Shift From Monitoring People To Monitoring Process Bottlenecks
Adithyan RK, CEO of Hyring, a key voice in the Agentic AI revolution, driving digital transformation for nearly two decades.
gettyWhen running a company, whether a startup or an enterprise, keeping its components running smoothly and cohesively can be a real challenge. There is a thin line between observing the process and progress and micromanaging employees in it. The pace of the company as a whole is more crucial than the individuals that are employed in it. Employees also need a destination and boundaries to run their fair share of the race, but giving them the time and space is also crucial.
From the vantage point of an employer, the race can sometimes seem like a slow walk, where the employees take it easy. Microsoft researchers coined a name for that perception, and it is called “productivity paranoia.”
A widely cited SHRM report on the phenomenon found that more than three-quarters of leaders surveyed doubted whether their remote or hybrid teams were actually getting any work done, even as the employees themselves reported otherwise. It’s not a one-off situation but the default setting for a lot of company management. And it tends to get worse the less visibility a leader has into what’s actually happening day to day.
According to SHRM, John Arendes, now CEO of Traliant, previously served as vice president of a global learning company where the CEO questioned whether remote employees were productive. When the company shifted to fully remote work during the pandemic, leaders saw a 37% increase in productivity based on key metrics, including course development, product development and sales. The experience highlighted the value of using measurable outcomes rather than preconceived assumptions to evaluate employee productivity.
However, for the business to function well, observation becomes important. The areas where the employees are lacking and overburdened can be examined through observation without necessarily monitoring them.
The evidence backs this up: A CMI survey shared with the Guardian in 2025 found that a third of U.K. employers are now using so-called “bossware” to track staff. This ranges from email monitoring to keystroke logging. Even among the managers running these systems, 42% opposed the practice themselves, mainly because it erodes trust and doesn’t actually improve output at all. One in six managers said they’d consider quitting if their employer started monitoring their online activity on work devices.
Separately, a 2023 Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) study cited by SHRM found that only 6% of large companies used employee surveillance tools. But monitoring activity doesn’t necessarily reveal productivity. As i4cp research analyst Katheryn Brekken explained, employees who know they’re being monitored may resort to performative behaviors, such as jiggling their mouse to appear active, rather than focusing on meaningful work. The takeaway for leaders: Tracking activity more closely doesn’t necessarily provide a clearer picture of performance or lead to better results.
An AI companion that helps employees navigate their workday, recognize areas for improvement and identify when they need support could offer value to both employees and leaders. When implemented thoughtfully, it could help employees feel heard while giving managers earlier insight into potential challenges, including burnout. That matters to the business, too: Employee well-being and engagement can affect outcomes such as retention and performance.
Gallup’s research reinforces the importance of the manager-employee relationship, finding that managers account for approximately 70% of the variance in team engagement. Technology can help surface concerns, but it cannot replace the trust, communication and support that effective management requires.
Productivity tracking in terms of looking at screenshots, idle time and keystrokes does not contribute to completely understanding an employee’s day. Tracking might show that an employee logged seven hours of active work, but it can’t explain project delays or reveal the time spent troubleshooting and finding solutions.
So what should team leaders consider when trying to determine whether an employee is underperforming or simply working differently?
Start by replacing activity metrics with outcome metrics. Measure what got shipped, not how many hours a screen stayed unlocked or what the sheer activity is, which is based on keystrokes and mouse movements. That single shift changes what a “productive day” actually means for your team and how you view the same from your perspective.
Second, build regular one-on-one check-ins where the goal is removing blockers, not just verifying attendance. A five-minute conversation can catch anyone who is stuck with a project and needs help better than a dashboard, and it does so without anybody feeling that they’re being watched.
Third, if you’re using any tracking tool at all, transparency helps in clearing the air off of misconceptions. Quiet monitoring tends to cause the exact trust problems it was meant to prevent the moment people find out they are being watched.
Fourth, invest in process-level observations instead of micromanaging individual surveillance. Tools that show where handoffs stall, where reviews pile up or where a workflow keeps breaking at the same step tell you far more about a bottleneck than any amount of monitoring will.
Last but not least, and perhaps easiest to gloss over: If the system detects something, do something about it. The employee who is marked as being overloaded and then is ignored will have even less faith in the system than someone who has never been measured. Observability without follow-through is just monitoring with better branding.
None of this means leaders should look away. It means focusing on the right thing. Watch the track in this race, not the runner’s shoelaces alone.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
