Monitoring people's activities with IT - The unsolved questions

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.

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:

• 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."

(I vaguely remember this "framework" might be related to hostage situation negotiation procedures.)

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

If the leader does not take these last three into account in his/her actions, then we are dealing with plain manipulation.

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.