Should employers prioritize efficiency at all costs? It might seem like a good idea. More processes than ever before can now be automated with robotics, artificial intelligence and other technology.

But in case after case, we’ve also seen technology usher in a whole new era of workplace surveillance. Companies have powerful new tools to track employees and monitor their productivity in detail, raising obvious concerns.

Reporting in The Guardian this week only highlighted the most recent example. Woolworths has been criticized for allegedly having “unrealistic” expectations about the productivity of its warehouse pickers—workers who travel from aisle to aisle to select required products.

A new framework, introduced by the supermarket giant last year, reportedly aims for pickers to reach 100% efficiency, putting those who fall short into a coaching program.

Regardless of whether efficiency tracking practices are right or wrong in a moral sense, a more fundamental question arises. Does increased surveillance and productivity measurement actually increase employee performance?

What gets measured gets done, right?

Scientific management approaches that treat workers as cogs in a machine have a long history, originally developed to optimize manufacturing output.

You’d think that by now, we might have moved on to something more human-centric. But the rise of constant monitoring for employees—both onsite and remote—suggests otherwise.

This was likely helped by the shift to remote work in the wake of the pandemic, which thrust digital surveillance technology into the mainstream. Bosses all around the world had to grapple with a new workplace reality.

But given the newness of many of these technologies, there’s only limited research on their effectiveness.

A 2023 systematic literature review, by University of Turin’s Elisa Giacosa and colleagues, explored the outcomes of digital surveillance on employee performance and other measures. Across 57 empirical studies published on the topic, they found the results were mixed.

Some studies revealed worker surveillance had a positive impact. Workers who knew they were being observed felt more motivated to perform at a high level, acknowledging the benefits of being measured objectively.

Greater objectivity helps workers know what it takes to be positively evaluated by their employers, and it might translate to subsequent rewards.

But other studies showed the opposite effect. Employees who knew they were being monitored performed poorly, perhaps in retaliation for being constantly observed or timed.

When evidence is mixed, researchers cannot conclude if the intervention—digital surveillance in this case—is or isn’t effective. But that doesn’t stop companies from applying such ambiguously effective approaches in the meantime.

Trust is also important

There seems to be a paradox between surveillance and performance that goes beyond discussions of its effectiveness. When surveillance is enforced, employers have greater control over the work that can be accomplished by employees. But it can also signal a lack of trust.

By definition, seizing greater control is incompatible with communicating trust. Companies who choose to monitor the keystrokes of remote workers or the number of items that can be picked by warehouse workers may only be maximizing outcomes in the short term.

Dissatisfied workers who are tired of being treated as robots with heartbeats will often look elsewhere for better conditions. Increases in turnover lead to massive inefficiencies due to having to recruit and train new workers who may also turn away in search of more fulfilling work.

A recent survey conducted by Slack found that about 25% of desk workers didn’t feel trusted at work. Those feeling this lack of trust were two times more likely to look for other work.

Employers must tread carefully

Employers must carefully weigh the pros and cons when thinking about this issue.

Tracking techniques can reduce the amount of time workers spend on non-work, such as chatting at the water cooler onsite or surfing social media remotely. Such monitoring could even help employers flag some security and safety issues.

But monitored employees will detect the lack of trust and feel anxious under constant scrutiny and unrealistic goals. Their creativity may even be stifled if they feel they have no time to problem-solve or think critically.

Excessive scrutiny creates psychological discomfort, inhibiting risk-taking and experimentation—essential building blocks for creativity and innovation.

Given the lack of consistent evidence on the topic, those who are considering implementing surveillance technology may first want to consider alternative ways to improve efficiency.

This could be by automating processes that can be automated. But it could also include creating psychologically safe workplaces for employees, developing their internal motivation to perform and thrive.

When employees feel they are trusted and safe to experiment and make mistakes, they are driven to high performance by their own sense of pride and accomplishment—independent of external rewards or punishment.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It appears like narcissism is in every single place this present day: politics, films and TV, sports activities, social media. You may see indicators of it at paintings, the place it may be in particular unfavourable. Is it conceivable to stay a place of work freed from harmful, manipulative egotists?

Increasingly more organizations have come to San Francisco State College’s mavens in organizational psychology inquiring for assist doing simply that. In reaction, college researchers advanced a device for activity interviews to evaluate narcissistic grandiosity amongst attainable activity applicants. San Francisco State Psychology Professors Kevin Eschleman and Chris Wright and 4 pupil researchers led the mission, revealed within the Magazine of Character Evaluate.

“We considering narcissism as a result of it is one of the frequently mentioned traits of folks. In reality, it represents numerous issues that may move unhealthy on the subject of a workforce,” Eschleman stated. “However it is a function this is very sexy within the temporary. [Narcissists] ceaselessly have inclinations to be very goal-oriented and are ceaselessly very a hit. There is a trap to any individual who’s prime in narcissism.”

The software advanced by means of the SF State researchers—the Narcissism Interview Scale for Employment (NISE)—is a collection of behavioral and situational questions that may be integrated into a task interview. One query asks respondents to explain their option to main a workforce. Every other asks how applicants would continue in the event that they disagree with a plan that the remainder of their workforce likes—and the mission calls for unanimous consent to transport ahead. Interviewers are educated to fee candidate responses, offering a extra clinical and constant technique to evaluation a candidate’s propensity for narcissistic grandiosity.

The mission began 4 years in the past when Eschleman spotted an uptick in organizations asking about efficient groups, candidate variety and how you can steer clear of “unhealthy apples.” It is simple for organizations to be enticed by means of how a candidate’s abilities seem on paper, however failing to correctly imagine persona would possibly derail team-oriented environments, Eschleman notes. Workers with narcissistic grandiosity generally tend to have inflated perspectives of self and make self-focused and short-term-focused selections as an alternative of bearing in mind long-term organizational wishes. They might also abuse and take a look at to offer protection to their sense of energy and keep an eye on, he provides.

“This is not a specific analysis,” Eschleman clarified, noting that everybody almost definitely falls someplace at the continuum of narcissism. “What we are having a look at are folks’s consistencies over the years. It is how they view themselves or how others view them persistently over the years. Do they have interaction in those movements persistently?”

The authors recognize that this evaluation isn’t a really perfect science. There are lots of different elements in development a a hit workforce and wholesome paintings setting. However they hope their software will building up the percentages for good fortune.

Whilst the researchers had been finding out those subjects for years, they sought after to ensure their software used to be simple to make use of and may well be tailored by means of other paintings environments. It’s why they considering activity interviews, one thing authorized and regarded as suitable by means of each organizations and candidates within the hiring procedure.

Sharon Pidakala (M.S., ’22), probably the most find out about authors, is now a Other folks & Construction Supervisor at Attorneys On Call for in Singapore. Her paintings comes to skill acquisition, tradition, building, organizational insurance policies and worker engagement.

“I have been thankful to position my analysis into day by day use. It is in reality vital to make certain that those questions aren’t outrightly direct as a result of you do not need it to seem like you might be asking any individual, ‘Are you a narcissist?'” defined Pidakala, whose SFSU thesis considering creating the NISE software. “Those questions are raised in a technique to make it glance favorable for the candidate.”

Pidakala got here to SF State particularly to get this sort of coaching. With an undergraduate background in psychology, she sought specialised coaching in organizational psychology to additional refine and increase her experience within the box.

“Attending SF State and finding out organizational psychology has been extremely treasured, equipping me with flexible abilities that may be carried out globally,” she stated.