It’s easy to monitor your employees’ every move with modern technology. So should you?
The temptation is understandable. The key question is: Are employees motivated to do a good job? Or does getting the most from them require constant oversight? Intuition might suggest the latter – but experience says otherwise.
In the early days of business theory, the idea that management was primarily about surveillance (and “cracking the whip”) was popular. But over time, managers learned that employees aren’t just a cost – they’re an asset. Beginning in the 1980s, lessons from Japanese companies illuminated the value engaged employees bring to an enterprise. Toyota, in particular, found that by encouraging employees to be more involved in decision-making, they could improve product quality and productivity.
Toyota’s success at improving manufacturing quality – which endures today – started with trusting employees. A culture of trust and respect tells employees their contributions matter – in turn, encouraging and empowering them go beyond the rote requirements of their job descriptions.
With engagement tied to higher productivity, lower absenteeism, and better customer service, it’s easy to see how engaged employees can uplift a medical practice. But it won’t happen without trust – and electronic monitoring is a sure-fire way to communicate that you don’t trust your employees at all.
Rather than trying to control your employees with surveillance, consider setting goals and incentives that encourage the behavior you want. Rely on reports and data, not constant monitoring, to evaluate how employees are doing. Start by hiring carefully, so you don’t have doubts about trust right out of the gate. And relax a little: Most people want to contribute and do their jobs well. Give them the structure to do it, and you won’t need to watch them all the time.
Another thought to consider: If the huge potential benefits of an engaged staff aren’t enough to make you rethink surveillance, remember that every minute a practice owner or manager spends on monitoring is one that can’t be invested elsewhere. Surveillance is very time-consuming (read: costly). Odds are there are more valuable ways to use that time.