"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In a nutshell, the vice president of Climpson has argued that if we monitor employee internet usage while on the clock and punish aberrant usage, then we will deter employees from wasting time, foster a strong work ethic, and improve the company profits. On first glance, this argument seems to compel action. However, prior to making a decision, the company board would be advised to consider the evidence presented by extremely successful corporations.
The board of Climpson ought to be asking the question: have any other companies experimented with providing time for employees to play while on the job? If so, what are the results? Results favoring employee free time would be a strong indication that we need to rethink the basic parameters of leadership at Climpson.
At least two major companies in the modern world have implemented programs that provide specific time during the week for employees to recreate. Both the major internet search engine provider, Google and DuoLingo, an incredibly successful software firm that specializes in free language programs, provide their employees, in addition to the normal lunch hour, time during the week for recreation during which employees can work on the clock on personal projects that they think will help accomplish the overall good of the company. And the results are staggering! Employees report greater on the job satisfaction and productivity has never been better. These companies do not discriminate between "personal" time and "work" time. Rather, they see clearly that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it were the case that companies similar to Climpson have experimented with this method, and the evidence is in favor of providing such "free" time, then it may not be the case that Climpson will need to implement internet monitoring programs. On the contrary, Climpson may benefit from implementing an employee-autonomy focused work schedule. Clearly, then, the VP will need to address this important issue and convince the board that there is strong evidence in favor of monitoring internet usage to increase productivity.
This prior point plays into my last point. The VP of Climpson thinks that internet monitoring will increase work ethic. However, as the last example demonstrates, there is strong evidence on offer than work ethic ties into employee perceptions of personal autonomy. The VP of Climpson obviously has a strong bent toward the old practice of "seek and destroy" coaching, that is, instead of encouraging good behavior, leaders should seek out trouble makers and punish them. The problem with this approach is that it could backfire and create disgruntled workers. And we all know that an unhappy worker is far less productive than her counterpart.
In order to make his case, the VP of Climpson ought to provide some compelling evidence that the "seek and destroy" method actually does work in the proposed way. Will internet monitoring actually have the intended effect of strengthening morale? Prior to the presentation of this evidence, we must prudently decline to decide on a course of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment