A new law went into effect this week in Maine restricting how employers can electronically monitor their employees. It requires advance disclosure. It limits cameras and audio in homes and personal vehicles. It gives employees the right to refuse monitoring software on personal devices.
Unfortunately, the law is necessary. That it is necessary should concern every leader reading this.
Because the need for this law tells us something that no productivity dashboard ever will. It tells us that enough organizations have chosen surveillance over trust that the state had to step in and draw the line.
The Surveillance Instinct
When leaders feel like they are losing control, their first instinct is almost always to watch more closely. Track more data. Monitor more activity. The logic feels airtight: if we can see what people are doing, we can make sure they are doing the right things.
But surveillance doesn’t produce accountability. It produces performance. And performance and accountability are not the same thing.
Performance is what people do when they know they are being watched. Accountability is what people do because they made a commitment and they intend to keep it. One is driven by fear of being caught. The other is driven by a relationship worth honoring.
When you install tracking software on someone’s computer, you are making a statement about the relationship. You are telling them that their word is not enough. That your commitment to them extends only as far as your ability to verify their output. That the relationship is transactional, measured in keystrokes and mouse clicks.
Your people hear that statement whether you say it out loud or not.
What Surveillance Actually Costs
The costs of surveillance rarely show up in the data it collects.
You won’t see the moment a talented person decides to do exactly what’s measured and nothing more. You won’t see the idea that never gets shared because the culture feels like a monitoring station, not a place where initiative is valued. You won’t see the slow erosion of discretionary effort that happens when people feel watched instead of trusted.
Gallup’s 2026 report found that global employee engagement has fallen to 20%, its lowest since the pandemic. The sharpest decline was among managers, dropping nine points since 2022. Organizations are spending more on technology to track their people while their people are checking out at record rates.
That’s not a coincidence. When you invest in watching people instead of investing in people, they respond accordingly.
The Alternative That Actually Works
Trust is not the absence of structure. It is not letting people do whatever they want. Trust is a commitment. It says, “I believe in you enough to give you space, and I expect you to honor that with ownership.”
That commitment requires more from a leader than installing software. It requires having real conversations about expectations. It requires being present enough to know how your people are doing without reading a report generated by their laptop. It requires building a relationship where someone tells you the truth because they trust you, not because they know you are watching. The more you commit, as a leader, the more you will receive.
If your people are not performing, the answer is not more monitoring. The answer is a harder question: have you kept your commitment to them? Have you given them clarity about what’s expected? Have you supported their development? Have you been honest with them? Have you earned their trust?
Surveillance answers the question, “What are my people doing?” Trust answers a better question: “Are my people committed, and am I committed to them?”
The organizations that will thrive in the years ahead will not be the ones with the best tracking technology. They will be the ones where people don’t need to be tracked because they are connected to their leader, their team, and their work by something stronger than software.
You cannot surveil your way to trust. You can only build it. One commitment at a time.
