April 8, 2021
7 minutes of reading
Comments expressed by Businessmen the contributors are their own.
Using software to track and monitor employees was never right for me. Maybe it’s because I played a role in developing some of the first programs for that purpose.
In the late 90s, companies faced a problem. For the first time, they outsource IT and Software Development in the scale to India. But with their workforce on the other side of the world, how do they know what their employees are doing?
Back then, we came up with all kinds of ideas – from reviewing and analyzing the program code employees created to actually monitoring their desktop activity.
Fast-forward to the present and companies have taken that technology to the next level, measuring keystrokes, mouse movements, and even further taking screenshots of employees’ screens. random intervals.
The fundamental question remains the same: When visual employee management is no longer an option, what is the best way to measure productivity? Which metrics are important? And the productivity task to do at any point measure prove counterproductive?
While a return to the office is coming to many of us, the combined job options will only grow more important in Last year. For companies and their employees, remote handling is handled analysis are becoming more complex and the mission is more important.
I am in human analysis. I love data. But there are true and false applications of the measurement. Here is a review of what works and what doesn’t.
Focus on measuring results, not inputs
Employee supervision was commonplace before the crisis. In 2018, research found That 50% of large corporations already use email tracking and location analysis. But in the first months of the course, use monitoring software skyrocketing, with industry leaders such as Teramind and ActivTrak, reporting records rose in sell requirements.
To the employer, the monitoring tools seem to be a useful stop at a time when the teams are not in the office. Just one problem: Time spent using the keyboard or in front of the webcam barely showed performance or productivity. Indeed, this kind of monitoring may really not get the results you want. For example, when workers know their number of keystrokes are being measured, they are encouraged to perform busy work, which may have little commercial value to business.
The deeper problem is that, in many ways, we have been measuring yield completely wrong – confusing inputs for results. Even keeping track of “hours”, the oldest of all workplace metrics, is fundamentally flawed. Just knowing someone who works 40 hours a week will give you a better understanding of what they actually accomplished.
A much better approach is to measure and reward business results. These will vary from business to business and employee to employee – and that’s exactly the problem. Taking the time to first determine what success looks like, then figuring out how to measure it, is the surest way to increase productivity. Handy schema like KPIs, OKRs, and KRAs all circles around this central premise.
For example, for our team engineers, success can mean quality, well-tested. pre-encoding registration code. For salespeople, success can mean qualified leads are added to the sales funnel. For content creators, success can be quantified when blog posts are written or – better yet – web traffic is generated.
The problem is that these definitions are highly customized and focus on results, not processes. They reflect real productivity, not busy work or “fidgety”.
Interestingly, through the prism of these output-oriented indicators, my company saw it increase active in times of crisis. For example, while working remotely, our engineers complete more software registrations than ever before. This is not unique to us: More than half of the executives surveyed by PwC in January 2021 said that Average employee productivity has been improved. In general, the machine lock is detected as positive for knowledge labor productivity.
Factor X is reliable
However, there’s a caveat here. Even focusing on output measurement, results can be highlighted and metrics can be hidden as much as possible. Indeed, the most important factor is something that even the most sophisticated tracking schemes cannot quantify: trust.
In its simplest form, trust means knowing someone is acting in the team’s best interests, whether they are being watched or not. Trust means giving employees the autonomy to ask “what am I using my time” and encouraging them to use that Big Dipper to guide their dates and decisions.
The benefits of this kind of trust are tangible. Employees in highly reliable organizations operate more efficientlyGet more energy at work, collaborate better, and stay with their employers longer. They also reported lower stress levels and higher levels of satisfaction with their lives. One study found 63% of employees Excellent staff experience is determined as empowered and trusted to do their job without any oversight.
And this is where surveillance can backfire. Malware risks undermining the covenant between employers and employees, disrupting a sense of trust that motivates people to do their best. Just look at Barclays. The Global Bank has installed software to track the time employees work at their desks and send pop-up alerts to those with long breaks. In addition to productivity boosting, the measures have resulted a quick and resounding backlash. These results are not uncommon. A survey found that 49% of employees Under strict surveillance was reported to be of serious concern.
So how do you cultivate this sense of trust in remote work environments? Suffice to say that there is no hack or quick fix. For me, it starts with understanding and organizing expectations. The employer must set what is expected of and the employee must demonstrate what is possible. This is not a one-time thing; it’s a constant conversation that requires more attention in a remote context, where misunderstandings and misinformation are more likely to happen.
Company-wide registration is important: For example, we moved from monthly to bi-weekly meetings. But less formal channels may be equally important. Every month, I hold “Happy Hours for CEOs”. Ten to 12 people from different departments meet on video for a casual, unstructured chat. Sometimes the conversation goes on, sometimes it doesn’t, but regardless, we have the opportunity to adjust to our understanding of what works and what doesn’t.
When it comes to tracking productivity, measuring the minutes spent on a task or key presses is ineffective. Having a shared understanding of success – and making sure employees are motivated to get there – is much more valuable. Importantly, these lessons apply as much in an office setting as in a remote setting. The only best productivity tool can be one of the oldest: beliefs.