Bosses are using AI to spy on employees' productivity—does it work?
Assisted by AI, companies have more options than ever to track employees, minute by minute, keystroke by keystroke. Does this have the desired effect?
Bosses are employing artificial intelligence to monitor employees' productivity, prompting questions about its efficacy. Companies are now equipped with advanced tools, such as AI chatbots, cameras, sensors, and tracking software, to observe their workforce in unprecedented detail. These tools enable surveillance of employees' physical locations, phone call durations and content, typing speeds, and tone and pitch of conversations with customers.
The trend of employee monitoring has gained momentum across various industries and workplaces. Package and pizza delivery drivers are increasingly monitored by AI-powered surveillance systems. Amazon warehouse employees are continuously tracked using handheld scanners, badge swipes, and workstation software. Researchers, like Cornelius König from Saarland University in Germany, question the effectiveness of such monitoring measures.
König reviewed studies on employee monitoring and found little evidence to suggest that electronic surveillance improves performance. He believes that employers' assumptions about the benefits of monitoring might be overestimated.
Despite the lack of substantial evidence, the global market for employee-monitoring technology is projected to surpass $4 billion by 2026. Major employers, particularly in North America, are known to track productivity metrics of individual workers, often in real-time. In 2022, a New York Times investigation revealed that eight out of the 10 largest private US employers, including United Parcel Service, Amazon, and UnitedHealth Group, engaged in monitoring employees' productivity.
The impact of employee monitoring on workers extends beyond performance. In many cases, it leads to reduced productivity and increased stress levels. Workers may initially perform better under constant surveillance, but eventually, they adapt to their monitored environment, reverting to their original routines. Furthermore, the implementation of monitoring can result in unintended consequences.
For instance, studies have shown that electronically monitored truck drivers were less likely to exceed daily driving limits, but they also had a higher crash rate.
König is not the only one skeptical about the benefits of employee monitoring. Daniel Ravid, a management researcher at the University of New Mexico, conducted a meta-analysis involving over 23,000 subjects in various settings and found no correlation between the level of monitoring and employee performance. Ravid's study revealed that any form of monitoring, whether subtle or obvious, tends to increase workplace stress. He emphasizes that undermining a sense of dignity can also compromise employee attitudes.
The trend of datafication has made companies more inclined to seek new metrics to evaluate employees. While modernity often involves systematic data collection, surveillance can be perceived as a means of achieving organizational goals. However, not every company fully understands the potential downsides of employee monitoring.
Written by urgent.news from Scientific American's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
