Micromanaging employees could hurt bottom line
It’s not news that the job market is currently in trouble. Horror stories of layoffs and home foreclosures are common and it seems like a shocking number of people are doing all that he or she can to avoid losing employment. But how are the companies themselves dealing with having fewer employees?
“Wages are stagnant, jobs are less secure, work is more intense — it’s a much tougher world. Employers have become much more aggressive about restructuring work in ways that push for higher levels of productivity,” said Paul Osterman, co-director of the MIT Sloan Institute for Work and Employment Research, said to the Los Angeles Times.
It certainly makes sense for companies to prioritize productivity. Yet the problem is that many companies are taking their methods too far.
In the L.A. Times article “As employers push efficiency, the daily grind wears down workers,” journalist Alana Semuels reported on the disconcerting trend of employers micromanaging their employees. Examples of such micromanaging include timing bathroom breaks, tracking keystrokes and using video and software to constantly receive feedback on employee performance.
This can boost efficiency to new heights, but the effects of prioritizing productivity over employee satisfaction can hurt a company in the long run, especially as workers start to lose the will to show up each morning.
“We’re just like human machines,” Phil Richards, a warehouse worker, told the L.A. Times. “But with machines, they don’t care whether you feel good, or if you’re having a bad day. You’re always worried that you’re not doing your job correctly.”
Yet companies are willing to justify their decision-making as necessary, given the struggles with a slow economy.
These companies think that by pushing productivity for employees, they are doing what’s best for the company. The expenses saved by relentlessly prioritizing productivity can help reduce layoffs and other personnel changes, which ultimately helps employees. It can also help smaller companies compete with bigger, resource-laden businesses, which could lead to greater employment down the line for all.
Though this is a valid counterargument, it ignores the negative effect of this shift on the mentality of employees.
It might be tempting to keep such close tabs on employees, but it seems that company image and culture will almost definitely suffer as a result. And historically, when employees have felt ignored or neglected, they have resorted to worker strikes, lawsuits and even violence. In fact, in an age of social media, where everyone has a platform to speak out against a company, neglecting employees can lead to severe harm to a company’s culture and reputation.
Many companies have faced complaints about their treatment of workers, but it seems unlikely that change from this practice is imminent. For many companies, the decision to deprioritize employee comfort and push productivity is business, and not intended to be personal.
Yet, as the number of complaints increase and employees begin looking at courses of legal action against certain companies, it might become extremely personal for everyone involved.
Payal Mukerji is a junior majoring in business administration. Her column “Risky Business” runs Tuesdays.