The use of software to monitor employee activity — tracking hours, measuring output, and logging computer usage — has become significantly more widespread since the expansion of remote working. It sits at the centre of a genuine tension between employer interests in productivity and employee expectations of privacy and trust, and both sides of the debate have substantial arguments to offer. Managers who support electronic monitoring argue that it provides an objective basis for performance measurement that subjective observation cannot match. In remote working environments particularly, where managers cannot see their teams directly, productivity tracking tools offer reassurance that work is being completed as agreed and flag problems — such as underperformance or disengagement — early enough to address them constructively. Proponents also point out that employees generally accept that their working hours and output are legitimately of interest to their employer, and that transparent, clearly communicated monitoring is no different in principle from the supervision that has always existed in physical workplaces. Opponents, however, argue that pervasive digital oversight fundamentally changes the nature of the employment relationship in damaging ways. When employees know that every keystroke, website visit, and idle minute is being recorded and analysed, the psychological effect is one of constant surveillance that erodes autonomy and generates chronic stress — both of which demonstrably reduce the creativity and quality of judgement that knowledge work requires. Trust, once undermined by invasive monitoring, is difficult to rebuild, and high-performing employees who feel scrutinised rather than supported tend to disengage or leave. In my view, a limited and transparent approach is the appropriate middle ground. Monitoring that tracks completion of agreed outputs — rather than granular activity data — respects employee autonomy while meeting legitimate employer accountability needs. Employers who invest in clear communication and mutual trust will consistently outperform those who rely on surveillance as a substitute for it.