When you think about companies monitoring their employees’ productivity, does it conjure up a creepy Big Brother-esque scenario?

Many of us instinctively feel like productivity monitoring is invasive. But there’s also a strong case to be made for why it’s useful—and how it can be implemented well, with minimal creepiness.

We’ll hear today from three Kellogg faculty members—Thomas Hubbard, a professor of strategy, Sarit Markovich, a clinical professor of strategy, and Hatim Rahman, an assistant professor of management and organizations—who recently sat down together for a conversation about how productivity monitoring can be done gracefully and effectively.

How should companies be using productivity-monitoring tools?

The professors have all looked at productivity monitoring in different industries, from trucking to gig work. Their discussion touched on both the promise and potential pitfalls of using these sorts of tools.

Below are some lightly edited excerpts from their conversation—starting with how productivity monitoring can be done effectively:

HUBBARD: The trucking industry is an interesting place to look. It essentially monitored remote work in the form of onboard computers starting in the late 1980s.

Onboard computers let you monitor two things. First, they let you monitor the driver and how they operate their truck, so you can see whether they brake too much, or how they are operating the gears, and whether they are driving in a way that preserves the value of the truck. Second, the more advanced systems provide real-time location information to the dispatcher. Now they can match trucks to hauls a lot more efficiently. This is creating more output out of the same resources, and that’s a huge gain. And for drivers who are only paid when they are carrying a load, this is also good news.

In fact, there are plenty of ways to introduce monitoring technology and have it be a win–win: “We’re going to monitor you more, but we’re going to pay you more because you’re going to work harder.”

MARKOVICH: Another aspect to consider is employee safety. Typically, employees are going to be more willing to accept monitoring when safety is a concern.

HUBBARD: Similarly, in situations where employees are at risk of being blamed for things that aren’t their fault, they’re going to be more willing to accept monitoring technologies, because that provides a direct benefit to them.

RAHMAN: There is also learning. If you can use technologies to help people improve their performance, rather than merely tying it to sanctions and direct rewards, they will be much more willing to accept monitoring.

Some workers also appreciate that monitoring systems let them get credit for the work that they’ve done. So for example, with the change to remote work, some employees whose accomplishments are often overlooked, such as women and other underrepresented minorities, benefited from monitoring because it allowed them to get credit for work when they may otherwise be overlooked.

And here they discuss where productivity monitoring can go wrong:

RAHMAN: Ideally, monitoring can work well. But a lot of times it is implemented haphazardly. For example, some organizations are trying to use monitoring software to see whether contract attorneys are engaged or not. We know with a lot of knowledge-intensive work that taking a walk can sometimes help you come up with a breakthrough idea. But if the software determines that, for example, you’re not looking at your screen in a way the program can track, it automatically logs you off. That’s poor implementation.

It also reflects a lack of trust between employees and organizations.

MARKOVICH: Trust is perhaps most challenging of all in the gig economy.

For ride-hailing, trust matters less, because the incentives are aligned, meaning that if I’m a driver I want this ride to end as soon as possible because then I can take another one, which is exactly what the rider wants as well.

But when you are paying per hour, rather than per task, this is where things are going to become a little bit more complex.

You can read more of their conversation here.