As I have wrote
previously in these blog-posts, I believe that privacy is very important to the
employer-employee relationship. It establishes trust and helps to foster
loyalty, two things corporations cannot do without in its employees. Betrayal
of trust can lead to a decrease of loyalty and trust in the company, which only
leads to lessened productivity for the company, as has been illustrated in the
difference between Theory X and Theory Y work environments. So, as I have previously
explained, it is in the best interest of the company not to betray the trust
their employees have in them by implementing invasive monitoring programs. But,
there is another reason to avoid restricting the privacy rights of employees;
it is possible it restricts innovation itself.
As outlined in
the paper linked above, many employers are taking actions to remove elements of
employee privacy, but the paper posits that this is bad for the employers because
of the impact lack of privacy can have on employee speech. Mainly, the paper explains
that certain form of employee speech is actually quite valuable to the
business. Employees speaking out to their managers about inefficiencies or
proposing new ideas is speech that is quite valuable to employers. Encouraging
employees to speak among themselves also helps to speed up the resolving of
labor disagreements, as they are not afraid to discuss among themselves exactly
what they want and weigh their options. It also helps employees themselves to
self-regulate and prevent accidents and breaches of conduct. Invasive security
systems impact all of these forms of speech by making employees afraid to speak
freely, as people are far less likely to speak freely when they feel they are
being watched.
So, what do I
think about the value of employee speech to a company, and how invasive surveillance
systems can remove that value? As the paper above outlined, I think employee
speech has massive value to the employer, and any company that ignores the
value provided by free employee speech is sure to find that the benefits
provided by a surveillance system might not be as high as they thought.
Employee speech is valuable and needed, and using surveillance systems hinders
it. The negative far outweigh the positives here. If a company does not recognize the benefits
provided by employee speech, it reflects very poorly on them and will likely be
reflected on their bottom line in some form.
So, what do others think of the matter? Is employee speech
more valuable than surveillance systems? Is there any way companies can somehow
balance both, to reach a more unified whole? Is it even possible for companies
to encourage positive forms of speech with invasive security systems in place,
and still receive positive results?
-Noel Hansen
No comments:
Post a Comment