
How new data-collection technology might change office culture - 2a0c40
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/how-new-data-collection-technology-might-change-office-culture-1.3196065
======
ArekDymalski
"The minute that you get the report that you're not speaking enough and that
you don't show leadership, immediately, the next day, you change your
behaviour,"

This is a complete disaster that happens every time when someone uses wrong
metric. Instead of incentives for productivity and performance they are
motivating people to make a theater. Or rather circus. That's not the
performance you are looking for.

~~~
iSnow
Came here to comment on the same thing. That's hair-raising - everyone will
try to crowd the speech time of meetings now instead of taking in what others
have to say and only talking when they have something valuable to say.

Of course, if you can't measure value in contributions, you settle for number
of contributions. And run into the same problem we created by paying coders
for lines of code.

------
shepardrtc
This isn't leadership, this is fear. If you want to motivate your employees,
you need to become a better leader. A better person. Talk to them
individually. Ask them their honest opinions and treat their thoughts as
worthy of your consideration. Don't talk down to them. Don't be dismissive. If
they have negative thoughts or are afraid of something, honestly try to find
out why that is and see if you can fix it through a real discussion about the
issue. If they're just shy, softly encourage them to speak about things
they're good at. Honest, positive encouragement works wonders.

But don't put mics on them and then tell them that they need to speak up more,
or be more assertive, or whatever bullshit this program is spitting out.

~~~
ihsw
The article highlights exactly what you're advocating -- discretion is the
better part of valor.

Collecting data != harassing employees, not by a long shot.

It would be the height of foolishness to use this data for any critical
decision making, and (as was mentioned in the article) there are policies in
place ensuring the employees are the ultimate owners of the data and as such
it would be their decision to voluntarily provide the data (for strictly
educational/constructive purposes).

Remediation is the name of the game here, not ostracizing socially awkward
individuals or empowering psychopaths.

~~~
AlexandrB
This is the height of naivete - even your own language gives away the plot:

> [...] the employees are the ultimate owners of the data and as such it would
> be their decision to voluntarily provide the data (for strictly
> educational/constructive purposes).

So if I choose not to yield my data, I'm not being _constructive_. The social
pressure will be to "show don't tell" how you're improving (since the data is
now there) and if you have data that measures x, y, and z metrics that will be
what you show and what you optimize for.

That's not even mentioning the 1000s of toxic work environments out there that
can now become even more toxic with access to this kind of tech.

> It would be the height of foolishness to use this data for any critical
> decision making [...]

And yet that's exactly what it will be used for. Not everywhere, but this is
every micromanager's wet dream.

~~~
ihsw
I'm not going to lie, the social pressure is non-zero, and it is indeed
another lever for micromanagers to pull, but I think you're being overly
pessimistic here.

The impact of this tech has not yet been fully explored and we may see the
general populace finally accept that individual privacy is paramount and (dare
I say) a sacred line that must never be crossed.

We're seeing a shift towards empowering individuals and placing more emphasis
on giving them a choice in such matters, and I think that's a good thing and
an important step in bringing useful tech to the masses.

Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic. More power to employers is coming
whether we like it or not and eternal vigilance will be required to stave off
the above said toxicity.

~~~
normloman
> I'm not going to lie, the social pressure is non-zero, and it is indeed
> another lever for micromanagers to pull, but I think you're being overly
> pessimistic here.

Anyone who's ever worked a job in the US and seen the toxic work culture can
tell you, you can never be too pessimistic.

>More power to employers is coming whether we like it or not and eternal
vigilance will be required to stave off the above said toxicity.

What we need are laws that forbid employers to use this.

------
njonsson
This calls to mind the office scene in Neal Stephenson’s _Snow Crash_ in which
Y.T.’s mother reads a directive from her employer. She self-consciously
scrolls through the dull text — aware of her employer’s automated surveillance
system as she does so — pausing and returning to an earlier section of the
text to create the impression of careful reading.

------
netcan
The human resources paradigm of "information economy" is on very shaky ground.
Most of what people do isn't very visible, isn't very quantifiable. The
feedback to management is crappy.

Most people are not passionate about their job in the sense that they are
really motivated to do their best. And.. often the most important bits of work
require that kind of motivation. Having ideas or whatnot. The kind of work a
modern cubicle jockey does (say an advertising account manager at facebook or
a social media evangelist at HSBC) actually does require self motivation. All
that horrendous "passionate employees" HR is not coming out of nowhere. They
really do need passionate employees.

There's this tension between discipline and information to managers and
motivation. On one hand slacking, on the other useless passionless robots.

Orwell's lanyard s just a symptom.

------
sageikosa
If you need tech to figure out what your employees are thinking, they are
probably not thinking well of your management style.

------
wonkaWonka
THINKING HAPPY THOUGHTS IS NOW MANDATORY. UNHAPPY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE
DISMISSED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

~~~
ihsw
Or employers will become more aware that the staff are probably unhappy and
try to accommodate their wants and needs.

The pendulum swings both ways, it empowers abusive employers just as much as
it empowers excellent ones. Insight is just that, insight, and it behooves us
all to act responsibly.

~~~
normloman
But only the abusive employers are going to buy the technology. Because the
excellent employers will realize no good can come of this.

~~~
alonmower
Exactly! I like this because now I have a very concrete piece of evidence that
a place will be shitty to work at before accepting an offer

