Government must be careful not to kill the work-from-home golden goose

Remote work offers unparalleled flexibility and work-life harmony. It is also ushering in a concerning trend: the surveillance of employees by their employers.

High-profile corporations such as J.P. Morgan, Barclays Bank, and UnitedHealth Group have made headlines for monitoring everything from employees’ emails to their keystrokes. This in turn exemplifies an even broader trend of workplace surveillance extending far beyond the physical office space.

The extent of this oversight is profound. A survey from ResumeBuilder.com, a professional resource site, indicates that more than one-third of employers (37 percent) mandate their remote staff to be visible via live video feeds. The most common forms of employee monitoring involve tracking workers’ web browsing activity and app usage, affecting a significant 62 percent of employees.

Meanwhile, ExpressVPN has released a report finding that close to 80 percent of employers use some kind of monitoring software to track employee performance and online activity. This widespread surveillance stems from what is termed “productivity paranoia,” a phenomenon by which managers are skeptical of their employees’ commitment and output, especially when they work remotely.

The federal government has taken notice of these invasive practices and initiated measures to curtail employee surveillance, aiming to uphold workers’ rights and protect their privacy. Notably, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has sought public input on employers’ utilization of monitoring technology. Jennifer Abruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board has explicitly stated her aim to shield employees “to the greatest extent possible” from such pervasive monitoring and automated management tactics.

While these efforts are laudable, they raise critical questions about potential unintended consequences for the future of remote work.

One immediate concern is the likelihood of companies scaling back on remote work opportunities in an effort to avoid running afoul of new guidelines. This would inadvertently disadvantage the very workforce that these measures purport to protect.

The nuanced interplay between workplace flexibility and surveillance necessitates a delicate equilibrium between oversight and trust — an equilibrium that is currently being disrupted by these well-intentioned government interventions.

At the core of this complex issue is the fundamental relationship between employers and employees, particularly within the context of remote work. Surveillance, especially in its most intrusive forms, undermines the essential trust that underpins a productive and innovative work environment. Authentic productivity is derived from a culture of empowerment, not enforcement. Both business leaders and policymakers must endeavor to cultivate work environments that emphasize outcomes over an employee’s ability to “look busy.” Employers must learn from and trust the data showing that respect for employees’ autonomy and privacy will get them a lot farther than constant cyber-surveillance.

Although the government’s intentions to safeguard employees from invasive surveillance are commendable, these efforts must be carefully balanced against the need to preserve the advantages of remote work. By nurturing a culture of trust and mutual respect, employers can enable their employees to realize their fullest potential without resorting to invasive monitoring techniques.

The divergence between large corporations and smaller businesses in their approaches to remote work could prove instructive. Data from Scoop’s Flex Index that most larger organizations (65 percent of companies with over 25,000 employees) prefer structured hybrid models, compared to small companies, which overwhelmingly (74 percent) adopt a fully flexible approach. Smaller companies, characterized by closer relationships and more direct communication channels, tend to extend greater trust to their employees than large ones.

This trust facilitates a more flexible work environment, as these companies are more inclined to assess performance based on outcomes rather than monitoring every minute of the workday. In contrast, larger corporations, grappling with the challenge of managing vast numbers of employees across diverse geographies and functions, often resort to surveillance and structured models as a means to maintain control and ensure productivity.

The government’s crackdown on remote work surveillance might exacerbate this divide, pushing larger companies steer clear of new regulations not by curbing employee surveillance, but by requiring a return to the office. This could inadvertently make these large corporations less attractive to current and prospective employees who value flexibility and autonomy in their work environments.

As a result, we might witness a talent migration from larger to smaller companies, drawn by the promise of a more trusting and flexible work culture. Moreover, this shift could spur a wave of entrepreneurial ventures, as professionals leave the confines of rigid corporate structures to establish their own businesses, where they can embed the values of flexibility and autonomy from the outset.

As we grapple with the challenges and opportunities presented by remote work, it’s crucial that we strike a balance that respects employees’ rights to privacy while considering the potential inadvertent consequences of limiting employer surveillance. Certainly, the ideal path forward requires a collective effort to redefine the norms of workplace trust and autonomy, ensuring that the future of work is characterized by mutual respect, collaboration, and shared success. However, reality often does not match ideals, and it’s incumbent upon the federal government to strike a balance in how it treats employer surveillance.

Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.