Monitoring Employee Performance

I recently listened to a “Marketplace Morning Report”: “What did you do at work last week? Monitoring performance doesn’t improve it, expert says.”[i] This piece was obviously presented in the context of the recent controversial mandate by the U.S. “Department of Governmental Efficiency” (DOGE) that required federal executive branch employees to regularly prepare a bullet-point list of five things they accomplished in the prior week. Since employee performance appraisal is a key interest of mine which I have explored in several blog posts,[ii] this caught my attention.

The Morning Report started by exploring what productivity looks like in the current labor market and the style of management often found in the technology sector: people are not being productive enough and so we need to monitor them very closely. Such monitoring can include everything from the real-time automated gathering and analysis of employee computer activity to weekly self-reports like the DOGE mandate. Adam Grant, the expert guest on the Marketplace report,[iii] observed:

And yet, the evidence tells a very different story. There was a great meta-analysis, a study of studies recently — 94 studies in total — showing that monitoring people’s performance fails to improve it. That, if people know they’re being observed, they do not do any better, and meanwhile, they’re more stressed, they’re more dissatisfied, and especially they’re less likely to trust their managers.

In response, the host asked what is the best way to motivate and specifically to improve productivity? The expert explained:

I think the research on motivation is pretty clear that people do their best work when they’re given a chance to pursue autonomy, mastery, belonging and purpose. But, of course, they have to be coupled with accountability. And I think what a lot of leaders don’t understand is when it comes to holding people accountable, there’s a huge difference between being demanding and being demeaning. Being demanding is setting high standards and giving tough love. Being demeaning is insulting people, being uncivil, unkind, cruel, belittling, bullying. And it’s the former behavior, not the latter, that tends to bring out the best in people. …I think instead of being micromanagers, we need leaders to be macromanagers. I think that a great macromanager is somebody who helps you understand why your work counts.

Although the title of the Marketplace Report says “monitoring performance doesn’t improve it,” that is misleading and should really have used the term “micro-monitoring” instead. As the expert states, performance management includes accountability, which in turn includes assessing work. The key is to have a performance management system that includes accountability done right. For example, regular “check-ins” with staff are essential but must be done properly. Managers need to customize their “check-ins” to the circumstances of each employee as part of a situational leadership approach to accountability. The expert’s list of giving staff autonomy, mastery, belonging, and purpose recognize key aspects of great leadership.[iv] Micromanaging like constant monitoring of work is a trap and demotivates staff. I like the use of the term “macromanager” to connote the right way to manage.

Managing is not easy, especially in complex government organizations. We can all learn and improve from observing what others are doing. This Marketplace Report does a nice job of making one think about what managers should be doing to motivate and measure employee performance.

[i] Monitoring job performance doesn’t improve it, expert says – Marketplace

[ii] See my prior Vantage Point posts on the subject:

[iii] Organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business

[iv] Last month’s blog post on “The 8 Tasks of Leadership” outlines key ways that can be done: The 8 Tasks of Leadership – Court Leader