A viral Reddit post this week exposed a management failure masquerading as a policy decision. An employee suffering from a severe headache requested an extension to their sick leave. Their manager’s response: share your live location via WhatsApp.
The incident, posted on Reddit’s IndianWorkplace forum and subsequently reported in media, sparked immediate backlash. Commenters described the demand as invasive and reflective of a workplace culture built on suspicion rather than trust.
But here’s what the outrage missed: this isn’t primarily a privacy story. It’s a competence story.
When a manager needs GPS coordinates to verify an employee’s whereabouts, they’ve already admitted something uncomfortable – they don’t know how to measure what actually matters.
The Surveillance Surge
The live location demand sits at the extreme end of a broader trend. According to research compiled by multiple industry surveys, approximately 78% of companies now use some form of employee monitoring software. The market for such tools is projected to reach nearly $7 billion by 2030.
The pandemic accelerated adoption dramatically. When teams went remote, managers who had relied on physical presence as a proxy for productivity found themselves disoriented. Surveillance tools offered a solution – or so it seemed.
Yet the research tells a more complicated story. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that employees subjected to monitoring were more likely to engage in counterproductive behaviours – taking unapproved breaks, disregarding instructions, even stealing office equipment. In a follow-up experiment, employees who believed they were being watched were actually more likely to cheat than those who thought they weren’t.
The explanation lies in psychology. When surveillance replaces trust, employees stop feeling personally accountable for their conduct. Their internal moral compass – the thing that guides behaviour when nobody’s watching – begins to malfunction.
The Trust Tax
The business costs of this dynamic are substantial, even if they don’t appear on a balance sheet.
Research from Secure Data Recovery found that over a third of employees report negative mental health consequences from workplace surveillance. Nearly half say monitoring feels like an invasion of privacy. A similar proportion report feeling untrusted.
These aren’t just emotional responses – they translate into measurable outcomes. Studies consistently show that intrusive monitoring correlates with higher turnover and reduced engagement. One survey found that 54% of employees would consider leaving their job if their employer increased surveillance.
The economics work against heavy-handed monitoring. The manager in the Reddit story might have been trying to prevent a single day of questionable sick leave. But the cost of replacing an employee who decides they’ve had enough typically runs to several months’ salary.
The Coffee Badge Response
Employees aren’t passive recipients of surveillance culture. They adapt – often in ways that undermine the very outcomes monitoring was supposed to improve.
The phenomenon of “coffee badging” illustrates this perfectly. According to Owl Labs research, 44% of hybrid workers admitted to the practice in 2024 – showing up at the office, grabbing a coffee, making themselves visible, then leaving to work from home.
It’s a rational response to irrational incentives. When organisations measure presence rather than performance, employees optimise for presence. The metric is satisfied. The underlying business need isn’t.
This represents a broader pattern. When trust erodes, compliance becomes performative. Employees deliver exactly what’s measured and nothing more. The discretionary effort that distinguishes good work from adequate work quietly disappears.
A Different Approach
The alternative to surveillance isn’t permissiveness – it’s precision.
The distinction matters. Input-based management tracks hours, clicks, and locations. Outcome-based management defines what success looks like and measures whether it’s achieved.
Gallup research on high-performing managers consistently finds that the best leaders share certain traits: they match talent to task, trust workers to do their best, and then get out of the way. They spend their energy on enabling performance rather than monitoring activity.
For organisations grappling with this tension, several principles emerge from the research.
First, transparency matters more than technology. Studies show employees are more accepting of monitoring when they understand what’s being tracked and why. The resentment often stems not from measurement itself, but from feeling that measurement is happening secretly or arbitrarily.
Second, the purpose of data determines its impact. When monitoring information feeds performance coaching and workload management, it can genuinely help. When it becomes ammunition for punishment, it backfires.
Third, managers requesting surveillance tools deserve scrutiny. If a manager can’t assess their team’s performance without GPS coordinates, the problem isn’t insufficient data – it’s unclear expectations or inadequate goal-setting.
The Real Question
The Reddit incident invites a straightforward question for any leader: if your team delivered their work on time, to a high standard, would it matter whether they were at home, in a café, or at their desk?
For roles where physical presence genuinely matters – customer-facing positions, collaborative sessions, equipment-dependent work – the answer might be yes. For knowledge work, it rarely is.
The most successful organisations in the coming years will be those that figure out how to measure what matters while trusting professionals to manage how they get there.
For those still reaching for the GPS, a warning: you might track where your best employees are today. You probably won’t track where they’ve gone tomorrow.
