What’s the argument for the other side? I can see how someone would put up with it in exchange for some other benefit (money, unique company) but not how they would want it for its own sake.
I've noticed that the same sort of people who support workplace surveillance are also the ones who insist they love open offices and pair programming. I think they appreciate having another person to "fall back" on when they get stuck somewhere. If their boss is constantly monitoring them, and they're unable to solve a particular problem, the boss might wander over and say, "hey Bob, you've been on this spreadsheet for a while, let me show you this formula that might help". Or at least, that's the only explanation I can think of that makes sense.
I'm the opposite - I learn best by studying and tinkering (what with having 6 years of higher education steering me that way and all...). Nothing kills that off faster than having somebody looking over your shoulder saying, "why are you looking at the HTTP specification, somebody else already knows how that works".
I listened to the podcast episode yesterday. Apparently some (I think they only cited one person as a source) people use it as a form of motivation and focus. They also said some women view it as a type of equalizer. But the ultimate takeaway was that the systems and the data are inherently not very accurate in their measurements.
1. Is this system calibrated down to the role and task at hand? Even just in tech, someone doing more design work is going to look different from the backend folks. Doubly so if one project is just starting while the other is midway.
2. How can we understand the potential bias already in this system? It's a black box by design, at what point is it reviewed and by whom?
3. Even if it's fine today, who is to say how it will be tuned tomorrow? Do you think new management would just leave it alone?
4. Do you think the people running this system are applying it to themselves equally?
IMO, this is a poor replacement for having a manager that's a human being and treats you like one too. I'm sad for people that can't find options away from these things, and can't vote with their bodies and leave.
if it's transparent and includes everyone including whoever is in charge it creates objective data to judge performance by. Just like pay transparency if it's universal it's a good way to make compensation more meritocratic. Catching slackers isn't a bad thing, Only doing it in one direction is.
These kinds of things rarely include the people in charge—maybe middle-managers, sometimes, but not the actual big shots. See also:
- Open office plans, except the bosses get offices (there are exceptions, as with any of these other points, but that's the norm)
- Drug testing.
- Anti-moonlighting rules or other onerous contractural restrictions or claims on time off (these kinds of things apply to higher-ups more often than the other two, but it's still common for them to be universal for the "peons" while the C-suite is allowed to have their hands in several pies at once)
In general, being less-surveilled and less-restricted at work (and off work) is a perk of higher-status positions in a company. It's a social class thing, essentially. This tendency predates computerized surveillance.
I'm the opposite - I learn best by studying and tinkering (what with having 6 years of higher education steering me that way and all...). Nothing kills that off faster than having somebody looking over your shoulder saying, "why are you looking at the HTTP specification, somebody else already knows how that works".