Faking productivity: Do you know the difference between a pulse and a purpose?
Summary
Recent revelations that police officers and civilian staff used “keyboard jamming” to fake remote working activity have reignited debates about trust, surveillance and what organisations actually measure. While the misconduct is serious and deserving of sanction, the bigger issue is cultural: many organisations reward the appearance of work (a digital pulse) rather than the actual value delivered (a purpose).
The article argues that prevalent monitoring tools — keystroke trackers, hourly screenshots, mouse-movement checks and presence indicators — measure presence not performance. In knowledge work, the most valuable contributions (decisions, problem-solving, mentoring) rarely show up as keystrokes. Over-reliance on surveillance produces performance theatre, discriminates against different working styles and creates a feedback loop of anxiety and gaming.
Key Points
- Keyboard jamming is misconduct, but it exposes a deeper cultural problem: organisations often reward visible activity rather than real outcomes.
- Surveillance tools measure a digital pulse (presence) not the substantive value of knowledge work.
- Monitoring discriminates against people who work or think differently and incentivises performance theatre over meaningful contribution.
- Many organisations embraced hybrid working without clearly defining what productivity means for them; that leadership gap drives reliance on proxies like login times and screenshots.
- The solution is leadership: define clear outcomes, have honest conversations about contribution, invest in trust and autonomy — not more tracking.
Context and Relevance
This matters to HR professionals, people leaders and anyone running hybrid or remote teams. As workplaces adopt more surveillance tech, the stakes rise: hiring, promotion and retention can be skewed by measures that favour visible busyness. The piece sits squarely within broader trends — the rise of the suspicion economy, debates about hybrid working norms, and an urgent need to rethink how organisations measure knowledge work.
Practically, the article prompts leaders to stop treating monitoring as a substitute for management. It connects ongoing industry conversations about trust, inclusivity (including neurodiversity) and modern performance measurement, and urges a shift from tracking signs of life to assessing real impact.
Why should I read this?
Quick heads-up: if you manage people or care about how your organisation measures work, this is worth a few minutes. It cuts through the noise — saying plainly that more screenshots and keystroke trackers won’t make you more effective. Read it to understand why your metrics might be broken and what to prioritise instead: clear outcomes, trust and proper leadership. We’ve saved you time by reading the nuance and laying out what actually needs fixing.