How new data-collection technology might change office culture | Hacker News Reader

How new data-collection technology might change office culture

cbc.ca

15 points2a0c4016 comments

"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.

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.

It will be just like those University tutorials where you get grades for participation; Everyone comes in and repeats the same bland statements, purely for the marks, and no discussion is had at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

One thing to consider about the article is that it is an experimental test run. The whole process is being watched and documented by outsiders. Normal usage would probably be different.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com