Early in my career I worked in an environment where we were micromanaged and closely monitored for everything (arrival time, breaks, time on non-intranet sites, conversation with customers length, etc). It was hell on earth and I still have occasional Vietnam-style flashbacks from it. It only made me more productive in finding a new job.
I worked in a sales environment like this for a summer break in college. I was the number 2 sales dude that summer, hitting all of the BS metrics that they fussed over. (ratio of premium to total sales, ratio of services to total sales)
But... they lost a fair amount of money on me, because I abandoned profitable sales that wouldn't hit my metrics, dumping them on others. Instead, I ended up moving lots of stuff with high price concessions. But I never sold anything without the metric-impacting accessory purchases. So I was #2 in gross sales, #1 in hitting targets, but #28 in profit. I made a ton of money though... paid for school the following year!
So, I'd say good luck, it's hard to know what to measure for when your business leaders are busy tracking metrics instead of leading. If I owned a restaurant, and the GM was fussing around with cameras and computers in the back, I'd fire him. Service business management is about taking care of customers and setting up systems to ensure that happens. Lead from the front.
You'll enjoy this paper by the Harvard Business School which pretty much destroys the concept of systemic goal setting in a business. It describes your exact situation: when people have to deal with shit goals, they figure out how work the system.
The problem here is that they used stupid secondary metrics rather than a single primary one. As you note, there is an obvious primary metric to use - how much profit you made. It certainly appears measurable, based on the fact that you know you didn't improve it.
But that only values short-term profit which is not necessarily the best for a business. There is a problem in simplifying the value of a worker to a single number. Always.
If you can't reduce your options to a single number each, your decisionmaking process will be either inconsistent or subjective. This is elementary topology - I sketch a proof here:
So which are you advocating? Inconsistency, subjectivity or both?
It's certainly possible that Spooky is wrong, and the right metric might have been a time-discounted approximation of long term profit, rather than simply short term profit. I doubt that - most companies tend to overvalue the long term. But that's a secondary point.
In terms of your sketched proof he's advocating that "<" ">" and "=" are not defined over the set "business metrics" so you can't assume a total ordering.
The equation A < B holds anytime you would choose B over A (and vice versa). If neither A < B nor B < A, that's the definition of making no decision.
If you advocate making an arbitrary choice, your decision process is either a total order (if you don't break transitivity), inconsistent (if you do break transitivity) or subjective (if the choice is nondeterministic).
Noticing that reality is under no particular obligation to be sortable is not the same as advocating a particular strategy to deal with it. It's just admitting that yeah sometimes subjective decisions (gasp?) will be made and yeah sometimes inconsistent decisions (gasp?) will be made.
And as long as you aren't an evil computer in Star Trek:TOS that's not actually a problem.
"Manna is meant to be a thought-provoking read or conceptual prototype rather than an entertaining novel (see exploratory engineering for more on such writing). The novel shows two possible outcomes of the 'robotic revolution' in the near future: one outcome is a dystopia based around US capitalism and the other is a utopia based upon a communal and technological society in Australia. Essentially, the two differ in that lower-class humans in the dystopic society have been left unmodified and are controlled by AI "managers" to the point of slavery, while humans in the utopian society more directly and efficiently participate in the management of the society as a whole and most or all willingly accept implanted AI aids."
Yeah, was definitely getting flashbacks to that story while reading the article. It's a very obvious next step in a lot of service-industry workplaces--I really wish our philosophy would catch up with our tech.
In the real world there won't be a thoughtful entrepreneur who saves everybody. I can clearly see that bleak future happening and I am frightened how we are going to deal with the consequences.
Historically, having a large and growing poor population is a recipie for revolution. Which is not to say the poor will revolt just that as you concentrate weath society becomes less stable and the poor are often used by those with some power who want more power.
The danger here is that technology is increasingly giving us nearly cost-free methods (e.g. leveraging machine learning/ big data instead of human supervisors) to oppressively optimize profitability at the expense of human happiness.
While employers might always desire greater productivity out of their workers, the ability to finely track productivity by simple metrics gives them new leverage over workers, who have little recourse. While many jobs people do are inherently not fun, when a grocery bagger's job depends on scans per hour [0], the human element is drained.
There are also implicit costs that such metrics impose. "Scans per hour" creates a perverse incentive to ignore or feign ignorance at customer requests, call center quotas for conversions encourages lying to customers, etc.
> to oppressively optimize profitability at the expense of human happiness
-
> Through these new means, companies have found, for example, that workers are more productive if they have more social interaction. So a bank’s call center introduced a shared 15-minute coffee break, and a pharmaceutical company replaced coffee makers used by a few marketing workers with a larger cafe area. The result? Increased sales and less turnover.
In that instance it sounds like adding a 15 minute break would make employees happier, a possible contributing factor to reduced turnover. Optimizing doesn't necessarily put them at odds with happiness - decreasing happiness would increase turnover.
[paraphrased] "if you took 14 minutes to read the report and were over the age of 50, you were clearly not taking your work seriously and needed an intervention -- 16 minutes, and you were being too analytical and black-flagged as an asshole" (sorry, I forget the exact quote from Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age")
We'll probably get a few more Dilbert creators out of the ironic fiasco this is going to become..
This is full of quotes that show the Dilbertesque nature of some of these metrics. It is true that they seem to be concentrated in the serving industry, but there are traces of them in the tech industry as well, which could conceivably increase a lot (after all, we just love the quantified self, don't we?).
"At a tech company, his company found, workers who sat at larger tables in the cafeteria, thus communicating more, were more productive than workers who sat at smaller tables."
Is this effect statistically significant? Was it validated by forcing the people at the larger tables to switch to smaller ones, and proving that their productivity decreased as a result? Maybe a larger percentage of disgruntled workers sat by themselves, along with a couple of really high performers?
Drawing broad strokes that appeal to higher management ("oh, they were communicating more, that's why they were more productive") is going to lead to decisions that are not fully thought through, and tend to club everyone into a single mould defined by broad conclusions from this data, ("Let's have two team meetings every day, just to ensure that everyone communicates and is on their toes all the time.")
So, If you are an employee or a manager, keep this in mind, and strongly resist any of these nonsensical monitoring devices. It will lead to less creative and disgruntled employees who are now trying to solve the problem of how to beat these metrics instead of whatever problem they were supposed to solve in the first place.
---------------
"Servers, knowing they were being monitored, pushed customers to have that dessert or a second beer."
On a tangential note, seeing how popular chain restaurants and takeout places are in the US, this probably strongly contributes to the rising obesity percentage.
Someone always mentions Marshall Brain's short story "Manna" on such threads but everyday it seems ever more prescient and relevant. I wonder how he saw it all coming.
I work in a software shop as a developer, and video cameras look over our desks. Most of the day we are at the desks, coding or email etc. Please comment if you also have video camera surveillance on your white-collar job. I thought it might be quite common now, but the Times article didn't give such an example, so maybe not?
> Servers, knowing they were being monitored, pushed customers to have that dessert or a second beer
Great example of something good for the restaurant owner being bad for the visitors and potentially unsafer for other drivers.
Now I want to write software that offloads some aspect of quality-of-life into making restaurant managers' lives unhealthier and riskier.
Also a great example of feature creep: Adveritsed as "Restaurant Guard," reducing theft, it made people have to perform better b/c they were being watched. Good thing we have choices in life still. Honey, where are my gardening gloves!
"Great example of something good for the restaurant owner"
You could also argue that pushing desert is bad as well (sugar, fats etc.) Where do you draw the line though? What about the entire meal at the restaurant - it's not exactly boiled potatoes and steamed green beans.
Separately, something that is "good for the restaurant" is not necessarily bad for the patrons. The fact that people drink at a restaurant (or buy dessert which I'm told has a high profit margin) adds to the profitability and allows it to lower the price on food (in theory) and makes it a going concern. Also the check is higher so the tip (which the server makes) is larger so someone is earning a better living.
"Yet the prospect of fine-grained, digital monitoring of workers’ behavior worries privacy advocates. Companies, they say, have few legal obligations other than informing employees. “Whether this kind of monitoring is effective or not, it’s a concern,” said Lee Tien, a senior staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco."
"worries privacy advocates"
You have to wonder how objective all these "advocates" really are.
I mean they most certainly must try pretty hard to insure they have a job and a cause by finding any and all situations where they can rally around this issue. Without respect for whether it is really a problem or not in a particular case. (I'm not saying it is or isn't it just bothers me that they pop up to make an issue out of everything).
You just have to look at where the money originates. If a charitable organization is supported primarily by small donations, they will constantly be hyping the new hot Chicken-Little bullshit to the media. If OTOH they get big donations, they will ignore the media and spend all their time as sock-puppets for industry before government panels and oversight boards.
This is a general observation, but unfortunately it's true even for organizations I like and have supported, like EFF.
