taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/26/86)
A recent issue of "U.S. News and World Report" talks about a most interesting
and controversial subject: management monitoring of employee productivity...
A number of cases are cited, and the photograph associated with the article
has a couple of women sitting in a room with a speaker phone prominent on
the table they are all writing on and the caption ``Supervisors at Idaho's
Mountain Bell monitoring directory-assistance operators via speakerphone.''
Of course, the article cites the repressive totalitarian nightmare of `1984'
(by George Orwell) and various people from the ACLU and the like say the two
aren't as far apart as we think...
Experts (including, presumably, the ACLU person, Harley Shaiken of UCSD,
Michael Smith of Univ. of Wisconsin, and Alan Westin at Columbia University
(can we get them involved in this???)) estimate that over 33% of the people
currently working with computers are being monitored in some way. They
further predict that within fifteen years 50 to 75% of those using VDTs will
be monitored.
There are some horror stories too, like the AT&T employee who complains;
"I can't even go to the bathroom without being watched. I
have to put up a flag at my terminal, wait till the restroom
is empty, sign out, sign back in and remove my flag."
Various organizations to protect workers rights have popped up too, and they
claim, quite reasonably, that these monitoring techniques are too shallow and
don't take into account various working styles, the productivity of breaks
(to read documentation, for example) and so on. Carl Robinson, postal-union
leader, adds that there is also a danger of disciplinary action for those
who might have a bad day, or have other problems.
Hard core management types, of course, respond that the purpose of the
company, and the reason the people are employeed at all, is to do the
job assigned to them, and if they perform poorly, for whatever reason,
they are poor employees.
It's hard to argue with this logic, but I think that it is "hard core"
and that a company is much more than simply a place to 'put in your time
and get your paycheck.' It's also certainly in the best interests of a
company to ensure that their employees are well off!
As Vico Henriques, president of the Computer and Business Equipment
Manufacturers Association, puts it, "Managers who use monitoring to
harass employees over tiny details will lower morale and probably
reduce overall effectiveness." Vico continues by pointing out that the
monitoring unto itself is blameless - it is how it's used that determines
if it is good or bad.
So...
With that in mind, I'd like to start a discussion of this topic, with us
trying to address the following issues;
1. Is this form of monitoring *ever* good? When? Why?
2. Are there circumstances where this is *very* bad? When? Why?
3. What level of monitoring should be performed? (this is obviously
relative to the task...)
4. Are *you* being monitored at all? Have you ever been?
If so, was it positive or negative, and how did you and your
fellow employees (and management) react to it??
5. Finally, would information of this sort be viable information to
exchange on the "market"? (for example, an on-line search for all
programmers who take short lunches, type > 70 wpm and know how to
program in Fortran, by a placement agency). A subset of it? Do
you think this already takes place??
Please keep in mind that there really needs to be SOME way for management
to have a way to keep tabs on employee performance, and that not all emp-
loyees can have 'goals' and such (like a directory assistance operator).
I'll reply with my thoughts in a few days...
-- Dave Taylortaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (09/27/86)
This article is from ucbvax!chapman@cory.berkeley.edu (Brent Chapman) and was received on Fri Sep 26 18:36:16 1986 While management misuse of monitor stats could hurt morale, as has already been suggested, proper use could also help morale. How many have been in situations where there is a freeloader in your group, unrecognized by management? You know, the person who spends all day reading USENET news, (:-) but gets credit right along with the rest of you for your group's accomplishments. Doesn't that hurt the morale of the rest of the group? Proper management use of stats could weed out and discourage this type of person. Even better, the knowledge (or even simply the _belief_) that he is being monitored may cause this person to "clean up his act." Some studies (I believe done by IBM) showed that telling workers they were being monitored caused productivity to rise, even if the monitoring was never actually implemented, or was quitely dropped. (Perhaps someone recognizes what I'm talking about and can cite the source.) Monitoring is one thing. Establishment of quotas is another. The problem is, once you have accurate performance stats, it's hard to resist establishing quotas. Monitoring I have no problem with. Quotas I very strongly object to. Monitoring alone could be used to establish a positive reinforcement system: If someone performs well relative to their co-workers, that person is rewarded. Quotas, on the other hand, tend to lead to negative reinforcement systems: If someone doesn't meet their quota, they are punished. Of course, there is always the problem of _what_ to monitor. How do you quantify performance in a given field? In some fields it's easy: How many non-faulty assemblies did this person do? In others, it's a real pain. How do you quantify, say, a telephone operator's performance? The more calls handled, the better? But doesn't customer satisfaction count for anything? What if Operator X is handling more calls than Operator Y, but at the expense of courtesy to clients (and therefore future business for the company)? Does that make X a better operator than Y, who handles fewer calls, but whose clients are satisfied and inclined to deal with the company again in the future? Nearer and dearer to our own hearts, how do you quantify programmer performance? Number of lines of code? Number of bytes of source? Number of bytes of object? Object divided by source? Number of cycles spent running his programs? Amount of revenue his programs generate for the company? How many hours he works? Brent Chapman ucbvax!cory!chapman or chapman@cory.berkeley.edu
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/27/86)
This article is from well!mandel@hplabs.HP.COM (Thomas F. Mandel) and was received on Sat Sep 27 00:51:31 1986 This issue of monitoring employee productivity is an old one that has recently been reborn. Originally, in manufacturing environments, it was called Taylorism, and was one of the reasons, albeit a relatively minor one, that unions emerged in this country. I don't defend current practices at all, but want to point out that from employers' perspectives, there has been great confusion about how to organize and measure performance effectively in white-collar environments. This problem is actually very significant and has to do with the lack of a sound "economics of information <work>." From a technical perspective, there is some reason to measure and understand work flows, productivity, and so forth in offices. However, it is not clear that this is being done within an appropriate paradigm (the paradigm employed is the factory paradigm, of course), and as the previous writer pointed out, current practices are rife with abuse of individual rights (although not necessarily in a legal sense). You could also put this sort of "monitoring" into a grab bag of corporate activities that fall under the label of "Increasing Intrusion of Companies Into Private Life," a clear trend in American business. (Mandatory drug testing is another aspect of the same trend.) I personally regard the trend as highly alarming, and rather Orwellian in character. Tom Mandel ...well!mandel mandel@sri-kl.arpa
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/28/86)
This article is from Murray.pa@Xerox.COM and was received on Sat Sep 27 16:00:39 1986 I think the main reason for the performance monitoring debate is that the workers and management involved are in an adversary role. I'm reasonable sure that's the case for directory assistance. They have been monitoring performance long before computers and grumbling about that for just as long. [comments anyone? I think this is a bit of an overgeneralization. There are a lot of subtle issues involved in places where there isn't an adverserial role at all... -- Dave]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/29/86)
This article is from well!mandel@hplabs.HP.COM (Thomas F. Mandel) and was received on Sun Sep 28 22:35:59 1986 >Productivity will increase if people are being told they're being >monitored..even if they're not. (A paraphrase...) True. Fear is a powerful motivating factor. It even gets me to perform "better" for a while. Of course, almost any other motivating factor is better and more ethical. Tom Mandel ARPA: mandel@sri-kl.arpa UUCP: hplabs!well!mandel [But, as the question goes, WHY is it not ethical to run a place based on fear of performance monitoring? It's obvious that it's unsavory, but WHY? -- Dave]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/29/86)
This article is from ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm@hplabs.HP.COM and was received on Mon Sep 29 10:09:51 1986 > 1. Is this form of monitoring *ever* good? When? Why? > 2. Are there circumstances where this is *very* bad? When? Why? I think that this form of monitoring is okay, as long as you use it for measurement of actual performance, and not to set goals for future performance. If you notice that on one good day person X can frombozzle 16 widgets an hour, but on the average he does 12, and therefore say he is being lazy the rest of the time, that is bad. If you are using it to find out how many pencils to order next month, I think it is usefull, and not harmfull. The problem is that it is often tempting for managers who are looking at a bottom line to go too far... > 3. What level of monitoring should be performed? (this is obviously > relative to the task...) Well, enough to get reasonably useful information. As you mentioned, that is task-relative... > 4. Are *you* being monitored at all? Have you ever been? > If so, was it positive or negative, and how did you and your > fellow employees (and management) react to it?? We keep a database of support calls, which includes information on how long a call has been open, etc. which can be used for "monitoring". Fortunately our manager realizes that every call is different, and some take longer than others. He does check up on ones that are taking a long time though... > 5. Finally, would information of this sort be viable information to > exchange on the "market"? (for example, an on-line search for all > programmers who take short lunches, type > 70 wpm and know how to > program in Fortran, by a placement agency). A subset of it? Do > you think this already takes place?? It might, but it is not neccesarily useful information, unless you are talking about assembly line style work, where this information is not likely to be found. (I know a guy who personally started a walk out at a GE plant by walking into an assembly line area with a stopwatch and starting it. He was actually timing the machine, but...) >Please keep in mind that there really needs to be SOME way for management >to have a way to keep tabs on employee performance, and that not all emp- >loyees can have 'goals' and such (like a directory assistance operator). Ah, but that is exactly the PROBLEM, when people like directory assistance operators are GIVEN goals -- like an average of x seconds per call; This leads to impoliteness, and tension for the operator. I think this is the real danger of monitoring systems -- when peoples jobs are made into a constant pressure for speed. Picture an office typist that is penalized 10 dollars for every typing mistake she makes. It doesn't sound quite as bad as giving her an electric shock, but is probably almost as stressfull. -- Marc Mengel ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (10/03/86)
This article is from throopw%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA and was received on Fri Oct 3 01:53:59 1986 > 1. Is this form of monitoring *ever* good? When? Why? Yes. When the monitee has reason to think that the monitor has the monitee's best interest at heart, as in when productivity measures of control groups rise as a result of monitoring alone. Because it creates empathy between the monitor and the monitee. > 2. Are there circumstances where this is *very* bad? When? Why? Yes. When the monitee has reason to think that the monitor has the monitee's worst interest at heart, as in cases where productivity drops off a sharp cliff under taskmaster administrations. Because it produces an adversary relationship. > 3. What level of monitoring should be performed? (this is obviously > relative to the task...) Depends on what the monitoring is to be used for. (Obviously, as you say.) > 4. Are *you* being monitored at all? Have you ever been? > If so, was it positive or negative, and how did you and your > fellow employees (and management) react to it?? Yes. Yes. My reaction is positive if I genuinely think it is "for my own good", bad if I think otherwise, and I would "think otherwise" if I am not informed of the monitoring beforehand. (Note that some such monitoring is implicitly expected. If you are told that you will be expected to run programs on a timeshareing system, you are often implicitly being told to expect accounting to be kept of your computer usage.) > 5. Finally, would information of this sort be viable information to > exchange on the "market"? (for example, an on-line search for all > programmers who take short lunches, type > 70 wpm and know how to > program in Fortran, by a placement agency). A subset of it? Do > you think this already takes place?? It would be viable. Subsets would also be viable. I doubt it takes place, but would not be surprised, but seriously doubt that it is widespread if it does take place. (NOTE: I said such information exchange would be "viable", not that I would approve of it. I would *NOT* approve of it, because it is an example of the naive perpetuation an archetypical computer risk, that of depending on overly simple computer-obscured models of reality.) In general, I rather think that monitoring-plus-carrots works much better than monitoring-plus-sticks if what you want done is to raise productivity. And covert monitoring is essentially *never* effective in the long term. -- "Duty now for the future." --- Devo
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (10/06/86)
This article is from tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!kurt and was received on Sun Oct 5 02:04:57 1986 A person I know (who I must not name) worked at Rockwell on the space shuttle program. During that time somebody decided Rockwell was defrauding the government and sent the GAO watchdogs down to see that all those sleazy engineers were buckling down and spending taxpayer money wisely. Among the things they did was to study the engineer's office to see who was at work and who was talking to his buddies and going to the bathroom a lot. Rockwell was very nervous that they should look good for the GAO and this made a lot of tension in the office which interfered with work. However, the joke may have been on the GAO. The person rated by the GAO as the most effective worker was a person who spent nearly all his time at his desk, with a pencil in his hand. What the GAO didn't notice, but the engineers knew, was that this person had learned to sleep, at his desk, sitting up, with a pencil in his hand. No organization of this type is without a certain amount of needless waste. However the audit failed to identify the items the engineers agreed were the biggest misuses of time and money and also incorrectly identified non-productive people as producers. Performance monitoring must be very carefully designed if it is to have any results at all. Oh, Rockwell was not charged with any fraud it the shuttle program, although the GAO did demand they generate more paperwork on what they were doing, which further diluted their effectiveness.
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (10/06/86)
This article is from sdcsvax!sdcc18.UCSD.EDU!ee161aba (David Smith) and was received on Sun Oct 5 21:22:45 1986 The whole idea of squeezing maximum efficiency out of humans is probably counter-productive in the long run. Humans aren't machines and don't like to be made to feel that they are. In the last few months, PacTel has been installing voice synthesizers to give out phone numbers. Since the change-over has been made, I've noticed that the operators seem more irritable, tired and generally on-edge. Also, I've received wrong numbers from information several times in the last few months and received conflicting information. Depending on when you call information about my company, either: a) we don't exist b) we exist, but the wrong phone number is given c) we exist, and the correct number is given. The same happened when I was trying to find the number of a friend who hadn't had her phone connected yet. I received a wrong number first, then was told on my second try there was no listing. I think the first time the operator just gave me a number attached to the same last name. My point is that the operators don't seem to care any more. If they had to read off to me, "blah-blah, ###-####" they would probably feel more responsible for the accuracy. In addition, they're not receiving the little courtesies anymore. I used to always say "Thank-you" after I got the numbers. Now, the machine gives the number and the operator is busy with someone else by the time most people are ready to say thanks. I've made it a point to say thanks before the machine comes on-line, but how many other people think to do that? I think that in the short run this mechanization of people will produce gains, but in the long run will diminish results as employee morale and feelings of responsibility drop. David L. Smith UC Sandy Eggo (Cafeteria special!) sdcsvax!sdcc18!ee161aba sdcsvax!jack!wolf!dlsmith
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (10/06/86)
This article is from Chris Torek <chris@mimsy.umd.edu> and was received on Mon Oct 6 08:16:08 1986 > ... Fear is a powerful motivating factor. It even gets me to perform > "better" for a while. Of course, almost any other motivating factor is > better and more ethical. > [But, as the question goes, WHY is it not ethical to run a place based on > fear of performance monitoring? It's obvious that it's unsavory, but WHY?] The answer, from a purely practical standpoint, is already in the text above. Fear makes people perform better---for a while. Afterward, yet greater measures are required. In addition, it tends to make people `vote with their feet': if conditions are unsatisfactory, they leave.
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (10/07/86)
This article is from harvax!cdx39!jc and was received on Tue Oct 7 00:51:31 1986 There's at least one situation where I wish some good monitoring-type statistics could be collected. This is the general subject of programmer productivity. We have gone through a decade or two of all sorts of unsupported claims that approach X (i.e., Structured, Modular, Top-Down, etc.) produces perfect, user-friendly, maintainable, etc. software. Rarely is any attempt made to scientifically test the claims. Regardless of the religious aspects of the discussion, I'd really like to see some good data. Is strong typing helpful? It seems intuitively that it oughta be, and C has been evolving in that direction. But I suspect that in fact it isn't. (Counterexample: I've used Snobol4 enough to be fluent in it; it has no type declarations at all; it is one of the easiest languages I've ever used.) One thing I've noticed in my own experience is that when I have 3 or 4 terminals available simultaneously, I can debug code much faster than with just one. Or at least I think I can; I don't quite have any hard data to back it up, and by myself I can't very well conduct a blind test... If my experience is correct, then it would be a good investment for any software-development company to buy several terminals (and associated lines and memory) for each programmer. The cost of the hardware is small, and would be paid back in a week or two. I've found that it is impossible to convince people of this by argument; what we need is good, solid data that can only be collected by some sophisticated monitoring. I'd be overjoyed to partake in such studies, if they would lead to improving the work environment. (I don't like having to debug comm software with only a single terminal on my desk; I'd like to be able to hand my boss some published studies and demand 3 more terminals.) [moderator comment: I'm not sure we really want to go down the road of what is good programming, and so on, but the question of HOW to monitor, in an unobtrusive way, is something I'll discuss further in a bit... -- Dave]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (10/09/86)
This article is from Jim Hunt <seismo!mcvax!tucos!hunt@hplabs.HP.COM> and was received on Tue Oct 7 16:30:49 1986 Murray at Xerox wrote; > I think the main reason for the performance monitoring debate is that > the workers and management involved are in an adversary role... > [comments anyone? I think this is a bit of an overgeneralization. There > are a lot of subtle issues involved in places where there isn't an > adverserial role at all... -- Dave] As an American working in Europe, I must add that the adversarial relationship between management and workers is largely an American phenomenon. I see almost none of it here in Finland, perhaps because they use a different source of performance improvement. At this plant, a small electronics manufacturer with ~100 employees, they are payed salary for the general jobs, and have the option of taking jobs that pay directly on how many widgets get schnozzled in a day. I am prepared to defend the statement that this results in moral improvement and in higher productivity on the general jobs through a carry over effect. And, of course, lots of widgets are getting schnozzled every day. Granted, this is still adding stress to some, but it is optional. Any response on American job stress vs. European? Does anyone know of a place in America ( >= 100 emp. only) where this is being done? Is it working? Jim Hunt mcvax!tucos!hunt@seismo.css.gov A student from Berkeley teaching CS to the faculty in Finland.