Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Barrin92 1392 days ago
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.
3 comments

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.

"objective data to judge performance by" ... thanks for the laugh!
Makes sense--thank you.