically through bossware.  When workers know that they could be monitored, they tend to procrastinate less.  If workers are not meeting expectations, they can be corrected and reminded to maintain good workflow.  This holds workers accountable and, ideally, prevents the need for future reprimands.

Productivity can also be improved by using employee monitoring to detect inefficiencies that are systematic and structural.  When workers appear to be struggling with a task, be it physical or digital, supervisors can take a look to see if the struggle is related to worker skill or poor design.  If the problem is poor design, the system or equipment can be improved to maximize efficiency.  If the problem is due to low worker skill, training can be provided.  Without employee monitoring, such inefficiencies may never be discovered, leading to reduced long run output.

Decreasing Productivity

However, too much employee monitoring can actually reduce productivity by around 10 percent.  If monitoring goes beyond holding workers accountable and checking for inefficiencies, employees can feel micromanaged or even infantilized.  As a result, they may feel that they are not valued as professionals and seek employment elsewhere.  There may be a relatively fine line between actively monitoring workers to hold them accountable and being seen as creepy or obsessive.

To avoid conflicts between workers and supervisors regarding this monitoring, work expectations and explanations of monitoring practices should be made proactively.  If workers are told up front that they will be monitored online, this is likely less upsetting than discovering bossware by happenstance.  Being open to discussing monitoring practices with workers can be seen as a sign of respect and professionalism.

The Trade-Off:  Combating Time Theft Versus Maintaining Employee Morale

In a large company with many remote workers, some will inevitably commit time theft by working less time than they should.  This raises a complicated debate over whether employers should care about time worked instead of output generated.  If an employee produces the output expected, does it matter whether it took four hours per day instead of the traditional eight?  Pay for performance, or by output, can incentivize high productivity but also be controversial if workers find it misleading.  For example, workers may become disillusioned if the employer demands unreasonable standards per unit of output completed.  Conversely, workers can abuse the pay for performance metric by churning out many low-quality units of output.

Paying a full salary even if workers are not working the whole time and showing trust toward employees’ professionalism can create employee loyalty, which reduces turnover.  In the long run, workers become more productive due to experience.  This natural increase in worker skill, coupled with less need to spend money on recruiting and onboarding replacement employees, may make up for any “time theft” that occurred.  Ultimately, the best strategy for businesses is likely to utilize some degree of bossware but tell employees about it up front, allowing for accountability to be upheld without coming across as invasive.