A Delhi professional’s viral social media post has reignited the debate over employee monitoring, workplace autonomy and whether closely tracking workers’ time actually leads to better productivity.
Tanya Singhal, a Delhi-based professional, shared her experience of working in two contrasting environments. In one workplace, employees were closely monitored, with login and logout timings, leave and even leaving a few minutes early being scrutinised. In another, the focus was primarily on completing assigned responsibilities, with employees given greater control over their time.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
For Singhal, the difference was significant. She argued that excessive monitoring did not encourage her to work harder. Instead, being trusted and given autonomy made her more willing to put in additional effort when required.
‘Why would I give five minutes extra?’
In an Instagram post, Singhal described how workplace rules could affect an employee’s willingness to go beyond the minimum expected of them.
She questioned why an employee would voluntarily spend extra time at work if they were penalised for leaving just a few minutes early after completing their responsibilities.
Her argument was that workplace relationships can become transactional when every minute is counted. If an employee feels that their time is constantly being monitored, they may be less inclined to make additional efforts outside their defined responsibilities.
By contrast, she said, employees who feel that their personal time is respected may be more willing to step up when their workplace needs them.
When being seen working becomes the priority
Singhal also highlighted another potential consequence of excessive surveillance: employees may begin concentrating on appearing busy rather than being productive.
Constant monitoring can encourage workers to prioritise being online, responding immediately to messages or remaining at their desks instead of focusing on completing meaningful tasks efficiently.
Her broader argument is that companies could benefit from shifting their attention from the number of hours an employee appears to be working to the quality and outcome of the work being delivered.
“Give someone autonomy and they’ll give you everything. Count their minutes and they’ll give you exactly that: minutes,” she said.
Trust over constant surveillance
The discussion comes at a time when companies continue to reassess how employee performance should be measured, particularly with flexible and hybrid working arrangements becoming more common.
Singhal’s argument does not suggest that employees should operate without accountability. Instead, she advocates a system where employees are given clear responsibilities and evaluated based on results rather than simply the amount of time they spend logged in or at their desks.
According to her experience, having greater control over her time encouraged her to complete tasks efficiently because she knew that finishing her work meant she could reclaim personal time.
Her post has received support from users who echoed the view that trust can be more effective than surveillance.
The debate ultimately raises a larger question for employers: should productivity be measured by how long an employee is monitored, or by what they actually accomplish?
For many workplaces, the answer could determine whether monitoring becomes a tool for accountability—or a source of frustration that ultimately works against productivity.
