In an attempt to improve the overall performance of office
workers, many countries have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems (CPMCS) that record and report a worker's computer driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored workers and their supervisors how assessment of productivity affected supervisors rating of worker's performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that their productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker's productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy and indications of customer satisfaction. It is possible that productivity may be a 'hygienefactor' that is, if it is too low, it will hurt overall rating But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes good enough higher productivity present per se is unlikely to improve a rating.