Monitoring people's activities in an organization has become more available and easier with ever increasing and more versatile usage of IT. Network traffic rates, e-mail behavior and program usage are just a few examples of available types of monitoring. But when does the good intentions stop and violation of privacy start? What are the motivations and responsibilities of the employer (organization) for using these methods?
One of the recent news topics in this area is the preparation for the new Finnish legislation concerning telecommunications monitoring, also know as Lex Nokia. Some writers compare this new piece of legislation to the infamous Stasi, others just complain that Nokia does not support learning or the law violates the constitution. Summa summarum, people are not happy with this new "law of prying" (suom: "urkintalaki").
The diminishing of one's personal privacy is definitely a drawback when these kinds of monitoring or surveillance methods are employed. But how much personal privacy does a person have (or is entitled to) when working in some organization? People's activities are still being monitored with more "conventional" ways, e.g. with camera surveillance and electronic access control systems (suom. kulkukortti). Even operative scheduling could be interpreted as monitoring: deadlines are planned, work is scheduled and completed tasks listed. The organization definitely has some interests for it's employees and is willing to pay for the time "spent" within and for the organization.
There are some wonderful possibilities for getting important managerial information with automated IT monitoring. New company policies and training possibilities for enhancing work flow and routines can be developed, if the correct information is available. For example, some companies want to reduce the amount of e-mails withing it's firewall premises. This could be done by introducing blogs or internal RSS-feeds, but these kinds of improvements typically require some training and the development progress needs to be transparent. Monitoring the reduced internal e-mail traffic is one way of showing concrete improvement in this area. Other scenario might be that (a part of) company's organization is not using the intranet, portals or internal programs as designed. Discovering the correct section and targeting appropriate training and/or information requires the use of program usage monitoring.
One other thing relating to people's behavior is that people tend to try harder when they know they're being monitored. This leads to the managerial decision of whether to keep the monitoring constantly transparent and thus adding to the already heavy information load that people are experiencing. Or, should the monitoring be kept secret and allow people to remain ignorant about it and concentrate on their work. The latter option has some dangerous possibilities hidden inside it. When detected, this kind of secretive and "controlling" management is guaranteed to upset people.
The questions about people's personal rights and privileges concerning their personal privacy is still without a final answers. When discussing these, I would like to add my opinions to the mix as well. Every participant should try to think the reasons and implications in these matters and from other viewpoints also, not just one's own. The organization most definitely has some very legitimate reasons to do some monitoring. These reasons should be made transparent for everyone and people should remember that they are in fact a part of that organization and typically employed by it. You can send your personal e-mails from your home, I know I can.
12/05/2008
Problem solving leadership
Is leadership fundamentally just manipulation? I stumbled into this question in LinkedIn and it got me thinking about my own views about leadership and what it really is.
In an ideal world problems never arise. But, since we are human and the world is still far from an ideal place, problems arise. Avoiding problems would obviously seem the simplest solution, but let's pretend that we are in a leadership role and we encounter some problem.
My view of problem solving with leadership includes the following steps:
In reality, these steps might not be (and usually are not) all available. The leader is bound by organization's reward systems, project money, regional legislation and many other things, but a good leader will know his/her boundaries and make the best of what's available.
Back to the question about leadership of being just manipulation. My opinion is that good leadership is:
Note that I never used the word "motivate". I believe that people cannot be externally motivated, but the true motivation comes from within. External reward systems and more personal influence in one's work might be appealing, but they truly motivate only if they are aligned with people's personal interests.
In an ideal world problems never arise. But, since we are human and the world is still far from an ideal place, problems arise. Avoiding problems would obviously seem the simplest solution, but let's pretend that we are in a leadership role and we encounter some problem.
My view of problem solving with leadership includes the following steps:
- Investigate. Berore taking action, get as much information of the problem situation as reasonably is possible. Unnecessary action is only a waste of resources (and reputation). Narrative quotation: "The project deliverables are over 2 weeks over deadline and Bob has not delivered his part."
- Involve the participants. This is for getting more information and a start of a dialogue with the people that are involved in the situation. Narrative quotation: "Hey Bob, it seems that your deliverable program module is behind schedule. What's going on?"
- Reason. If there truly is a problem with Bob's performance, the project outlines might need to be reminded. Narrative quotation: "Oh, you got mixed up with the schedules. Can you catch up by the next milestone?"
- Organize. Some tasks might simply be too big for just one Bob to handle, so help might be appreciated. Parts of the task can also be canceled. This step also includes introducing new tools and procedures. Narrative quotation: "This task seems to be too demanding for just one person. Luckily our team member Emily has spare time and she can help you with this part. If you still cannot do it, leave the usability testing out."
- Use incentives. If there is a excess project money lying around, some incentive scheme might meet Bob's expectations. Promises of a better job grade or extra holidays can also do the trick, but in any case: only make promises that you can keep! Also, be careful with incentives not to get too easily available and subjects to abuse. Narrative quotation: "This deadline is crucial to our customer. I'll give you 4 extra holidays if you deliver your part in time."
- Coercion. If, and only if everything else fails, force is the only option. In extreme cases, replacing the unfitting participant(s). Narrative quotation: "The work is late and you will do it by the next milestone, or you will be fired."
In reality, these steps might not be (and usually are not) all available. The leader is bound by organization's reward systems, project money, regional legislation and many other things, but a good leader will know his/her boundaries and make the best of what's available.
Back to the question about leadership of being just manipulation. My opinion is that good leadership is:
- considering all the steps mentioned and proceeding in this particular order
- connecting the decisions to the "greater good" (e.g. project outcomes)
- making the decisions and the reasons for the transparent to all participants
Note that I never used the word "motivate". I believe that people cannot be externally motivated, but the true motivation comes from within. External reward systems and more personal influence in one's work might be appealing, but they truly motivate only if they are aligned with people's personal interests.
11/11/2008
Consultants' reputations and where do they come from?
I've had some very interesting conversations concerning the reputation of consultants and especially HR consultants. I still don't have a definite answer to why some of my professional areas have this negativity embedded in them, but I have some observations and opinions on this matter.
One important factor might be a cultural one. The majority of my student friends in the Helsinki University of Technology have specialized in some technical area: testing, mobile platform design, high speed computing, etc. My opinion is that technical experts are more familiar in dealing with concrete, formal and absolute definitions, which are more present in natural sciences. For example it is quite easy to differentiate Java and C programming languages or Windows and Unix operating systems. In many of the HR-areas, things are not so simple or well defined. Okay, I admit that payroll, work hour- and vacation-plannings are somewhat straightforward, but there are others too. How about knowledge? Or talent? Or even better yet, intellectual capital? Even though these don't have such precise definitions, they are still present in every organization. It doesn't make the value of knowledge/competence/talent any less significant if it has many names.
Other thing might be that consultants are quite often present when something is changing in the organization. New work distribution, org charts, allocation of resources... All of these tend to have more negativity accompanied and since consultants are somehow involved in the changes, it is easy to project the negativity into them. By accident or on purpose. I cannot deny that the consultant herself (or himself) might have an effect on his/her reputation. Really poor skills and lack of expertise is impossible to conceal, but proving one's worth is an uphill battle for consultants.
I don't have anything against technical areas, but my experience is that technical experts' attitudes are more hostile towards consultants and HR, than towards accounting for example. Maybe it's a cultural thing, maybe the negativity comes from some unfortunate events. Generally speaking, people should respect and appreciate others' expertise, no matter what the area is.
I try to keep in mind that the consultants are never "uninvited". Their presence in a change process or as a part of an organization, is justified and approved by the organization itself. The approving level might just be a higher one.
One important factor might be a cultural one. The majority of my student friends in the Helsinki University of Technology have specialized in some technical area: testing, mobile platform design, high speed computing, etc. My opinion is that technical experts are more familiar in dealing with concrete, formal and absolute definitions, which are more present in natural sciences. For example it is quite easy to differentiate Java and C programming languages or Windows and Unix operating systems. In many of the HR-areas, things are not so simple or well defined. Okay, I admit that payroll, work hour- and vacation-plannings are somewhat straightforward, but there are others too. How about knowledge? Or talent? Or even better yet, intellectual capital? Even though these don't have such precise definitions, they are still present in every organization. It doesn't make the value of knowledge/competence/talent any less significant if it has many names.
Other thing might be that consultants are quite often present when something is changing in the organization. New work distribution, org charts, allocation of resources... All of these tend to have more negativity accompanied and since consultants are somehow involved in the changes, it is easy to project the negativity into them. By accident or on purpose. I cannot deny that the consultant herself (or himself) might have an effect on his/her reputation. Really poor skills and lack of expertise is impossible to conceal, but proving one's worth is an uphill battle for consultants.
I don't have anything against technical areas, but my experience is that technical experts' attitudes are more hostile towards consultants and HR, than towards accounting for example. Maybe it's a cultural thing, maybe the negativity comes from some unfortunate events. Generally speaking, people should respect and appreciate others' expertise, no matter what the area is.
I try to keep in mind that the consultants are never "uninvited". Their presence in a change process or as a part of an organization, is justified and approved by the organization itself. The approving level might just be a higher one.
11/08/2008
SECI-model
Opening words for this blog-"thread"... hmmm... I have always been a very analytical person, sometimes too analytical for my own good. Taking things as they come has never been the natural approach for me, but more often I meticulously analyze and compare different options and outcomes. One main purpose for this blog is to channel this type of analytical thinking into something more concrete, than just my own amorphous thoughts. Hopefully the time I put into writing this, pays itself back when I can "let go" of some unimportant pondering. This thread, or area of blogs is dedicated to my personal development... what that means specifically, will be left to future interpretation. :)
I'm currently working as a course assistant in the Helsinki University of Technology and one of my favorites is the course on Knowledge and competence management. Some time ago the students asked for concrete examples of the SECI-model of knowledge transformation processes (by Nonaka & Takeuchi), which is what I will present in this blog.
The acronym SECI comes from words Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization. The knowledge transformation takes place between tacit (or implicit) and explicit forms of knowledge. The following is an example of each step in the SECI model: Writing a course essay in pairs
1) The assignment pair, Ellen and John, sit down for the first time to discuss the assignment. In the coffee discussion, both of them learn about each others current knowledge in the essay's subject and also gain some insight of their personalities. The students make some TODO-list for the upcoming tasks and the meeting dissolves. This is one very concrete event involving the Socialization of the SECI-model.
2) Ellen and John get on with their specific tasks on the TODO-list. Making database inquiries of relevant articles and books, attending to the lectures and reading course literature and, at some point, actual writing. When writing about the essay topic, the students are formulating their tacit knowledge into a more explicit form, that is Externalizing in the SECI-model.
3) Okay, both Ellen and John have written their share on the required 20 pages. Again they get together to discuss the ongoing essay work. They notice that even thou they made tome division of topics in the TODO-list, they still have some overlapping in their writing. They have to Combine their writings into a single essay paper in order to meet the requirements.
4) The course assistant (that is I) receive the excellent paper written by Student Ellen and Student John. I must admit that they have found some very interesting sources for their essay and I find myself learning by reading the essay paper. This is Internalizing knowledge from explicit, to tacit form. A+ for Ellen and John!
5) And once again, Ellen and John meet for a cup of coffee to discuss the new essay on "How to improve the Essay 1 according to course assistant's comments."
I'm interested to read about similar, concrete examples of the SECI-model, so please share them if you have any.
I'm currently working as a course assistant in the Helsinki University of Technology and one of my favorites is the course on Knowledge and competence management. Some time ago the students asked for concrete examples of the SECI-model of knowledge transformation processes (by Nonaka & Takeuchi), which is what I will present in this blog.
The acronym SECI comes from words Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization. The knowledge transformation takes place between tacit (or implicit) and explicit forms of knowledge. The following is an example of each step in the SECI model: Writing a course essay in pairs
1) The assignment pair, Ellen and John, sit down for the first time to discuss the assignment. In the coffee discussion, both of them learn about each others current knowledge in the essay's subject and also gain some insight of their personalities. The students make some TODO-list for the upcoming tasks and the meeting dissolves. This is one very concrete event involving the Socialization of the SECI-model.
2) Ellen and John get on with their specific tasks on the TODO-list. Making database inquiries of relevant articles and books, attending to the lectures and reading course literature and, at some point, actual writing. When writing about the essay topic, the students are formulating their tacit knowledge into a more explicit form, that is Externalizing in the SECI-model.
3) Okay, both Ellen and John have written their share on the required 20 pages. Again they get together to discuss the ongoing essay work. They notice that even thou they made tome division of topics in the TODO-list, they still have some overlapping in their writing. They have to Combine their writings into a single essay paper in order to meet the requirements.
4) The course assistant (that is I) receive the excellent paper written by Student Ellen and Student John. I must admit that they have found some very interesting sources for their essay and I find myself learning by reading the essay paper. This is Internalizing knowledge from explicit, to tacit form. A+ for Ellen and John!
5) And once again, Ellen and John meet for a cup of coffee to discuss the new essay on "How to improve the Essay 1 according to course assistant's comments."
I'm interested to read about similar, concrete examples of the SECI-model, so please share them if you have any.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)