4 ms·

None of the attacks on your position really answer your question, which I think is a reasonable one. If I'm hiring someone to stack boxes, what's wrong with hi

None of the attacks on your position really answer your question, which I think is a reasonable one. If I'm hiring someone to stack boxes, what's wrong with hiring and keeping the best box stackers? Why should I be limited in the non-discriminatory tools I use to measure such performance? The wristband isn't monitoring an employee's attitude or beliefs. If anything, the tool would make racism or favoritism generally less prevalent. I'd say it's the managers who are affected most by this, not the workers.

harryf 9y ago
I think the measure of anything like this is whether you as "the boss" are willing to wear one too and make that data available to those work for you without restrictions. If you're willing to do that then OK - let's try this thing and see what happens.
- king07828 9y ago
  Information asymmetry is a key concern that you have hit upon. Will a manager release truthful aggregate information, such as averages and standard deviations so that individuals can see for themselves how they stack up against the group? Will this information also be correlated for height, weight, and other physiological parameters? Or will a manager selectively hoard and release specific pieces of information to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of the workers in an attempt to squeeze out more productivity?
  - krapp 9y ago
    >Will a manager release truthful aggregate information, such as averages and standard deviations so that individuals can see for themselves how they stack up against the group? At the FC where I work, managers printed metrics out from spreadsheets and posted them daily (ish) to encourage competition and productivity but there was no real way to verify numbers weren't being fudged, or that favoritism wasn't being shown. Workers often won't know their error rate or accurate stow rate until they generate enough errors to trigger a warning, because only managers are allowed to see a worker's metrics. Amazon's policy is that an employee who follows procedure will never generate errors, and therefore, giving employees access to their own metrics is unnecessary - good employees won't need them, bad employees will either become good, or be fired. It's only recently that they've been able to see their stow rates as reflected by Amazon's own system, rather than a vague and inaccurate estimate. >Or will a manager selectively hoard and release specific pieces of information to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of the workers in an attempt to squeeze out more productivity? Yes.
smacktoward 9y ago
"I'm paying for their health insurance. Why shouldn't I be allowed to jam a device up their rectum that sends me a Slack notification whenever they drink alcohol?"
falcolas 9y ago
If I bring you in to write code, what's wrong with hiring and keeping only people who write a certain amount of code every day? Are you having a bad day because you're distracted? Too bad, you're receiving a reprimand for not meeting your quota. Do you need to get up and walk around because your back is sore? Too bad, that's time you should be spending coding. Are you stuck in the resolution of a problem? Too bad, prepare to be canned for repeatedly missing your quotas. Time spent refining your tools? Nope, not allocated. Time spent learning? Nope, not allowed. Fixing a security issue unrelated to your code? You missed your quotas. Training the FNG? Sorry, but you didn't meet quota. I hired you to write code, after all, and if you don't want to do that, I have a few dozen applications on my desk of people who do want to. On a more meta note - these wristbands and things like them remove all judgement from the equation. Someone recovering from a hurt back is only viewed as unproductive for an extended period of time, and thus someone to fire. No matter what other things they do for the company, or how they performed prior to the injury.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  ...assuming total failure by the supervisor to account for these things. Which can happen anyway. I don't see it changing the game, at least not for that reason.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    And the supervisor's supervisor. "I see you had ten underperformers that you have kept on. Didn't you know our company is working hard to save money? I've taken the liberty to fire them, consider this your first warning." Even the best managers will have a hard time trying to convince upper management that people who miss quotas are worth keeping on.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Again, nothing new here. Quotas are already measured by queues filled, boxes moved etc. This is not a game-changer, just a cost-saver.

harryf 9y ago

I think the measure of anything like this is whether you as "the boss" are willing to wear one too and make that data available to those work for you without restrictions. If you're willing to do that then OK - let's try this thing and see what happens.

king07828 9y ago
Information asymmetry is a key concern that you have hit upon. Will a manager release truthful aggregate information, such as averages and standard deviations so that individuals can see for themselves how they stack up against the group? Will this information also be correlated for height, weight, and other physiological parameters? Or will a manager selectively hoard and release specific pieces of information to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of the workers in an attempt to squeeze out more productivity?
- krapp 9y ago
  >Will a manager release truthful aggregate information, such as averages and standard deviations so that individuals can see for themselves how they stack up against the group? At the FC where I work, managers printed metrics out from spreadsheets and posted them daily (ish) to encourage competition and productivity but there was no real way to verify numbers weren't being fudged, or that favoritism wasn't being shown. Workers often won't know their error rate or accurate stow rate until they generate enough errors to trigger a warning, because only managers are allowed to see a worker's metrics. Amazon's policy is that an employee who follows procedure will never generate errors, and therefore, giving employees access to their own metrics is unnecessary - good employees won't need them, bad employees will either become good, or be fired. It's only recently that they've been able to see their stow rates as reflected by Amazon's own system, rather than a vague and inaccurate estimate. >Or will a manager selectively hoard and release specific pieces of information to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of the workers in an attempt to squeeze out more productivity? Yes.

smacktoward 9y ago

"I'm paying for their health insurance. Why shouldn't I be allowed to jam a device up their rectum that sends me a Slack notification whenever they drink alcohol?"

falcolas 9y ago

If I bring you in to write code, what's wrong with hiring and keeping only people who write a certain amount of code every day? Are you having a bad day because you're distracted? Too bad, you're receiving a reprimand for not meeting your quota. Do you need to get up and walk around because your back is sore? Too bad, that's time you should be spending coding. Are you stuck in the resolution of a problem? Too bad, prepare to be canned for repeatedly missing your quotas. Time spent refining your tools? Nope, not allocated. Time spent learning? Nope, not allowed. Fixing a security issue unrelated to your code? You missed your quotas. Training the FNG? Sorry, but you didn't meet quota. I hired you to write code, after all, and if you don't want to do that, I have a few dozen applications on my desk of people who do want to. On a more meta note - these wristbands and things like them remove all judgement from the equation. Someone recovering from a hurt back is only viewed as unproductive for an extended period of time, and thus someone to fire. No matter what other things they do for the company, or how they performed prior to the injury.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
...assuming total failure by the supervisor to account for these things. Which can happen anyway. I don't see it changing the game, at least not for that reason.
- falcolas 9y ago
  And the supervisor's supervisor. "I see you had ten underperformers that you have kept on. Didn't you know our company is working hard to save money? I've taken the liberty to fire them, consider this your first warning." Even the best managers will have a hard time trying to convince upper management that people who miss quotas are worth keeping on.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Again, nothing new here. Quotas are already measured by queues filled, boxes moved etc. This is not a game-changer, just a cost-saver.