The Case of the Omniscient Organization

chemise Analysis The Case of the Omniscient Organization Introduction In this theatrical role study, Dominion-Swann (DS) has implemented a radical restructuring of the constitute purlieu in target to regain enclose of its employees. By 1990, DS had been suffering from a flesh of seam woes. It was not keeping pace with its competition, employee turnover had increased substantially, health costs and work-related accidents were rising, and employee theft was at an all-time high. Instead of identifying and addressing the beneathlying business and direction problems, DS decided to treat the symptoms by turning to SciexPlan Inc. o help radically restructure the work environment through the recitation of employee monitor technology. Background DS has reassert its work environment restructuring establish on past failures or else than future goals for success. The company has ca-cad a arrangement to compile a comprehensive database of information on all(prenominal) employee. DS also monitors its employees in all aspects of their job, subjecting them to constant evaluation and productivity tests. The extensive amount of information put in on each employee is supposed to supply DS to objectively manage personnel and devil job assignments that raise the greatest efficiency.Instead, DS has created an impersonal monitoring, control, and detection system designed to rest traps for employees and shape their behavior without any managerial effort. Problem Statement Has DS become so consumed with its radical restructuring of the work environment that it has prioritized technology and control over the welfare, creativity, and productivity of its people? Analysis and Issues Digital technology has do an undeniably profound regard, both positive and negative, on the work. When implemented properly, the benefits of this impact can include increased productivity, improved safety, better working onditions, and compound communications between employees, manag ement, and customers. However, an exceedingly obsessive employee monitoring system leave behind create tedious and stressful working conditions, loss of employee secretiveness, and fear which provide result in reduced levels of creativity and productivity. By implementing an overly greedy system for employee monitoring, DS is significantly aggravating the tension that exists between surveillance technology and employee silence concerns. DS wants to monitor employees in order to remunerate effort, knowledge, productivity, and success while eliminating idleness, ignorance, theft, and failure.Instead, it is treating its workers like pieces of equipment rather than unique and valuable individuals. DS has basically transformed the workplace into an all-encompassing electronic prison where almost every aspect of an employees behavior is monitored. The DS managers who monitor every last that employees make are accomplishing efficiency objectives at a sizeable cost. monitor and surv eillance can create a high stress environment for employees that can lead to physiological and psychological stress-related illnesses. Covert surveillance at DS go out do nothing but increase fears, anxieties, and doubt among employees.The impersonal aspect of technological surveillance diminishes employees concepts of their esteem, contribution, and self-worth. The all-encompassing surveillance implemented by DS will destroy any hope for employees to make decisions and act autonomously. Autonomy is a critical component to on-the-job license that maximizes worker morale. Although DS has justification for some amount of employee monitoring in order to successfully evaluate employee slaying, it has taken employee surveillance to the point where it will adversely affect productivity.When employees do not feel that they are trusted, their hope to perform well is lessened. The employee screening process DS has implemented brings up additional privacy concerns. Any investigation of employee activities and history outside of the workplace is an extremely sensitive and potentially litigious issue. DS is only justified in intruding into its employees personal lives when it involves mis lot or illegal activity.Off-duty conduct may be relevant to employment if the misconduct negatively impacts the employees work performance or the companys mission. However, the systematic monitoring employed by DS raises serious privacy concerns. Monitoring all employees activities, rather than just the activities of employees under(a) suspicion of specific misconduct, constitutes a blanket search that brings enormous privacy concerns. Recommendations DS would be better off with no employee monitoring rather than scrutinizing its employees every move.Once the employee monitoring creates a morale problem, all of the value it has created will be diminished. If DS is to continue with employee monitoring systems, it must create and clearly communicate a monitoring policy for employee s. DS unavoidably to start with human-oriented policies, then use technology to enforce them. As it stands full now, DS is exerting too much power in its invasion of employee privacy in the workplace. DS is exploiting the lack of regulation in this area in order to implement extremely invasive methods of employee surveillance.Until employees are protected by regulation to protect their rights to privacy in the workplace, DS should assume office to self regulate by limiting the amount of surveillance, implementing it only when it achieves specific goals for success. Monitoring should be conducted only for business purposes, and this must be communicated to the employees. In order to throttle back its employee monitoring system to a healthy level, DS should review and apply the suggested rights given by the American civilian Liberties Union (ACLU).To establish a reasonable approach and prevent abuses, DS should adopt a human-oriented policy that includes the following features * notice to employees of the companys electronic monitoring practices * use of a signal to let an employee know when he or she is be monitored * employee access to all personal electronic data collected through monitoring * no monitoring of areas designed for the health or comfort of employees * the right to dispute and delete inaccurate data a ban on the collection of data unrelated to work performance * restrictions on the disclosure of personal data to others without the employees consent (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997). DS should also consider whether or not monitoring is truly unavoidable for performance evaluations. DS does not need to watch an employees every move to be able to judge the quality of his or her work. mathematical process monitoring should be far less of a concern than an employees ability to complete tasks and consistently meet deadlines. DS should involve its employees on the decisions regarding when, how and why electronic monitoring needs to takes pla ce. Most importantly of all, DS must allow employees to inspect, challenge, and, when necessary, correct the data gathered about them or their performance. Conclusion/SummaryDS must strike a equilibrium between its business interests and its employees privacy interests. This balance should allow for surveillance under certain limited conditions, and utilize less intrusive approaches. Although it is unlikely that DS would completely discontinue its monitoring practice, at a minimum DS should continue to fully inform its employees about all surveillance tools being used in their workplace and provided them with clear information as to what management does with the data.References Pedeliski, Theodore B. (1997). Privacy and the workplace Technology and public employment. Public Personnel Management. celestial latitude 22, 1997. Shoppes, Mia. (2003). Employee monitoring Is big brother a bad idea. Information pledge Magazine. Dec. 9, 2003. American Civil Liberties Union. (1997). Privacy in America Electronic monitoring. Retrieved from http//www. aclu. org/technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-electronic-monitoring