HP and Surveillance in the Workplace

Anyone keeping up with the news has no doubt read about the current controversy surrounding HP’s surveillance of board members.  While the ethical dimensions of such “misplaced priorities” are well covered on other sites, I haven’t seen much attention paid to the more utilitarian aspects of Patricia Dunn’s methods.  What, for instance, is the predicted effect of such surveillance (or the knowledge of such surveillance) on HP’s operations?  If we ignore ethics for a minute (admittedly, not generally a good idea), was this good strategy?

It strikes me that, as hinted at above, the real problem is what the knowledge of surveillance does to HP’s culture.  Even if Perkins hadn’t forced HP into making Dunn’s actions public, it can be reasonably assumed that word would have gotten out among HP’s executives and managers.  Would this knowledge make them worry that they too could be the subject of investigations?  Would it affect their performance?

There is a good deal of theory regarding what happens when workers are aware of surveillance.  The most famous of which is Foucault’s notion of panoptic control (taken from Bentham’s panopticon).  Foucault’s idea was that mere knowledge of constant observation had devastating effects on a person’s sense of freedom and identity.  More recently, scholars like Graham Sewell have explored the idea of panoptic control in the workplace.

There is not, however, a good deal of evidence regarding the actual (empirical) affects of surveillance on the workplace.  This is particularly true with regard to its effects on upper-level management.  In that view, I wonder if any readers could comment on their own experiences or thoughts.

....................................................................................................................................................
Posted in Commentary by Ralph Maurer | | Permalink |

« Creativity and Constraint, Part 2 | Main | Lovaglia's Law »

No Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment