When one of my clients installed tracking software to monitor his remote team, he didn’t expect the fallout that followed. Three weeks later, his best developer quit, followed by two more team members. “I just wanted to know they were working,” he told me, bewildered by their reaction.

What my client missed was simple but profound: trust runs both ways. When you signal distrust, people notice—and they respond in kind.

In today’s hybrid workplace, the tension between monitoring and trusting employees has never been more relevant. But research increasingly shows that companies obsessed with surveillance are solving the wrong problem entirely.

The Monitoring Mindset Is Backfiring

Microsoft’s 2022 Work Trend Index found that 85% of leaders struggle to have confidence that remote employees are being productive, despite data showing that activity, meetings, and workload have increased dramatically. This “productivity paranoia” has spawned an entire industry of surveillance tools that track keystrokes, take screenshots, and even monitor facial expressions.

But here’s the reality: these tools create exactly what they claim to prevent—disengagement and reduced productivity.

Studies from Harvard Business Review show that monitored employees are:

• More likely to break rules
• Less likely to feel a sense of responsibility
• More prone to cutting corners when no one’s watching
• More stressed and anxious during workdays

The problem runs deeper than just employee discomfort. Electronic monitoring fundamentally damages the psychological contract between employer and employee—the unwritten set of expectations and obligations that form the foundation of a healthy working relationship.

Trust Creates Performance, Not the Other Way Around

Paul Zak, neuroscientist and author of “Trust Factor,” found something remarkable in his research: compared with employees at low-trust companies, those working in high-trust organizations reported 74% less stress, 106% more energy at work, 50% higher productivity, and 13% fewer sick days.

Trust isn’t just a nice-to-have cultural element. It’s a performance multiplier.

Google’s landmark Project Aristotle, which studied 180 teams to determine what made the most effective groups, found that psychological safety—the belief that you won’t be punished for making mistakes—was the single most important factor in team success. Not individual brilliance. Not resources. Not even clear goals. The ability to take risks without fear of punishment was paramount.

This psychological safety is precisely what surveillance tools destroy.

The Real Cost of Low Trust

When employees feel watched rather than trusted, organizations pay a steep price:

• Higher turnover: According to Gallup, replacing an employee typically costs between one-half to two times their annual salary
• Reduced innovation: People who fear monitoring are less likely to experiment or suggest improvements
• Malicious compliance: Employees focus on appearing busy rather than creating value
• Stress-related costs: From increased healthcare expenses to absenteeism

One Fortune 500 company I worked with calculated that their aggressive monitoring system was costing them roughly $3.2 million annually in reduced productivity and turnover—far more than the “time theft” they were trying to prevent.

Moving From Surveillance to Support

If monitoring isn’t the answer, what is? The most successful organizations I’ve consulted with focus on measuring outcomes rather than activities. They build systems around three key principles:

1. Define Clear Expectations

Great managers are explicit about what success looks like. They collaborate with team members to set specific, measurable objectives that connect to broader company goals. This creates natural accountability without the need for surveillance.

For example, instead of tracking how many hours someone spends at their desk, focus on whether they’re meeting agreed-upon delivery dates and quality standards. This shifts the conversation from “Are you working?” to “Are you delivering what we need?”

2. Implement Regular Check-ins

One-on-one meetings aren’t just status updates—they’re trust-building opportunities. When conducted effectively, these conversations help managers understand challenges before they become problems and provide necessary support.

“The best managers are lighthouses, not prison guards. They help navigate rough waters, not monitor for escape attempts.”

The frequency should match the employee’s experience level and the work complexity. For new team members or complex projects, weekly might be appropriate. For experienced staff with stable workloads, biweekly or monthly might suffice.

3. Develop Meaningful Metrics

Not all metrics are created equal. Activity metrics (hours logged, emails sent) are poor predictors of actual value creation. Instead, focus on impact metrics that reflect real business outcomes:

• Customer satisfaction scores
• Revenue generated
• Problems solved
• Project milestones achieved
• Quality improvements implemented

These measurements align employee incentives with organizational goals without creating the adversarial dynamic that monitoring tools introduce.

Building Trust in a Hybrid World

The shift to hybrid and remote work hasn’t changed the fundamentals of trust-building, but it has made intentionality more important. Leaders can’t rely on serendipitous office interactions to foster connection.

Organizations thriving in this new environment focus on deliberate trust-building practices:

Transparency as a Default

When information flows freely, assumptions and suspicions decrease. This means sharing the “why” behind decisions, being open about challenges, and admitting when leadership doesn’t have all the answers.

Buffer, the social media management company, takes this to an impressive level by publishing all salaries internally, making their revenue dashboard available to all employees, and documenting decision-making processes for company-wide access. The result? Consistently high engagement scores and remarkably low turnover in an industry known for job-hopping.

Flexibility with Boundaries

Trust doesn’t mean abandoning all structure. The most effective remote and hybrid teams establish clear parameters around availability, communication methods, and decision-making authority.

Gitlab, a fully remote company valued at over $10 billion, documents their expectations extensively while still embracing flexibility. They distinguish between synchronous work (requiring real-time collaboration) and asynchronous work (which can happen on individual schedules), allowing team members to optimize their productivity while maintaining necessary coordination.

Investing in Connection

Digital relationships need intentional nurturing. Organizations building strong remote cultures create structured opportunities for human connection that go beyond work tasks.

Zapier, another successful fully-distributed company, implements “pair buddies” that randomly match employees for casual conversations, hosts virtual coffee breaks, and even funds in-person meetups for team members who live near each other.

The Leadership Challenge

For many leaders, particularly those who rose through the ranks in traditional work environments, trusting without seeing represents a significant psychological hurdle. The instinct to check, verify, and monitor comes from understandable concerns about accountability.

However, the most successful leaders in today’s environment are those who recognize that their discomfort with trust is often more about their own insecurities than their team’s reliability.

Research from Harvard Business Review found that leaders who struggle most with trusting remote workers typically have one or more of these characteristics:

• A personal history of working in high-control environments
• An underlying anxiety about their own performance and how it’s judged
• Difficulty articulating clear expectations and outcomes
• A tendency to value presence over results

The good news is that trust-building is a learnable skill. Leaders who make the transition successfully typically start small, experiment with trust in controlled scenarios, and gradually expand their comfort zone as positive experiences accumulate.

The Bottom Line: Trust is a Business Strategy

Ultimately, trust isn’t just a cultural nicety—it’s a competitive advantage. Organizations that build high-trust environments attract better talent, foster greater innovation, and demonstrate more resilience during challenging times.

As one CEO I worked with put it: “We spent years trying to prevent the theoretical damage of employees taking advantage of us. When we finally shifted to trust as our default, we unlocked value we never knew existed.”

The question for today’s leaders isn’t whether they can afford to trust their teams. It’s whether they can afford not to.

In a business landscape where talent has more options than ever before, organizations that build cultures of surveillance will increasingly find themselves unable to attract and retain the people they need most. Meanwhile, those that master trust-based leadership will discover what the research already shows: when people feel trusted, they become trustworthy.

The choice is clear. Monitor activities and get compliance. Build trust and get commitment.

---

Real Stories Behind This Advice

We’ve gathered honest experiences from working professionals to bring you strategies that work in practice, not just theory.

• Read more: Get the full details in the original article
• Join in: See what others are saying and share your thoughts in the Reddit discussion (1,044 upvotes, 395 comments)
• Tell your story: Have experience with this? Help others by sharing what worked for you at our Contact Us page

At ModernWorkHacks, it’s practical ideas from real people.