voipfc said:
The impression I get is that a lot of computer users have a rather
idealistic view of a modern technological probably inspired by Star
Trek, some kind of Vorsprung durch Technik outlook. If you are nice to
everybody no they will do you no harm. Well some employees join a
company with the opportunity to engage in some fraud in mind.
If you are *nasty* to everybody, they *will* do you harm.
The majority of folks are honest and trustworthy. There are exceptions,
but you *handle* them as exceptions.
Treat your employees like you don't trust them and must be virtually
standing over them at all times to make sure they perform, and you badly
damage morale and create a climate where people might look for ways to
shaft you, simply because they feel you are trying to shaft them, and
turnabout is fair play.
If you interview me for a position with your company, and I get the
impression you act like that, I'll decline your offer. I won't work for
a boss who assumes going in he can't trust me. Among other things, it
means *I* can't trust *him*.
Most business people are not of that kind, probably due to experiences
of being betrayed by others, employees included.
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company.
I'm sure is it now well known what happens at the office when there
are major sporting events.
I know of cases where the installation of CCTV for instance has paid
for itself within days.
Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?
Not at all. What's wrong is assuming going in you can't trust your
people, and must be Big Brother watching them.
Most employees will do their jobs. You may hire an occasional problem,
but you handle that on an exception basis. You don't penalize everybody
*else* because you have a bad apple.
People who aren't performing will be evident, and that's what
performance reviews are for. You make clear when you hire them what the
standards are for their position. You evaluate them at performance
review time, based on the standards. If they aren't meeting the
standards, they get a poor review, less (or *no*) raise, and a written
warning that they will be terminated if they don't shape up. If they
don't shape up, you *do* terminate them.
And note, there should be plenty of informal feedback along the way. A
performance review, good or bad, should not come as a *surprise* to the
employee. They should have a pretty good idea going into the review
what their boss thinks of them. I've seen cases where the employee
thought all was well till he was called into the boss's office and
fired. This is simple incompetence on the part of the boss. If he was
*that* unhappy with the employee, he should have made it clear and
demanded changes well before it got to be a cause for termination.
None of this requires employee monitoring software on company PCs. If I
have a guy who isn't getting his job done, I don't *care* that he's
spending his time going to
www.XXXrated.com, and downloading porn when
he should be working. What he's doing *instead* of working is
irrelevant. He's not working. All I care about is that he isn't doing
the job, and I take steps accordingly.
If the work isn't getting done, the first question you ask is "Why
not?", and you don't assume the answer is "people are goofing off".
We had a major problem at a former employer, and the SVP of our division
called each of us in to sound us out on what was wrong and what to do
about it. My response was basically:
"When something goes wrong, the first question that gets asked is "Who
f****d up? That's the wrong question. The question is what happened,
and how do we change our procedures so it can't happen again.
The folks who work here all want to do their jobs. Things haven't been
getting done because it isn't clear who is *supposed* to do something,
and everyone assumes someone else will take care of it. We need to make
clear who is responsible for what, and that every task has an owner
assigned to it.
Also, *you* need to set an example. You're the boss. We all work for
you. So-and-so is behaving the way she is to the folks she manages
because she's afraid of what you'll say to her! You need to make it
clear that we don't look for heads to roll when something goes wrong.
We look to fix things so the problem can't happen again. You need to
make that clear, and you need to demonstrate by your actions how we
handle problems."
"Interesting. Am I really perceived that way?"
"Yes, Larry."
We had a problem shortly after where he did precisely as I suggested,
and I told him quite honestly after the fact that that was exactly what
I meant when I made my comments, and I was proud to work for him. He
was pleased and flattered. (I was relieved. It's always a worry when
the boss wants to know what the problem is and the answer is in part
"You are.")
______
Dennis
