Monitoring performance is not the same thing as monitoring exactly what a person does.
It seems these companies can't check that employees are doing what they should, so they turn to checking that employees aren't doing what they shouldn't.
Every point you make is true, but it is not the same as the issue we are discussing. The whole point is that companies _ought_ to be able to evaluate what the person produces, just like you said, instead of checking exactly what or how they did it.
If some secretary is so brilliant that (s)he can surf the net with the left hand while typing a document with the right, then if I were the boss, I'd have no problem with it.
I don't see the value in knowing exactly how much time the person spent in Word or how much time they spent compiling. The only interesting thing ought to be the amount and quality of the result.
I have very little respect for companies who have such poor process that they can't measure the performance of employees and the team as a whole so as a last resort they have to turn to things like these.
If you can't measure the result of an employee, you're not going to get rid of the real slackers anyway! They might stop goofing off at the computer but they will bring the latest Grisham novel to work instead. What do you do then? Install cameras in the bathroom?
Companies definitely have the right to demand good work from their employees. A good company will know whether they are getting good work or not.
> Co-Worker: "Does a firewall need an operating system?"
Haha, what a stupid question! Or is it? It's a perfectly valid question. Did the contributor of this "funny line" think there can't be a firewall running directly on the hardware?
Enternet comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.
Slashdot Mirror
Monitoring performance is not the same thing as monitoring exactly what a person does.
It seems these companies can't check that employees are doing what they should, so they turn to checking that employees aren't doing what they shouldn't.
Every point you make is true, but it is not the same as the issue we are discussing. The whole point is that companies _ought_ to be able to evaluate what the person produces, just like you said, instead of checking exactly what or how they did it.
If some secretary is so brilliant that (s)he can surf the net with the left hand while typing a document with the right, then if I were the boss, I'd have no problem with it.
I don't see the value in knowing exactly how much time the person spent in Word or how much time they spent compiling. The only interesting thing ought to be the amount and quality of the result.
I have very little respect for companies who have such poor process that they can't measure the performance of employees and the team as a whole so as a last resort they have to turn to things like these.
If you can't measure the result of an employee, you're not going to get rid of the real slackers anyway! They might stop goofing off at the computer but they will bring the latest Grisham novel to work instead. What do you do then? Install cameras in the bathroom?
Companies definitely have the right to demand good work from their employees. A good company will know whether they are getting good work or not.
From the site:
> Co-Worker: "Does a firewall need an operating system?"
Haha, what a stupid question! Or is it? It's a perfectly valid question. Did the contributor of this "funny line" think there can't be a firewall running directly on the hardware?
Enternet comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.