Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / The Hidden Cost of Unmeasured Remote Work
Transcript
- Lucas: If these conversations have moved your work forward in some small way, the way these stay ad-free is listener support — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That's F. E. X. I. N. G. O. Luna: Yeah, and if you find value in keeping this space clear of ads, consider joining us there. It really helps keep the signal to noise ratio high. Lucas: Exactly. And thanks for helping us do that. Let’s get back to it. So, we’re deep into October twenty-six here, and the debate about remote versus office work has finally settled into something more mundane: the hybrid reality. But while most companies have figured out where bodies should sit, almost none have figured out how to measure actual contribution when those bodies are scattered across time zones. Luna: Right, because the old metric was presence, but presence doesn’t exist anymore. What replaced it seems to be anxiety disguised as data. Lucas: That’s a sharp way to put it. I’ve been looking at recent workforce reports from major consulting firms, and the trend is clear. Managers are increasingly relying on digital surveillance tools or what we call activity metrics. Did you see the Slack message within an hour? Was the status light green at three p.m.? These are easy numbers to track, which makes them incredibly seductive for leaders who feel out of their depth. Luna: It’s proximity bias wearing a digital mask. Just because you can see someone working online doesn’t mean they’re producing anything valuable. Lucas: Precisely. And the irony is that these tools often capture the least productive behaviors. The person who is constantly replying to emails all day might look busier than the engineer who spent six hours in deep focus mode writing code. But the engineer delivered the feature; the email responder just created noise. Yet, when push comes to shove, managers reward the visible noise because it feels safer. Luna: So we end up with a workforce that performs visibility over value. They optimize for being seen rather than being effective. Lucas: Yes, and this creates a massive drag on organizational health. When employees realize their worth is tied to their online uptime rather than their output, they stop innovating. Innovation requires risk, and risk requires downtime. If you’re terrified that taking a twenty-minute walk will flag you as low-engagement in some dashboard, you’re not going to take that walk. You’re going to sit there and stare at the screen. Luna: It’s basically learned helplessness for white-collar workers. They disengage because the game is rigged against meaningful work. Lucas: Exactly. And this brings us to the core issue of today’s discussion: the shift from activity-based management to outcome-based management. It sounds simple, but implementing it correctly is one of the hardest skills for mid-level managers to develop. They were trained to monitor process, not to evaluate results. Now they need to judge the quality of the finish line, not watch the runner’s form. Luna: But how do you judge quality remotely without micromanaging? Isn’t there a fear that if you don’t check the process, you’ll lose control? Lucas: That fear is real, but it’s misplaced. Control isn’t lost by trusting outcomes; it’s lost by ignoring them until it’s too late. The solution lies in rigorous upfront goal setting. Instead of asking employees what they did today, ask what problem they solved this week. Define the deliverable clearly at the start. Then step back. If the result meets the criteria, the process is irrelevant. Luna: So it’s less about watching the tree grow and more about checking if the fruit is ripe. But how do you ensure everyone agrees on what ripe looks like? Lucas: That’s where documentation and clear KPIs come in. You need objective standards. For example, a sales target is an outcome. A number of cold calls made is an activity. If you tie compensation to the sale, not the calls, the behavior aligns naturally. The employee finds the most efficient path to the result. Maybe they spend less time on calls and more time nurturing existing relationships. That’s good for business. Luna: It forces managers to be better at defining success rather than easier at monitoring failure. Which most prefer. Lucas: Definitely. And this shifts the power dynamic. In an activity model, the manager is the police officer. In an outcome model, the manager is the coach. The coach doesn’t stand on the sidelines screaming instructions every second. The coach sets the play, watches the execution, and gives feedback after the fact. It’s a much healthier relationship, but it requires emotional intelligence that many companies haven’t invested in. Luna: I think the resistance also comes from insecurity. If a manager can’t see you working, they worry you’re slack off. It’s their lack of confidence, not your lack of effort. Lucas: Spot on. And this insecurity bleeds into performance reviews. When managers rely on visibility, they unconsciously favor people who look busy. They give higher ratings to the loud Slackers, the early responders, and the frequent meeting attendees. Meanwhile, the quiet contributors who produce high-quality work asynchronously get overlooked. This is a systemic error that hurts retention. Luna: So the best talent leaves first because they hate the theater of busyness. They’d rather go somewhere where results matter. Lucas: They absolutely do. And this is why companies using strict activity metrics often report higher turnover among their top performers. Top performers are confident in their abilities. They don’t need constant validation through digital footprints. They want autonomy. When you strip that away, you drive them to competitors who offer more trust. Luna: It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You treat them like children, they act like adults and leave. Lucas: Right. So, let’s talk about the practical steps. How does a company actually make this switch without chaos? The first step is asynchronous communication. If everything requires an immediate response, you’re back to surveillance. By encouraging delayed responses, you force people to prioritize. You create space for deep work. You allow people to batch tasks rather than reacting to every ping. Luna: Which reduces the cognitive load. People aren’t fractured by constant interruptions, so they can actually think deeply about the problems at hand. Lucas: Exactly. And the second step is transparent reporting. Instead of hiding progress behind closed doors, teams should share their progress openly. Use shared dashboards or weekly written updates. This isn’t about spying; it’s about alignment. Everyone sees what others are doing, which builds accountability without requiring a manager to hover. It turns peer pressure into peer support. Luna: So visibility becomes voluntary and structural, rather than involuntary and invasive. There’s a huge difference in tone there. Lucas: Huge difference. One feels like collaboration; the other feels like policing. And the third step is regular calibration. Managers need to review outcomes not just at the annual review, but continuously. If a project is off track, discuss it then. Don’t wait for the big moment to surprise the employee. This keeps the focus on solving problems together, not assigning blame. Luna: It turns performance management into a continuous improvement loop rather than a judgment day. Much less stressful for everyone involved. Lucas: It is. And culturally, it signals respect. It tells employees, I trust you to manage your time and your craft. That sense of dignity is a powerful retention tool. Especially in a market where options are plentiful. People will choose the boss who respects their intelligence over the boss who tracks their mouse movements. Luna: I think we’re seeing a generation shift here too. Younger workers especially seem to reject the old industrial-era management styles entirely. They won’t tolerate the surveillance. Lucas: They definitely won’t. And companies that cling to those old models are going to find themselves hollowed out. They’ll retain the compliant middle, but lose the innovators. The smartest organizations are doubling down on this outcome-focused culture. They’re training managers in coaching skills, not policing tactics. They’re investing in technology that highlights results, not activity. Luna: It’s interesting that the barrier isn’t technical capability. We have the tools to measure anything. The barrier is managerial discipline. Lucas: Exactly. Discipline to resist the urge to micromanage. Discipline to define clear goals. Discipline to evaluate fairly. Those are hard skills. But they’re the only ones that scale in a distributed world. You can’t manage by walking around if everyone is walking around digitally. Luna: So the future of work isn’t about finding the perfect office layout. It’s about redefining what work actually means. Lucas: Precisely. It’s about decoupling work from location and from visible activity. It’s about valuing the output, period. And for listeners managing teams, the question is simple: Are you measuring what matters, or are you just measuring what’s easy? Luna: A good question to sit with. Because if the answer is the latter, you’re probably losing your best people right now. Lucas: Likely. And once they’re gone, getting them back is expensive. So maybe it’s time to rethink the dashboard.