Is Timesheet Tracking Remote Workers Sustainable?
Daniel A Zelli
C-Suite Management Consultant (CTO) | Former (CFO) & (COO) | Financial Governance Expert | International Trade | IT Project Management & Public Speaking Authority
How does electronic monitoring of employee productivity impact engagement and morale in technology companies that utilise working from home arrangements in either a remote or hybrid workplace model?
Daniel Zelli
4 Feb 2025
How does electronic monitoring of employee productivity impact engagement and morale in technology companies that utilise working from home arrangements in either a remote or hybrid workplace model?
ABSTRACT
This literature review explores the impact of electronic monitoring (EM) on employee engagement and morale in hybrid and remote technology workplaces, focusing on its effects on trust, autonomy, and leadership. It synthesises academic literature, industry reports, and organisational data to assess EM’s psychological and organisational implications. Key theoretical frameworks, including the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, Social Exchange Theory (SET), and Employee Engagement Theory (EET), offer different perspectives on how EM influences stress, trust, and motivation. Methodological evaluations highlight the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research, with mixed approaches proving the most effective but underutilised. A proposed research methodology is provided in Appendix F.
Findings suggest that while EM can reduce engagement and morale by increasing stress and fostering distrust, its impact depends on leadership style, workplace culture, and the type of monitoring used. Feedback-based EM tends to support engagement, while surveillance-style monitoring is more likely to create resistance. The review identifies gaps in research, including a lack of longitudinal studies, limited industry-specific insights, and insufficient focus on leadership’s role in mitigating negative effects. Given these findings, EM needs to be carefully implemented to balance oversight with autonomy and employee well-being, with effectiveness depending on transparency, leadership approach, and organisational culture. The Literary Review Worksheet (Appendix B) provides additional notes for future researchers. Building on the research already conducted and addressing the identified gaps will enable organisations to refine their monitoring strategies while supporting engagement and productivity in remote and hybrid work environments.
1.Introduction and Research Context
1.1. Introduction
This literature review examines how electronic monitoring (EM) impacts employee engagement and morale in hybrid and remote technology workplaces. It explores oversight-autonomy trade-offs, key themes, and research gaps, covering industry context, theoretical evaluations, methodologies, and future research directions.
1.2. Business and Industry Context
Since 2020, remote and hybrid work have transformed business operations, with 46% of Australians now working from home and 78% of Australian technology firms offer flexible work arrangements to remain competitive (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023; Roy Morgan, 2024; KPMG Australia, 2023). The technology sector leads this shift, with 67% of firms adopting hybrid policies (Investment NSW, 2023; EY, 2024). However, challenges remain, as mixed productivity outcomes and career concerns persist (PwC, 2023; KPMG, 2024). The transition to hybrid and remote work has driven increased adoption of EM, sparking debates on autonomy and trust (Appendix A). It is against this environmental backdrop that similar problems are identified within the organisation under study.
1.3. Research Problem and Justification
The organisation under study, a technology services provider with 30 staff, is experiencing declining satisfaction due to EM practices. Enterprise operating system (EOS) survey results show a XX% drop in satisfaction, with XX of XX recent hires leaving within a year, exceeding industry norms (Deloitte Access Economics, 2023). Employees cite micromanagement and autonomy erosion as key concerns (Appendix C). According to Lemon et al., (2024, p. 957), "monitoring creates distrust; employees resist being monitored". Furthermore, Jeske (2022, p. 394) states that "higher surveillance leads to counterproductive behaviors". These trends align with existing research showing that excessive monitoring leads to disengagement and increased turnover (Thiel et al., 2024). Given EM’s impact on engagement, further research is needed to assess its long-term organisational consequences. To address these concerns, this study formulates key research questions that explore EM’s impact across various organisational and demographic factors.
2. The Primary Research Question
2. The Research Question
The primary research question guiding this study is "How does electronic monitoring of employee productivity impact engagement and morale in technology companies that utilise working from home arrangements in either a remote or hybrid workplace model?"
To support this inquiry, the following sub-questions are considered:
1.?????? How does sustained EM affect engagement and morale in hybrid and remote workplaces?
EM’s long-term effects remain unexplored, with 58 out of the 69 reviewed mentioning this aspect of post-pandemic research. This question addresses the need for longitudinal insights into engagement and morale trends in monitored workplaces.
2.?????? Does EM impact engagement differently across industries?
This question fills the gap in comparative sector studies, providing insights into whether monitoring outcomes vary across industries, contributing to a broader understanding of monitoring's impact.
3.?????? How do leadership styles influence EM’s impact on engagement?
Explores the under-researched area of specific leadership styles and their influence on engagement and morale, extending the Employee Engagement Theory.
4.?????? How do generational and cultural differences shape employee responses to EM?
Limited studies and empirical research address this gap, highlighting the need to reassess or update existing diversity theories (Alder, 2001; Twenge et al., 2010; Ravid et al., 2019; Hofstede, 2011). This study examines these differences, contributing to JD-R and diversity theories.].
5.?????? What are the long-term psychological effects of sustained EM in hybrid and remote work settings?
While short-term studies link EM to stress and disengagement, its long-term psychological impact remains unclear. This question builds on the JD-R model by examining whether EM acts as a persistent job stressor, leading to burnout and reduced morale over time.
2.2. Research Significance
Understanding the impact of EM on employee engagement and morale is crucial for organisations seeking to balance oversight with flexibility in remote and hybrid work environments. This research provides valuable insights at multiple levels—organisational, industry, and policy—addressing current challenges and future implications (Appendix D; Deloitte Insights, 2024; KPMG Australia, 2024).
This study has wider practical significance in:
1.?????? Informing workplace policies and administrative processes
2.?????? Developing targeted interventions to enhance engagement
3.?????? Creating frameworks to balance flexibility with organisational needs
4.?????? Supporting onboarding and retention strategies for new hires
3. Findings
3.1. Main Findings
Research shows that electronic monitoring (EM) negatively affects engagement and morale in remote and hybrid technology workplaces by increasing stress, reducing autonomy, and fostering distrust (Jeske, 2022; Hill, 2020; Kalischko & Riedl, 2023; Li & Wang, 2024). Employees often experience stress, anxiety, and exhaustion, particularly when monitoring feels intrusive or excessive (Jeske, 2022; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Thiel et al., 2024). The perception that EM signals distrust from management weakens organisational commitment, making employees less motivated and more resistant to oversight (Lemon et al., 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024). However, the extent of these effects depends on key moderating factors, particularly autonomy, leadership style, and workplace culture.
A key factor influencing these effects is autonomy. When EM restricts self-management, engagement declines, whereas giving employees control over how they are monitored—such as self-tracking—can reduce negative impacts (Jeske, 2022; M?kikangas et al., 2022; Li & Wang, 2024). Additionally, monitoring is better received when framed as developmental rather than punitive, particularly when transparency is provided on how data is collected and used (Thiel et al., 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Bany Mohammed et al., 2024). Yet, autonomy alone does not determine EM’s impact—leadership style also plays a significant role.
Leadership style plays a crucial role in shaping engagement and morale under EM. Feedback-based EM, which focuses on coaching and performance development, tends to enhance engagement and trust. In contrast, surveillance-based EM—especially when linked to micromanagement—leads to stress, disengagement, and resistance (Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Li & Wang, 2024; Jeske, 2022; Lemon et al., 2024; Kalischko & Riedl, 2023). However, leadership is not the only factor influencing EM’s reception—technology also plays a growing role.
Technology further complicates the EM landscape, particularly with AI-driven monitoring. While automation and data analytics can improve efficiency, they also raise ethical concerns and may lead to disengagement if perceived as excessively intrusive (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Asmi & Prakash, 2024). Workplace culture further moderates EM’s impact—in psychologically safe, transparent environments, EM is less damaging to engagement, while high-surveillance, rigidly controlled workplaces see higher disengagement (Thiel et al., 2024; Bany Mohammed et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2024). This highlights the importance of workplace initiatives that can help offset EM’s negative impact.
To mitigate the downsides of EM, organisations can implement well-being initiatives, open communication, and clear monitoring policies. Additionally, industry norms and job roles influence how employees perceive and tolerate EM, making it crucial for organisations to tailor their approach (Jeske, 2022; Tursunbayeva et al., 2021; Vanitha & Shailashri, 2024). Overall, EM lowers engagement and morale unless implemented with autonomy, transparency, and constructive feedback. Building on the research already conducted and addressing the identified gaps will enable organisations to refine their monitoring strategies while supporting engagement and productivity in remote and hybrid work environments (Kalischko & Riedl, 2023; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Carlson et al., 2024).
3.2. Synthesis of Findings
EM in remote and hybrid technology workplaces predominantly reduces engagement and morale by increasing stress, eroding trust, and fostering counterproductive behaviours unless carefully managed (Jeske, 2022; Hill, 2020; Kalischko & Riedl, 2023; Li & Wang, 2024). However, the extent of these effects depends on multiple factors as follows:
Autonomy
The literature indicates that autonomy is crucial in shaping employee responses to EM (Jeske, 2022; M?kikangas et al., 2022). Engagement declines with restricted self-management, but increased self-control, such as self-tracking, it is reversed (Li & Wang, 2024). This reduction in autonomy not only affects motivation but also is influenced by different leadership styles.
Leadership and Psychological Safety
Leadership is crucial in moderating the impact of EM. An empowering leadership style, such as transformational leadership, fosters psychological safety and reduces EM-induced stress (Bany Mohammed et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2024). In contrast, micromanagement styles amplify disengagement (Thiel et al., 2024). This suggests that autonomy, trust, and leadership are interconnected, highlighting the importance of considering leadership style in the context of EM, engagement, and morale.
Type of EM
The type of EM also determines that level of effect. Surveillance-based monitoring, especially when fuelled by micromanagement, increased stress and thus engagement (Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Lemon et al., 2024). In contrast, feedback-based monitoring focused on coaching and development increased engagement (Kalischko & Riedl, 2023). AI driven EM can introduce many advantages improving efficiency, and thus stress, but raises concerns about ethics, especially when it is perceived as intrusive (Mer & Virdi, 2023).
Industry-Specific, Generational and Cultural Variations
EM outcomes vary across industries and cultures. Cultures with high power distance tend to have higher tolerance levels of surveillance, than individualistic societies where it is seen as a violation of autonomy and privacy (Colley & Willamson, 2020). Additionally younger employees, accustomed to digital tracking may be less resistant, while older employees perceive EM as micromanagement (Wieser & Abraham, 2023; Kalischko & Riedl, 2021). Industry, generational, and cultural nuances should be considered in EM policy development.
Future research should explore how monitoring can sustain productivity without compromising engagement and morale in technology-driven workplaces. Longitudinal studies, cultural influences, and AI-driven monitoring require further investigation to refine monitoring practices (Kalischko & Riedl, 2023; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Carlson et al., 2024). While empirical studies provide insights into EM’s effects, a theoretical lens is essential to explain the underlying mechanisms shaping engagement and morale.
4. Theoretical Evaluations
This literature review identified 50 theories used by authors in their evaluation of EM, staff engagement and morale in the context of a hybrid and remote work environment. Of these, 18 were most relevant, offering insights into various dimensions of monitoring. A comparative analysis of these 18 theories in appendix G summarising key theories, methodologies, and relevance to this research question.
The Most Applicable and Reoccurring Theories
Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model
JD-R Model views EM as a job demand that increases work stress and disengagement, particularly when employees have insufficient resources (e.g., autonomy, managerial support) to mitigate its effects (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; Li & Wang, 2024). However, this model assumes that job demands can always be offset by resources. For example, autonomy cannot relieve the stress caused by constant surveillance (Carlson et al., 2024; Vanitha & Shailashri, 2023).
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
SET takes a different approach, suggesting that EM primarily erodes trust between employees and employers (Jeske, 2022; Wieser & Abraham, 2024, Qin, 2024). Unlike JD-R, which focuses on EM as an operational stressor, SET argues that monitoring damages psychological contracts (i.e. perceived fairness) by making employees feel undervalued and distrusted, which in turn lowers morale (Lemon et al., 2024).
Employee Engagement Theory (EET)
EET links EM directly to motivation and productivity, arguing that supportive monitoring (e.g., feedback-driven systems) can enhance engagement, while surveillance-based monitoring reduces discretionary effort and morale (Qin, 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024). However, this theory lacks differentiation between types of monitoring and their long-term psychological effects, a gap that JD-R and SET attempt to address (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024).
Comparison and Research Question Contribution
JD-R, SET, and EET offer distinct but complementary explanations of how EM affects engagement and morale.
JD-R Model views EM as a job demand that increases stress and disengagement when employees lack autonomy or support (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Li & Wang, 2024). However, JD-R assumes resources can offset stress, which may not apply when EM is perceived as intrusive and unavoidable (Carlson et al., 2024).
SET instead highlights trust erosion, arguing that EM violates psychological contracts, reducing commitment and discretionary effort (Jeske, 2022; Wieser & Abraham, 2024). Unlike JD-R, which links disengagement to stress, SET sees perceived fairness as the key determinant of employee reactions (Lemon et al., 2024).
EET distinguishes between feedback-driven and surveillance-based EM, suggesting that framing matters—supportive monitoring enhances engagement, while punitive approaches reduce morale (Qin, 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024).
Together, JD-R explains stress, SET focuses on trust, and EET examines motivation, highlighting different pathways through which EM influences engagement and morale in remote and hybrid workplaces.
Literature Gaps in Theory discussion
Existing theories inadequately address leadership styles, cultural and generational differences, long-term psychological impacts, technological adaptation, and work-life balance. Transformational Leadership and Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions provide insight into how monitoring affects diverse demographics and organisational structures. Additionally, JD-R and SET require refinements to consider persistent monitoring-induced stressors. Previous studies focus primarily on short-term engagement or stress metrics, lacking longitudinal perspectives on how monitoring shapes employee trust and productivity over time (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024). This review enhances the theoretical foundation for EM’s role in employee engagement by addressing these deficiencies. Building on these theoretical insights, this study employs a methodological approach that captures both the psychological and organisational factors influencing EM’s impact on employees.
5. Methodology Analysis
Research on EM in hybrid and remote work environments employs quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches. While these methods provide valuable insights, they often fail to fully capture the complexities of employee engagement and morale in dynamic technological settings.
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative methods, such as surveys and structured questionnaires, measure employee attitudes toward monitoring across large datasets (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; Carlson et al., 2024; PwC Australia, 2023; Reddy, 2024; Deloitte Insights, 2024; Qin, 2024; Khorrami et al., 2024). These approaches facilitate statistical analysis, enabling researchers to track trends in productivity and workplace preferences. The deductive nature of these studies supports hypothesis testing and generalisable findings (Saunders et al., 2019).
However, quantitative research often oversimplifies psychosocial dynamics, failing to account for individual perceptions and contextual factors. Standardised survey instruments risk excluding subjective experiences essential for understanding engagement and morale (Weiser, 2024; Skelton, 2021; Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; ANZSOG, 2022; Qin, 2024). The dominance of cross-sectional surveys further limits insights into evolving employee perceptions, weakening assessments of monitoring’s sustained impact (PwC Australia, 2023; Safe Work Australia, 2023; Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2023). The absence of longitudinal studies represents a key methodological gap.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic studies, explore employee perceptions in depth (Lemon et al., 2024; Bolino et al., 2024; Matyjas-Lysakowska, 2024; Mettler, 2024). These approaches capture nuanced experiences, providing insight into how EM affects trust, autonomy, and workplace culture (Tursunbayeva et al., 2022; Nuswantoro et al., 2024; Sum et al., 2024).
Despite their depth, qualitative studies face limitations, including small, non-random samples that reduce generalisability (Bowell et al., 2024). Researcher bias, such as cultural and confirmation bias, can further distort findings (Adikaram & Naotunna, 2023; Mohammed et al., 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Khorrami, 2024). Additionally, social desirability bias may affect participant responses, particularly in organisational settings (Deloitte Insights, 2024; Vinith, 2024). While qualitative research enhances contextual understanding, issues of replicability and scalability limit its policy-making utility.
Mixed-Methods Approaches
Mixed-methods research combines the statistical rigour of quantitative approaches with the contextual depth of qualitative inquiry, enabling a holistic understanding of EM’s impact (Vinith et al., 2024; Asmi et al., 2024; Thiel et al., 2024). Unlike purely quantitative methods, which prioritise generalisability but overlook individual perspectives, mixed methods validate statistical findings while capturing lived experiences (Saunders et al., 2019; Thiel et al., 2024). Conversely, while qualitative studies offer rich insights, they lack scalability and objective validation. The sequential explanatory design (Saunders et al., 2019), where survey data informs follow-up interviews or focus groups, would strengthens both validity and interpretability (Tursunbayeva et al., 2022).
While mixed-methods research provides the most comprehensive framework for assessing EM’s impact on engagement and morale, it presents challenges in execution. Integrating diverse datasets requires substantial resources and expertise, and maintaining coherence between quantitative trends and qualitative narratives is critical to ensuring interpretability (Lemon et al., 2024; Thiel, 2024; Khorrami, 2024). Avoiding over-reliance on one approach strengthens the validity of findings. Given these complexities, future research must refine methodologies to balance depth with practicality, ensuring EM’s effects are accurately captured.
Methodological Implications and Gaps
Current research overwhelmingly relies on cross-sectional surveys, limiting insights into how employee engagement and morale evolve over time (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Bowell, 2024). The lack of longitudinal studies prevents organisations from assessing the sustained impact of monitoring. Future research should integrate multi-wave surveys with longitudinal qualitative analysis to track shifts in employee sentiment and workplace adaptation (PwC Australia, 2023; Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2023; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024).
Additionally, industry-specific variations in monitoring remain underexplored, particularly in the technology sector, where remote work policies differ significantly from traditional corporate structures (Sum et al., 2024; Qin, 2024). Comparative studies across industries could yield more tailored recommendations for monitoring implementation. Addressing these methodological gaps—particularly through longitudinal, cultural, generational, and industry-specific research—will be essential for understanding monitoring’s broader impact on engagement and morale. An evaluation of methodologies used in prior research, including their limitations, is detailed in Appendix D. While previous studies offer valuable insights, they also reveal several gaps in research design and scope, necessitating further exploration in specific areas.
6. Identified Gaps in Research
The literature highlights research gaps related to how EM influences employee engagement and morale in remote and hybrid work environments. The key gaps are as follows:
Long-Term Psychological and Behavioural Effects
EM affects trust and stress, but its long-term impact on engagement is unclear. Some studies suggest employees adapt (Jeske, 2022; Kalischko & Riedl, 2021), while others link prolonged exposure to disengagement and burnout (Mer & Virdi, 2023). However, reliance on short-term data leaves uncertainty about whether effects persist or fade. The lack of longitudinal research limits insight into whether monitoring leads to lasting morale decline or workplace adaptation (Adikaram & Naotunna, 2023; Carlson et al., 2023). Addressing this gap is essential for organisations implementing monitoring without reducing motivation.
Industry-Specific and Organisational Contexts
Most research generalises monitoring’s effects across industries, despite sector-specific differences (Lemon et al., 2024; Wieser et al., 2024). In technology-driven workplaces, where autonomy and innovation are critical to engagement, excessive monitoring may reduce motivation (Al Mohamed et al., 2024; Bany Mohammed et al., 2024). However, there is limited research distinguishing how monitoring affects high-autonomy sectors compared to structured environments, making it unclear whether engagement outcomes differ across industry contexts (Deloitte, 2024; Investment NSW, 2023).
Leadership’s Style
The influence of leadership styles on engagement in monitored workplaces remains underexplored (Qin, 2024; Tursunbayeva et al., 2021). Studies suggest that transformational leadership may reduce resistance to monitoring, while transactional leadership can either support engagement through structure or contribute to rigidity and stress (Iskamto, 2020; Wieser et al., 2024). Laissez-faire leadership, often linked to disengagement, has not been widely studied in monitoring contexts (Fatima et al., 2024). Further research is needed to assess which leadership styles sustain morale in monitored environments and how leadership moderates the effects of workplace surveillance.
Generational and Cultural Differences
Employee responses to monitoring vary by age and cultural background, yet studies have not fully explored how these differences affect engagement (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Wieser & Abraham, 2023). Younger employees familiar with digital tracking may be less resistant, whereas older employees often perceive monitoring as micromanagement (Kalischko & Riedl, 2021). Similarly, employees from high-power distance cultures may be more accepting of surveillance, while those from individualistic societies view it as a violation of autonomy (Colley & Williamson, 2020). Research should examine how generational and cultural differences shape engagement outcomes in monitored workplaces (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024).
Monitoring as a Workplace Stressor
The JD-R model does not fully account for monitoring as a chronic stressor, leaving uncertainty about its long-term impact on engagement (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Kalischko & Riedl, 2021). While JD-R suggests job resources like leadership and autonomy can counterbalance workplace demands, some studies indicate that continuous surveillance creates disengagement that cannot be mitigated (Carlson et al., 2024; Li & Wang, 2024). Further research should assess whether monitoring represents an unavoidable job demand that alters how employees engage with their work (Vanitha & Shailashri, 2024; Jeske, 2022).
Monitoring Effectiveness
Although monitoring is often introduced to improve productivity, its effectiveness in maintaining engagement and morale remains uncertain. Research suggests that excessive surveillance reduces trust, increases resistance, and weakens motivation (Jeske, 2022; Wieser & Abraham, 2023). To bridge this gap, it is essential to explore alternative monitoring structures. However, there is limited evidence on whether monitoring can be structured to enhance engagement, particularly through employee-driven oversight or AI-assisted feedback mechanisms (Keller et al., 2021; Sum & Fox, 2024).
7. Conclusion
This literature review explored the impact of EM on employee engagement and morale, highlighting its growing use, controversial effects, and industry-wide concerns over trust, autonomy, and satisfaction. While EM often reduces engagement, its impact varies based on leadership style, workplace culture, and monitoring type—developmental EM supports engagement, while surveillance-based EM fosters distrust and disengagement. Theoretical perspectives provide complementary insights, with JD-R linking EM to stress, SET to trust erosion, and EET to motivation, but gaps remain in understanding leadership’s role and cultural variations. Methodological analysis revealed quantitative studies lack depth, qualitative research lacks scalability, and mixed methods remain underutilised. To balance oversight with autonomy and well-being, future research should focus on longitudinal and mixed-methods studies to explore EM’s evolving effects, industry-specific variations, and leadership strategies that sustain engagement.
?
8. References
Adikaram, A. S., & Naotunna, N. P. G. S. I. (2023). Remote working during COVID-19 in Sri Lanka: Lessons learned and what the future holds. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 45(4), 1035–1056. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-06-2022-0259
Al Mohamed, A. A., Al Mohamed, S., & Alebrahem, M. (2024). The remote revolution: Assessing the impact of working from home on finance professionals. Future Business Journal, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00345-1
Alder, G. S. (2001). Employee reactions to electronic performance monitoring: A Consequence of Organizational Culture. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-8310(01)00042-6
ANZSOG. (2022, September 7). The future of working from home in the public sector. https://anzsog.edu.au/research-insights-and-resources/research/the-future-of-working-from-home-in-the-public-sector/
Asmi, M., & Prakash, Y. (2024). Study on leveraging digital tools for enhancing employee engagement in remote work settings. INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 08(06), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem35680
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024, December 9). Working Arrangements, August 2024. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/working-arrangements/latest-release
Australian Council of Trade Unions. (2023, June). Working from home. Australian Unions. https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/media1449319au_workingfromhome_p1.pdf
Backhaus, N. (2019). Context Sensitive Technologies and electronic employee monitoring: A Meta-Analytic Review. 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), 548–553. https://doi.org/10.1109/sii.2019.8700354
Bajkowski, J. (2024a, October 18). What NSW Government’s new work from office order actually says: Full document. The Mandarin. https://www.themandarin.com.au/251979-nsw-governments-new-work-from-office-order-full-document/
Bajkowski, J. (2024b, October 18). What NSW Government’s new work from office order actually says: Full document. The Mandarin. https://www.themandarin.com.au/251979-nsw-governments-new-work-from-office-order-full-document/
Bany Mohammed, A., Hmoud, H., Sultan, L., & Yaseen, H. (2024). The influence of remote work on scrum-based Information Technology Projects Management: Insights For Success. The TQM Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-06-2024-0228
Berners-Price, M., & Burrows, M. (2023). Current trends in remote working-Work from anywhere. KPMG Interantional. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2023/07/current-trends-in-remote-working.pdf
Beňo, M., Hvorecky, J., & ?imúth, J. (2021). E-panopticon of face-to-display workers: From the office to the home. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 11(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.33543/110197105
Boerner, R., & Sedge, B. (2023, July 14). Weighing the pros and cons of monitoring remote workers: 5 tips for employers. Fisher Phillips. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/pros-cons-of-monitoring-remote-workers.html
Bolino, M. C., & Phelps, C. (2024, May 30). 3 challenges to hybrid work - and how to overcome them. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/05/3-challenges-to-hybrid-work-and-how-to-overcome-them
Bowell, P., Smith, G. J. D., Pechenkina, E., & Scifleet, P. (2023). ‘you’re walking on eggshells’: Exploring subjective experiences of workplace tracking. Culture and Organization, 29(6), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2023.2198717
Burrows, M., & Berners-Price, M. (2023). Current trends in remote work. KPMG. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/xx/pdf/2023/07/current-trends-in-remote-working.pdf
Carlson, D. S., Perry, S. J., Kacmar, M., Wan, M., & Thompson, M. J. (2023). When work and family collide: ‘resource caravans’ of personal and contextual resources in remote work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 39(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12274
Chang, S. E., Liu, A. Y., & Lin, S. (2015). Exploring privacy and trust for employee monitoring. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-07-2014-0197
Colley, L., & Williamson, S. (2020). Working during the pandemic: From resistance to revolution? UNSW Canberra. Accessed from: https://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Working%20During%20the%20Pandemic%20From%20resistance%20to%20revolution.pdf
Cowden, C. H., & Zaar, S. (2024). Hybrid shifts, leadership lifts: How change leadership can make a difference in employees’ change-supportive behavior during the transition to hybrid working models since COVID-19. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v24i4.7401
Crawford, J., Magni, P. A., Burton, R., Glowatz, M., Malkawi, B., Rudolph, J., Butler-Henderson, K., & Lam, S. (2020). Covid-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Deloitte Access Economics. (2018). The future of work - occupational and education trends in Australia. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/future-of-work-occupational-education-trends.html
Deloitte. (2024). Remote, controlled. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/services/tax/research/global-tax-remote-work-survey.html
EY Ernest. (2024). EY survey on future workplace index. EY. https://www.ey.com/en_us/real-estate-hospitality-construction/ey-survey-on-future-workplace-index
领英推荐
Fair Work Ombudsman. (2025). The Privacy Act. Workplace privacy - Fair Work Ombudsman. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-and-resources/best-practice-guides/workplace-privacy?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Fatima, H., Javaid, Z. K., Arshad, Z., Ashraf, M., & Batool, H. (2024). A systematic review on the impact of remote work on employee engagement. Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), 13(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.61506/01.00306
Foster, A. (2024, September 20). Sign return-to-office mandates are backfiring as ‘hushed hybrid’ trend emerges . news.com.au. https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/sign-returntooffice-mandates-are-backfiring-as-hushed-hybrid-trend-emerges/news-story/d8050b85d105dd00543eec7f0aaaa533
Foster, B. (2024, October 10). WFH is being replaced by a less welcome acronym. Perth, we must fight back. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/wfh-is-being-replaced-by-a-less-welcome-acronym-perth-we-must-fight-back-20241007-p5kgi2.html
Friemuth, F., & Svenander, L. (2024, May 10). Leadership styles and employee motivation in a hybrid work environment: A quantitative study of leadership styles effects. Ume? University. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1865195/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Glavin, P., Bierman, A., & Schieman, S. (2024). Private eyes, they see your every move: Workplace Surveillance and worker well-being. Social Currents, 11(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241228874
Gratton, L. (2024, December 5). How to do hybrid right. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-to-do-hybrid-right
Hill, S. (2020, September 24). Corona-fied: Employers spying on remote workers in their homes. CounterPunch.org. https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/24/corona-fied-employers-spying-on-remote-workers-in-their-homes/
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Investment NSW. (2023). NSW Remote Working insights. https://www.investment.nsw.gov.au/living-working-and-business/nsw-innovation-and-productivity-council/our-publications/nsw-remote-working-insights/
Iskamto, D. (2020). The role of leadership and influence on employee performance in Digital Era. Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis, 17(4), 470–484. https://doi.org/10.38043/jmb.v17i4.2730
Jeske, D. (2022). Remote Workers’ experiences with electronic monitoring during covid-19: Implications and recommendations. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 15(3), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-02-2021-0042
Kaitie, M. (2023, September 19). Are you being watched while working? what hybrid workers need to know. UNSW Sites. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/09/are-you-being-watched-while-working--what-hybrid-workers-need-to
Kalischko, T., & Riedl, R. (2021). Electronic Performance Monitoring in the digital workplace: Conceptualization, review of effects and moderators, and Future Research Opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633031
Kalischko, T., & Riedl, R. (2023). On the consequences of electronic performance monitoring in organizations: Theory and evidence. Digital Transformation and Society, 3(1), 50–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/dts-10-2022-0054
Keller, A., Knight, C., & Parer, S. K. (2021, August 31). Remote Managers are having trust issues. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/07/remote-managers-are-having-trust-issues
Keller, A., Knight, C., & Parker, S. K. (2021, August 31). Remote Managers are having trust issues. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/07/remote-managers-are-having-trust-issues
Khanom, S. (2025, January 21). Hybrid work attendance monitoring in 2025 (in-depth guide). Apploye Blog. https://apploye.com/blog/hybridwork-monitoring-attendance/
Khorrami, K., Dziwulski, J., & Wojciechowska, K. (2024). Remote work efficiency and work satisfaction among specialists. EUROPEAN RESEARCH STUDIES JOURNAL, XXVII(Special Issue B), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/3490
Kossek, E. E., Griffith, T. L., Gibbs, J. L., Alge, B. J., & Hill, N. S. (2024). Remote and Hybrid Work: Transforming People and organisations in a New Era. Special Issue Call for Papers. https://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc
Kresge, L. (2023, November). Data and algorithms in the workplace: A Primer on new Technologies. Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California, Berkeley. https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Working-Paper-Data-and-Algorithms-in-the-Workplace-A-Primer-on-New-Technologies-FINAL.pdf
Kyselova, O., & Matyjas-?ysakowska, P. (2024). Employee subordination of civil service officials in the context of remote work: Insights from Polish and Ukranian experience. Futurity Economics & Law, 148–167. https://doi.org/10.57125/fel.2024.06.25.09
Laksanadjaja, F., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2024). Uncovering the web of secrets surrounding employee monitoring software: A content analysis of information provided by vendors. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7951911
Lam, S., Mangi, P., Burton, R., Glowatz, M., Malkawi, B. H., Jurgen, R., Butler-Henderson, K., & Crawford, J. (2020). Covid-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Lazar, I. (2025). Hybrid work strategies: Navigating the future of employee engagement in 2025. Metrigy. https://metrigy.com/hybrid-work-strategies-navigating-the-future-of-employee-engagement-in-2025/
Lemon, L. L., Bawole, C., Brinson, N. H., & Amini, B. (2024). Somebody’s watching me: Boundary turbulence and its impact on employee engagement. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 29(6), 955–973. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-12-2023-0171
Li, S., & Wang, Y. (2024). A study on the positive and negative effects of different supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1383207
Maurer, R. (2024, August 23). AI surveillance in the workplace linked to employee resistance, turnover. Welcome to SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/employee-relations/ai-surveillance-in-the-workplace-linked-to-employee-resistance--
Mer, A., & Virdi, A. S. (2023). Navigating the paradigm shift in HRM practices through the lens of Artificial Intelligence: A post-pandemic perspective. The Adoption and Effect of Artificial Intelligence on Human Resources Management, Part A, 123–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-027-920231007
Mettler, T. (2023). The connected workplace: Characteristics and social consequences of work surveillance in the age of datification, sensorization, and Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Information Technology, 39(3), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231202535
Microsoft. (2021, March 22). The next great disruption is hybrid work-are we ready? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work
MIT Human Resouces. (2024). Performance development in a remote or hybrid workplace. MIT Human Resources. https://hr.mit.edu/performance/remote
Moody, K. (2022, May 23). People feel disconnected from company culture. but is hybrid work the problem?. HR Dive. https://www.hrdive.com/news/people-feel-disconnected-from-company-culture-but-is-hybrid-work-the-probl/624156/
M?kikangas, A., Juutinen, S., M?kiniemi, J.-P., Sj?blom, K., & Oksanen, A. (2022). Work engagement and its antecedents in remote work: A person-centered view. Work & Stress, 36(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080777
Nagele-Piazza, L. (2023, Summer). The pros and cons of monitoring remote workers. HR Magazine, 20–23.
NSW Innovation and Productivity Council. (2021). NSW Remote Working insights. Investment NSW. https://www.investment.nsw.gov.au/living-working-and-business/nsw-innovation-and-productivity-council/our-publications/nsw-remote-working-insights/
Nuswantoro, B., & Richter, A. (2024). Forty-fifth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). In Visibility Artifacts in Hybrid Work. Bangkok.
OAIC, Australian Government. (2024, October 15). Workplace Monitoring and surveillance. OAIC. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/surveillance-and-monitoring/workplace-monitoring-and-surveillance?utm_source=chatgpt.com
O’Loughlin, H. (2025, January 9). 18 major companies requiring 5 days in office. Buildremote. https://buildremote.co/companies/companies-requiring-5-days-in-office/
Paciello, L. (2024, March 7). Human capital efficiency: A comprehensive overview. Handle Proxy. https://hdl.handle.net/10579/26798
Productivity Commission. (2021, September). Working from home - research paper. Research Paper. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/working-from-home/working-from-home.pdf
Productivity Commission. (2023). Forced experiment working from home. Commission Research Paper. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/working-from-home
PwC Australia. (2023). 2023 future of Work Outlook. https://www.pwc.com.au/important-problems/future-of-work/2023-Future-of-Work-Outlook.pdf
PWC Australia. (2023). 2023 future of Work Outlook. https://www.pwc.com.au/important-problems/future-of-work/2023-Future-of-Work-Outlook.pdf
Qin, Y. S. (2024). How internal listening inspires remote employee engagement: Examining the mediating effects of perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Communication Management, 28(4), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-11-2023-0117
Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., White, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2019). EPM 20/20: A review, Framework, and Research Agenda for Electronic Performance Monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319869435
Reddy, P. S. S., & Sai, P. (2024). Impact of hybrid work model on employee engagement and productivity. Amity Business Review, 42. https://amity.edu/abs/abr/pdf/ABR-VOL-25-ISSUE-NO-1-JANUARY-JUNE-2024.pdf#page=50
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.
Scott, A. (2024, November 6). The impact of workplace monitoring. IOSH magazine. https://www.ioshmagazine.com/2024/11/01/impact-workplace-monitoring
Skelton, S. K. (2021, May 5). Deploying Productivity Monitoring Software ethically: Computer Weekly. ComputerWeekly.com. https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Deploying-productivity-monitoring-software-ethically
Soga, L. R., Bolade-Ogunfodun, Y., Mariani, M., Nasr, R., & Laker, B. (2022). Unmasking the other face of flexible working practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 142, 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.024
Sum, C. M., & Fox, S. E. (2024). “It’s Always a Losing Game”: How Workers Understand and Resist Surveillance Technologies on the Job.
Team EmpMonitor. (2025, January 20). The unique benefits of automated timesheets. EmpMonitor. https://empmonitor.com/blog/automated-timesheets/
Thiel, C., Harvey, J., McClean, S., & Price, N. (2024, February 21). Surveilling employees erodes trust - and puts managers in a bind. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/02/surveilling-employees-erodes-trust-and-puts-managers-in-a-bind
Tursunbayeva, A., Pagliari, C., Di Lauro, S., & Antonelli, G. (2021). The ethics of people analytics: Risks, opportunities and recommendations. Personnel Review, 51(3), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-12-2019-0680
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352246
Vanitha, N., & Shailashri, V. T. (2024). A systematic literature review on impact of hybrid work culture on employee job engagement and productivity - a study of IT professionals in Karnataka. EPRA International Journal of Research & Development (IJRD), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra15360
View of role of leadership in enhancing employee performance in the Digital Era. (n.d.). https://journal.sabajayapublisher.com/index.php/jmeb/article/view/405/194
Vinith, K., & Pinto, D. E. (2023). Information technology in surveillance of employee performance. EPRA International Journal of Environmental Economics, Commerce and Educational Management, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra14255
White, L. (2024, October 28). US agencies take stand against AI-driven employee monitoring. IAPP. https://iapp.org/news/a/cfpb-takes-on-enforcement-measures-to-prevent-employee-monitoring
Wieser, L., & Abraham, M. (2023). Employee acceptance of digital monitoring systems while working from home. New Technology, Work and Employment, 39(1), 109–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12280
Williamson, S., Colley, L., & Hanna‐Osborne, S. (2020). Will working from home become the ‘New Normal’ in the public sector? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 601–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12444
?
9.Appendices
9.1.Appendix A: Preliminary Study
The implementation of return-to-office mandates by prominent organisations has reignited debates on the future of workplace dynamics. High-profile organisations, including Amazon, Salesforce, and the New South Wales Government in Australia, have recently introduced policies requiring employees to return to physical offices (O'Loughlin, 2025; Bajkowski, 2024). These mandates are often justified as necessary for fostering collaboration and organisational culture, though they remain polarising among employees and the public. To explore this issue, the author conducted a preliminary study, a research method recommended by Saunders et al. (2019), examining articles from 12 major Australian newspapers and media outlets. The study focused on gauging public opinion and assessing the level of interest in this topic. The findings highlighted significant public engagement, reflecting widespread concern and interest in the implications of return-to-office mandates. These results emphasise the importance of further academic investigation into the societal and organisational impacts of return-to-office policies, particularly as remote work remains a prevalent and preferred arrangement for many employees. The result of the preliminary research is as follows:
A Google search on 12 nationally recognised new media brands of Australian newspapers and media outlets reveal a total of 94 articles in the last 6 months, discussing the validity of remote work or the return to office mandate.
The query: ("remote work" OR "work from home" OR "WFH") AND ("return to office" OR "RTO" OR "office mandate") AND (site:abc.net.au OR site:theguardian.com/au OR site:smh.com.au OR site:theaustralian.com.au OR site:news.com.au OR site:heraldsun.com.au OR site:dailytelegraph.com.au OR site:couriermail.com.au OR site:thewest.com.au OR site:adelaidenow.com.au OR site:afr.com OR site:newcastleherald.com.au)
Date: Greater than 30/6/2024.
Key words: remote work.
Table 1: Articles on Remote Published Since 30/6/2024.
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Source: Google search
The analysis of articles identified several key themes relevant to the discussion of return-to-office (RTO) mandates.
1.????? Control and Power Dynamics: Many articles highlighted that RTO mandates are perceived as mechanisms for employers to reassert control and authority over employees. This perception has contributed to resistance and dissatisfaction among the workforce.
2.????? Employee Well-being and Productivity: The impact of work-from-home (WFH) arrangements on employee well-being and productivity was a prominent theme. While some sources underscored the benefits of WFH, including improved productivity and enhanced work-life balance, others pointed to challenges such as social isolation and burnout.
3.????? Economic and Business Impacts: The economic implications of RTO versus WFH emerged as a major area of focus. Discussions encompassed the effects on commercial real estate, local businesses, and broader economic productivity.
4.????? Flexibility and Hybrid Models: The growing demand for flexible work arrangements and hybrid models was widely discussed, reflecting a shift in employee expectations and the need for organisations to adapt their practices to attract and retain talent.
5.????? Resistance and Backlash: Articles noted significant resistance and backlash from employees against strict RTO mandates, often tied to concerns about commuting, work-life balance, and a perceived lack of trust from employers.
6.????? Technological and Logistical Challenges: The transition between WFH and RTO revealed various technological and logistical obstacles, including the need for improved digital infrastructure and the complexities of managing a hybrid workforce.
An additional Google search using the keywords “RTO” or “return to work” yielded 185 results, which reinforced the aforementioned themes while also highlighting new aspects. These included the financial losses incurred by commercial properties, incentives introduced by companies to encourage employees to return to the office, and the legal challenges posed by Australian employees resisting these mandates.
Although the references retrieved from this search may lack academic credibility—being prone to sensationalism, biases, and unsubstantiated claims—they demonstrate the proliferation of available material on the topic. Of particular interest were mentions of surveys, research studies, and secondary data sources that could substantiate future academic research on the topic. Based on this preliminary research, the author determined that the topic holds relevance beyond the organisation or employee, warranting further investigation and a broader exploration across the Australian business landscape.
Newspaper articles that specifically mention timesheet or electronic monitoring are as follows:
Table 2: Newspaper Articles that Mention EM
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Source: Author’s creation.APPENDIX B: Literary Review Worksheet
Table 3: Literary Review Worksheet - Section 1
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Source: Author’s creation
Table 4: Literary Review Worksheet - Section 2
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Source: Author’s creationAppendix C: Evidence of Decreasing Engagement and Morale
The organisation faces declining employee satisfaction and retention challenges, evidenced by both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative Indicators:
Qualitative Indicators:
These findings are concerning, as effective flexible work arrangements can enhance engagement by up to 25% when implemented correctly (Colley & Williamson, 2022; Productivity Commission, 2024). Their research underscores the need to balance flexibility with structured processes and communication. Addressing timesheet tracking challenges and their impact on engagement is a critical focus of this study.
9.2.Appendix D: Research Significance to Different Stakeholders
At the organisational level, understanding the causes of reduced engagement is crucial for long-term success. Research indicates that disengagement linked to excessive monitoring can lead to productivity losses of up to 15% of annual salaries (White, 2024; Deloitte Access Economics, 2023). Addressing these concerns will enable companies to enhance trust, retention, and operational efficiency (EY, 2024; Roy Morgan, 2024).
The technology industry level, a leader in remote work adoption, faces unique challenges in implementing monitoring solutions without compromising morale. While large corporations have well-defined frameworks (Crawford et al., 2020), small to medium-sized firms struggle with effective policy implementation (Williamson et al., 2020; Investment NSW, 2023). Public opinion analysis from leading Australian news outlets (see Appendix A) highlights concerns about privacy and trust erosion, reinforcing the need for transparent and balanced monitoring policies.
This research informs workplace policies by offering insights into the balance between administrative oversight and employee autonomy. Findings will contribute to the development of ethical monitoring guidelines, helping policymakers and HR professionals implement fair and transparent systems (Tursunbayeva et al., 2022; Lemon et al., 2024). Public discourse, as reflected in media analysis (Appendix A), underscores the growing scrutiny of electronic monitoring practices and their alignment with employee expectations. As 58% of Australian companies plan to revise workplace policies within the next year, these insights are timely and relevant (KPMG Australia, 2024; Productivity Commission, 2024).
9.3.Appendix E: Mitigation Strategies and Best Practices
Effective strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of electronic monitoring are as follows:
Enhanced Management Practices and Support
Organisational and supervisory listening plays a significant role in mitigating the adverse effects of monitoring by fostering trust and perceived organisational support (Qin, 2024; Investment NSW, 2023). Jeske (2022) highlights the importance of managerial awareness in promoting autonomy, while AI-enabled HRM practices, when implemented ethically, enhance engagement (Mer & Virdi, 2023; Deloitte Insights, 2024). Ethical considerations in people analytics, as emphasised by Tursunbayeva et al. (2022), reinforce the need for transparency to prevent disengagement and resistance (EY, 2024).
Graduated Flexibility Framework
A phased approach to flexibility is recommended to accommodate varying experience levels, ensuring employees adapt to monitoring practices effectively (Adikaram & Naotunna, 2023; KPMG Australia, 2024). New remote employees benefit from structured schedules that establish routines, while experienced workers perform better with greater autonomy. Scheduled brainstorming sessions have been shown to foster creativity (Bany Mohammed et al., 2024; Safe Work Australia, 2023). Carlson et al. (2024) advocate for integrating work-family balance resources to support employees while maintaining performance expectations.
Pre-Implementation Considerations and Training
Addressing engagement issues before implementing monitoring systems is crucial to ensure a smooth transition (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; PwC Australia, 2023). Clear and well-structured remote work policies, as recommended by Hill (2020), reduce uncertainty and foster trust. Defining monitoring boundaries from the outset establishes clear expectations and prevents conflict (Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Productivity Commission, 2024). Trust-building efforts, such as engaging employees early in the decision-making process, can increase acceptance and compliance (Lemon et al., 2024; Deloitte Insights, 2024).Interactive Management Approach
Reducing reliance on monitoring metrics while increasing supervisor-employee dialogue fosters a more balanced approach to oversight (Jeske, 2022; Qin, 2024). Regular feedback sessions improve alignment and morale by addressing concerns proactively (Bany Mohammed et al., 2024; EY, 2024). Monitoring data should be used to support employee development rather than for punitive measures (Mer & Virdi, 2023; White, 2024).
Employee Empowerment and Involvement
Providing employees with greater control over their performance assessments enhances engagement and morale (Wieser & Abraham, 2024; Roy Morgan, 2024). Involving employees in monitoring implementation decisions increases buy-in and reduces resistance (Kalischko & Riedl, 2024; Deloitte Insights, 2024). Clear guidelines for home office setups, as recommended by Carlson et al. (2024), enhance productivity and reduce stress, contributing to long-term engagement.
Organisational Infrastructure and Support
Health-promoting interventions, such as wellness programs and flexible scheduling, alleviate stress associated with monitoring (Jeske, 2022; Safe Work Australia, 2023). Providing resources for effective home office setups ensures employees can maintain productivity in remote environments (Carlson et al., 2024; Investment NSW, 2023). Training on work-life balance management, as suggested by Adikaram & Naotunna (2023), helps employees effectively manage competing demands. Additionally, establishing a supportive organisational culture fosters long-term engagement and resilience (Mer & Virdi, 2023; KPMG Australia, 2024).
9.4. APPENDIX F: Proposed Research Strategy
To address gaps in existing research, this study will suggest a longitudinal mixed-methods design, based on Saunders et al. (2019), incorporating:
1.?????? Initial Case Study: A focused case study to refine the research scope and ensure alignment with organisational goals.
2.?????? Longitudinal Surveys: Tracking engagement and morale over time to identify trends and long-term impacts.
3.?????? Industry Sector Analysis: Comparative studies across sectors such as technology, healthcare, and finance to explore sector-specific factors.
4.?????? Generational and Cultural Considerations: Stratified sampling to examine generational and cultural differences in monitoring perceptions.
5.?????? Expanded Case Studies: Detailed organisational analyses to provide actionable insights for business leaders and policymakers.
This research proposes a sequential explanatory strategy, where quantitative data collection precedes qualitative exploration to provide deeper insights. Unlike inductive approaches that rely solely on qualitative data or simultaneous mixed-method designs, this strategy ensures a structured transition between phases, enhancing methodological clarity and alignment with a pragmatic research philosophy (Saunders et al., 2019).
By combining case studies, longitudinal perspectives, and industry-specific insights, this approach offers a comprehensive framework to examine how electronic monitoring affects engagement and morale in remote and hybrid work environments.
9.5. Appendix G: Matrix of Theory mapped to Research Relevance.
Table 5: Matrix of Theory Mapped to Research Relevance
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Source: Author’s creation