JPMorgan is further advancing its monitoring system to match self-reports of an employee’s logged working hours with computer-generated reports of their activity. While JPMorgan states that this surveillance of employees is essential to curb overwork and promote transparency, there’s also a conversation to be had about excessive monitoring.
How much employee surveillance is too much? There might be an upper limit to just how much “bossware” an organization should invest in, but employers, particularly those in the financial sector, haven’t hit the limit just yet. JPMorgan Chase’s new pilot monitoring system is designed to create computer-generated estimates of the work weeks of its junior bankers, matching the data against their self-reported time sheets. Workers in the banking and finance sector are known for working long, grueling hours, and there have been repeated discussions around the pressures and stress they face. The added burden of surveillance further serves to complicate matters.
JP MORGAN’S EMPLOYEE MONITORING SYSTEM IS AIMED TOWARDS OPENING “CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WORKLOAD”
Despite appearances, JPMorgan’s new system for monitoring junior banker hours isn’t designed to punish shortcomings in operations but to track the workload faced by employees and address their concerns about being overworked. The report generated by the system is intended to track digital activity, which includes video calls, keystrokes, and scheduled meetings. Marketed as a tool for building awareness rather than surveilling employees and their activities on the job, the workplace monitoring tool at JPMorgan is an interesting addition to the conversation about activity tracking at work.
A spokesperson told the Financial Times, “Much like the weekly screen time summaries on a smartphone, this tool is about awareness, not enforcement. It’s designed to support transparency, well-being, and encourage open conversations about workload.” While the plan here is certainly novel and well-intentioned, tracking work hours and maintaining reports of an individual’s time on the job in addition to their own report can inevitably lead to added pressure on workers.
The increased possibility of punitive action or mere assessment from managers and employers can add to the strain faced by employees to do more than their fair share of work. Data has shown that the excessive use of digital surveillance tools at work can have detrimental effects on employees and damage the trust between employers and employees. JPMorgan’s workplace monitoring tool is only one example of what monitoring or “bossware” can look like at work. From Microsoft to AT&T, every organization has its own way of keeping tabs on employees, but regardless of the manner of tracking, the process can have an impact on workers.
JPMORGAN’S EFFORTS TO ADDRESS EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED
The use of JPMorgan’s monitoring system as an estimate of employees being overworked could ultimately work well if used correctly. At Goldman Sachs, internal monitoring systems have been used to flag high activity and identify workers who require a break. This system of adjusting workloads when necessary relies on more fixed metrics than the direct experience of a worker, but they do allow employers to rely on data to lead the way.
JPMorgan has previously made other attempts to correct some of the flaws in the operations of the financial institutions and the pressures they place on employees, such as creating a new well-being-centric role and hiring Ryland McClendon to tackle banker burnout and address employee well-being. The organization also looked into enforcing an 80-hour workweek limit for its junior employees.
Such strategies are definitely handy, but they do not detract from the excessive pressures placed on employees by the working conditions in the industry. The allure of being well-compensated leads many workers to the industry, but the work conditions have been known to have severe consequences. Practical benefits such as flexibility, remote-work, and reasonable working hours can go a long way in supporting employee well-being, but these practices are often set out of reach for workers who can benefit from them.