Remote work debate heats up: Should companies monitor employees?

Nearly four years since the pandemic introduced remote working, the debate around hybrid work continues. For those in the work-from-home camp, they point to the lifestyle flexibility, improvement in talent attraction, and steadying statistics around productivity as justification to continue the trend. For those in the return-to-office camp, they point to the special sauce of in-person interactions, improved teamwork and impacts in areas such as innovation, and a different set of productivity metrics that suggest working in the office has higher benefits, particularly in market share performance. The debate isn’t just about performance, it’s also about culture.

Recent reports indicate that some companies plan to use badge-tracking technology to check on employee work locations. First, let me say that I don’t take a position on the inherent goodness or badness here. I do, however, pose a question for companies who may be considering similar strategies. Are the rewards worth the risks? The answer to this question is specific to each company, of course. But there’s a fine line to walk here.

First, collecting badge information is not new and companies use that to understand occupancy, building usage, and, importantly, for security in times of potential crisis events. Second, there is truth to the idea that some things are only possible in person. This includes culture. Culture, by definition, is expressed and transmitted between and among the members of a group. Yes, virtual interactions promote culture, but culture must be looked at holistically. Finally, being clear about the expectation of where and when to work is perfectly reasonable. It defines the standards. Clarity, particularly in culture, is important.

The risks, however, are not inconsequential. Such statements could brand the employer in a manner that scares off new talent. Places like Fishbowl very quickly become spawning grounds for counter-culture movements that can spill out into mainstream narratives. Many companies strive to be on one of several “best places to work” lists, for example. Employer reputation is a consideration.

In addition, employees could perceive such statements as a “hardline” policy and vote with their feet. Cost conscious companies might consider this natural attrition a benefit. However, ironically, it’s often higher-tier talent with the most employment options in a competitive job market that are the first to leave. Employees with options might consider a more flexible arrangement more appealing. This high-value talent loss is a real risk.

But for many, tracking of this sort simply sends the cultural message that “we don’t trust you.” This can be incredibly disenfranchising for employees and big hits to morale can lead to big hits in performance.

The risks and rewards above don’t stop at the boundaries of culture and performance. There are real legal considerations. Certainly, the limits of employee privacy, employment contracts, and security create a delicate intersection. In addition, culture norms, while they might be “the way we do things” don’t always constitute job requirements that allow for employment actions or for distinguishing new employee qualifications. Using cultural norms in such a manner risks subjecting the corporation to accusations of discrimination and potential legal action by employees.

At the same time, employees that aren’t effectively onboarded into the company and trained on procedures may make similar claims. Issues with absenteeism, sick leave, or health impacts can arise from high stress cultures. At the same time, companies with more flexible cultures might find it hard to enforce performance standards and hold employees accountable to business results. It also goes without saying that any discrimination based on cultural norms, stated or otherwise, is never permitted.

My suggestion to companies considering policies such as this spend as much time considering their culture, and the risks associated, as they do their operations. Having consulted some of the world’s biggest companies across industries, I encourage companies to consider three important culture considerations. First, culture will shape itself whether you tend to it or not. When you are intentional about it, you increase (not guarantee) that you will get the culture you want. Write it down. Share it. Be clear. Also, be clear about the legal boundaries of our culture and what’s enforceable. Employees run the risk of not knowing what they are signing up for which creates challenges for the individual and organization.

Second, be consistent. Challenges arise when employees hear different messages, priorities, and a varied formal vs. informal way of doing things. Love it or hate it, companies that commit to tracking employee data are at least clear about the rules. Then employees can decide. Perhaps those companies are willing to lose a high performer or two in the process. Inconsistency opens the organization up to legal risks as employees may point to unclear standards and expectations.

Related: 9 in 10 companies will have returned to office by 2025, survey reveals

Third, there is no perfect culture. And culture evolves. Every cultural strength can be a weakness given a change in circumstances. There are grind-it-out cultures and there are flexible cultures, with plenty of successful companies across a continuum. Companies with great cultures also understand when a cultural tenet no longer serves the organization. And they adjust. Just like for us as individuals, behaviors that served us in the past don’t always serve us in the present. Or in the future.

Being dogmatically rigid ultimately holds the organization back from competing for the talent they need to be competitive in a tight, cost-conscious market. Organizational and legal policies must keep pace with these changes and employees must have time to make adjustments in working approach and performance as these changes are implemented. Not giving employees time to adjust only exacerbates performance shortfalls and expands legal risks.

Time will tell if the employee tracking policy has the intended effects on performance and culture that these companies hope to achieve. It’s clear that the modern employee values flexibility and that some form of remote working is here to stay. Each company needs to decide if their policies reinforce their culture and how their cultures determine performance. Those companies that are clear and consistent about their cultures will give current and prospective employees (and customers) the information they need to make a choice as to whether the culture is a fit for them.

Furthermore, they create a policy and legal infrastructure that benefits all stakeholders. When culture, policy, legal, and operational standards align, employees make better choices about how well they align with the organization. And, they simply perform better. Companies unable to evaluate and evolve culture, then align the organization to it will find themselves, potentially, in a constant churn for talent, increased legal risks and, by extension, reduced performance.

Michael Lopez is a coach to companies, leaders, teams, and individuals seeking to improve performance through transformation. Specifically, he works together with clients to identify the cultural, structural, operational, and behavioral shifts needed to increase performance. Then shortens the time it takes to implement them. Michael’s goal is to help companies and individuals go farther, faster.