New Research Suggests Workplace Technology Benefits Individuals More Than Teams
New research suggests that workplace technology is more closely linked to individual productivity than to team productivity. The Workstyle Monitor is a longitudinal study delivered by Workstyle CIC with King's College London and sponsored by Jabra. The first phase of the study gathered 1,058 complete responses, most from the UK. Technology-related factors explained 13.5% of the variation in respondents' ratings of their own productivity. For their ratings of team productivity, the figure was 8.9%.
In Brief
The first Workstyle Monitor found that workplace technology is more closely associated with individual productivity ratings than with team ratings. Greater autonomy was associated with higher productivity ratings, and team ratings were linked to working relationships and inclusion. Separately, NHS England recorded a 6.2% annual rise in fit notes issued by GP practices. More than nine in ten notes recorded the patient as not fit for work, and only 7.8% suggested a return with adjustments.
Key Points
- Factors related to workplace technology explained 13.5% of the variation in individual productivity ratings, against 8.9% for team ratings. The figures show associations, not proven productivity gains.
- Respondents who reported efficiency gains and greater autonomy rated their productivity at 3.82 out of five. Those reporting efficiency gains alone averaged 3.54.
- Team productivity ratings were linked to working relationships (0.49) and team inclusion (0.31). The balance of digital and face-to-face communication showed virtually no association with team productivity ratings (−0.04).
- In a separate field experiment, employees using a generative AI tool spent about two fewer hours a week on email. Researchers detected no measurable change in the number or types of tasks they performed. Individual time savings from workplace technology do not automatically alter how work is done.
- GP practices in England issued 2.8 million fit notes between April and June 2026, up 6.2% on a year earlier. Some 45.2% covered five weeks or more. The figures count certificates, not individuals absent from work.
- Only 7.8% of fit notes recorded that the patient 'may be fit for work'. Employers should discuss whether adjustments could support a return. Where the employee is disabled, the separate duty to make reasonable adjustments applies whatever the note says.
What the Workstyle Monitor Measured
The Workstyle Monitor examined how workplace technology, employee autonomy, trust and working relationships are associated with productivity. Respondents rated their own productivity on a five-point scale and also rated the productivity of their teams. Almost six in ten participants (59.3%) held supervisory positions or above, so the findings largely reflect the experiences of professional and managerial workers rather than the wider workforce.
The results are based on respondents’ perceptions of productivity rather than independently measured performance. They also capture a single point in time, so they cannot establish whether workplace technology directly improves productivity. As a longitudinal study, the Workstyle Monitor will follow the same participants over several years. This will allow researchers to examine how technology use, employee autonomy and perceptions of productivity change over time.
Workplace Technology and the Role of Autonomy
The research also found a significant relationship between workplace technology, employee autonomy and perceived productivity. Respondents who reported both improved efficiency and greater control over their work gave their productivity an average rating of 3.82 out of five. This compared with 3.54 among those reporting efficiency gains alone, a statistically significant difference.
The report also highlights why individual improvements do not necessarily translate into better team performance. At one technology company, employees had begun using AI independently to analyse information, but senior colleagues were reluctant to rely on conclusions they could not properly scrutinise. The company subsequently introduced an interim review of the evidence, with a designated colleague responsible for challenging emerging findings. The example reinforces the importance of human oversight and shared decision-making, issues examined in our earlier article on workplace AI.
What Drives Team Productivity?
The Workstyle Monitor found virtually no relationship between the balance of digital and face-to-face communication and reported team productivity, recording a correlation of −0.04. Stronger associations emerged for relational job crafting, which concerns how employees develop and manage their working relationships (0.49), and team inclusion (0.31). The findings suggest that effective working relationships may be more important to team productivity than the method of communication. This is relevant to debates about office attendance, although the research did not directly establish whether working in an office improves team productivity.
A separate field experiment published by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined the impact of generative AI on 7,137 knowledge workers across 66 firms over six months. Around 80% of employees offered the technology used it. During the second half of the trial, users spent approximately two fewer hours a week on email, but researchers found no measurable change in the number or types of tasks performed. The findings provide further evidence that individual efficiency gains from workplace technology do not necessarily translate into broader changes in working practices.
Assessing the Impact of Workplace Technology
The research suggests that employers should look beyond individual time savings when assessing workplace technology. Employees who combined efficiency gains with greater autonomy rated their own productivity more highly. Ratings of team productivity, by contrast, were associated with working relationships and inclusion. Technology-related factors explained less of the variation in team ratings than in individual ones. Employers evaluating workplace technology should therefore consider its effect on collaboration, information sharing and decision-making, not only on the performance of individual employees.
Fit Notes Issued by GP Practices Rise 6.2% to 2.8 Million
GP practices in England issued 2,799,842 fit notes, or sick notes, between April and June 2026. NHS England published the figures on 22 October. The total is 163,940, or 6.2%, higher than a year earlier. Nearly half of the notes, 45.2%, covered five weeks or more, up from 44.9%.
The figures count notes rather than people. A patient on a long absence may receive several. A fit note can also support a benefits claim rather than an absence from work. Fit note episodes, meaning one spell of sickness covered by one or more notes, rose by only 2.2% to 1,079,971. The increase in certificates therefore does not necessarily mean more separate periods of sickness.
The 'May Be Fit for Work' Option
The assessment figures show that 92.2% of notes recorded the patient as not fit for work. On 217,254, or 7.8%, the assessment was 'may be fit for work'. On those notes the healthcare professional can suggest a phased return, altered hours, amended duties or workplace adaptations. For an employer managing sickness absence, such a note is an invitation to talk. The discussion should cover which parts of the job the employee could manage and what would need to change. The Government's employer guidance recommends a health and work discussion and, where the changes call for one, a risk assessment. What is agreed should be recorded in writing.
When Adjustments Cannot Be Agreed
The advice on a fit note is not binding. Sometimes the changes cannot be accommodated, or the two sides cannot agree. The employer can then rely on the same note for sick pay purposes, as though it said 'not fit for work'. The employee does not need a new or revised note. Where the employee's condition amounts to a disability, however, the position is different. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 applies whatever the note says. An employer that rejects suggested changes without considering them risks a discrimination claim as well as a longer absence.
Employers: What This Means
Employers should judge workplace technology by its effect on team performance, not only by individual time savings. The research suggests that autonomy, working relationships and inclusion all play a part. Separately, the rise in fit notes is a reminder to manage sickness absence actively. Employers should explore returns to work and consider reasonable adjustments where the legal duty applies.
- Workplace technology - Measuring productivity: Compare individual efficiency gains with team outcomes, such as the quality of decisions, information sharing and collaboration. Time saved by one employee does not necessarily mean the organisation performs better.
- Workplace technology - Autonomy and oversight: Give employees appropriate control over how they work, while making sure AI-assisted findings can be reviewed and challenged. Encourage colleagues to build working relationships and share what they learn across teams.
- Fit notes - Managing returns to work: Discuss any 'may be fit for work' advice with the employee. Consider whether a phased return, altered hours, amended duties or workplace adaptations would be practical. Record what is agreed and carry out a risk assessment where appropriate.
- Fit notes - Sick pay and disability: Fit note advice is not binding. If suggested changes cannot be accommodated, the same note can be used as evidence for sick pay without a replacement. Where the employee is disabled, however, the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 applies whatever the note says.
