62% of Employees Oppose Musk-Style Monitoring

Workplace surveillance is on the rise, with many companies adopting strict productivity tracking to monitor employees. But how do workers feel about this constant scrutiny? Zety’s latest Workplace Monitoring Report explores their views on extreme oversight— including policies similar to Elon Musk’s controversial ‘pulse check’ emails.

The survey of 1,000 U.S. workers found widespread opposition to strict reporting, many citing these policies as detrimental to their job satisfaction and mental health.

Key Findings

• Employees reject Musk-style tracking: 62% disagree with Elon Musk's weekly "five work accomplishments" policy – 30% would actively look for a new job if their employer implemented a similar policy and 9% would quit immediately.
• Workplace surveillance leads to turnover: 1 in 9 employees have quit due to extreme accountability or monitoring, and 1 in 6 have considered it.
• Strict reporting policies drive dissatisfaction: 90% say strict reporting negatively impacts the workplace, citing decreased job satisfaction (22%), a culture of fear (22%), and increased burnout (18%).
• Productivity tracking methods vary: While 37% of workplaces lack formal tracking, many use regular manager check-ins (23%), status reports (14%), time-tracking software (14%), and surveillance tools (6%).
• Privacy concerns over monitoring: 1 in 5 employees are against employers monitoring computer usage, emails, and online activity, believing it violates their privacy.

Employee Reactions to Musk’s ‘Pulse Check’ Policy

Recent discussions on workplace oversight have been fueled by Elon Musk’s mandate requiring federal employees to submit a list of five work accomplishments each week or face termination. Employees overwhelmingly reject this level of scrutiny:

• 42% strongly disagree with the policy.
• 20% somewhat disagree.
• 20% somewhat agree.
• 18% strongly agree.

If their employer adopted a similar policy:

• 30% would actively look for another job.
• 30% would tolerate it but dislike it.
• 25% would be fine with it and stay.
• 9% would quit immediately.

The pressure of extreme accountability and workplace surveillance has led many employees to reconsider their positions: 1 in 9 employees have quit their job due to such practices, and 1 in 6 have seriously considered it.

What This Means: Mandating frequent productivity reports may backfire, pushing employees to seek workplaces with greater autonomy.

How Employers Track Their Workers

While 37% of employees say their workplace has no formal productivity tracking in place, many report the use of various methods to monitor work completion:

• Regular check-ins with managers (23%)
• Regular status reports via email (14%)
• Time-tracking software (14%)
• Surveillance software, including screen monitoring and keystroke tracking (6%)
• Project management tools such as Asana or Jira (6%)

Despite these measures, 66% of employees say they have full autonomy to manage their workload without constant oversight. However, 25% feel they have some freedom but are still frequently checked in on, and 9% feel closely monitored and micromanaged.

What This Means: Finding the right balance between accountability and flexibility can help organizations maintain employee engagement.

The Harm of Strict Reporting Policies

A significant portion of employees feels the pressure of frequent reporting: 34% say their employer requires them to report on their work daily, and 15% are asked to do so weekly.

This constant oversight takes a toll, with the majority of employees (90%) believing that strict reporting policies negatively impact the workplace, harming both employee well-being and company culture. The most cited consequences include:

• Decreased job satisfaction (22%)
• Creating a culture of fear (22%)
• Increased burnout (18%)
• Higher turnover rates (15%)
• Decreased productivity (12%)

What This Means: Employers should evaluate whether constant reporting is truly improving productivity or simply escalating stress, and find ways to reduce unnecessary pressure.

Employee Views on Monitoring Workplace Activity

As debates about workplace surveillance grow, employees have mixed opinions on the extent to which employers should monitor their activities. When asked about monitoring computer usage, emails, and online activity during work hours:

• 36% believe employers have the right to monitor these activities to ensure employees stay on task.
• 21% feel that employee monitoring violates privacy and are against it.
• 43% think monitoring should depend on the role and industry, suggesting that some positions may require more oversight than others.

What This Means: Companies should consider the role and industry when determining how much oversight is appropriate, ensuring that monitoring is transparent and justified.

The Best Ways to Measure Performance, According to Employees

Rather than strict oversight, employees favor more balanced and effective performance evaluation methods:

• Regular, constructive feedback and performance reviews (40%)
• Focus on project outcomes and deadlines (37%)
• Employee self-reporting and goal setting (11%)
• Peer feedback and collaborative assessments (7%)
• Tracking or surveillance software (4%)

What This Means: Employers can improve employee morale by focusing on performance outcomes and fostering open feedback rather than relying on tracking tools.

The rise of workplace surveillance has sparked widespread employee dissatisfaction, with many workers feeling that constant tracking undermines their autonomy and job satisfaction. By adopting more flexible performance evaluations, employers can create a more supportive and productive work environment while reducing stress and turnover.

Methodology

The findings presented were obtained by surveying 1,000 U.S. respondents on February 28, 2025 using Pollfish. Participants were queried about their experiences with workplace surveillance and productivity tracking, responding to various question types, including yes/no questions, scale-based questions gauging agreement levels, and questions that permitted the selection of multiple options from a list of answers.