Survey Says Bosses Fear Being Filmed By Employees 159
New submitter Cazekiel writes "If you think your boss is a fearless, miserable beast whose only worries lie in how well his company or business competes, think again. The 'Business Video Behavior Project' survey conducted by Qumu reveals that those in-charge are growing more and more paranoid about something the Average Joe fears just walking down the street nowadays: employees who will 'secretly film him with his metaphorical pants down and then post the footage for public delectation.' It would seem that it doesn't matter if you're powerful, wealthy and lording over hundreds of cubicles; they know the internet exists, everyone has a cell phone camera and thick wallets don't make discarded banana peels magically move out of their path." The company that paid for the study, note, promises to "securely distribute business video simultaneously over multiple Edge routes," so they probably don't mind some workplace paranoia.
I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's scared you might use your new technological tools to make naughty videos -- the worst of which would be to secretly film him with his metaphorical pants down and then post the footage for public delectation.
My brilliant idea is that if you're a boss BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY, ethically and fairly. It's not that hard.
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's Business Ethics 101 - if you're doing something at work that you wouldn't want posted on the front page of the local newspapers, don't do it.
That's true. But if TFA is to be believed maybe they skipped that class :-)
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is an example. Your job is to sell your product to a foreign country (You sell a good product at a good price). In this country offering bribes is common and legal, however it is considered immoral and illegal for you and your culture and country to offer the bribes. So you go to the business deal the the owner says, you are offering a fine offer however what is in it for me (wink, wink).
Do you.
1. Turn down the bribe and loose the business.
2. Offer the bribe and hope they don't find out.
3. Offer to close the deal near your headquarters in Orlando Florida, and give him prepaid tickets and cover expenses (and his family who should be leaving his side) to come to headquarters to fill out the deal.
The problem is the more diverse set of people you meet the more muddy ethics get.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Business ethics gets very complicated very quickly. Here is an example. Your job is to sell your product to a foreign country (You sell a good product at a good price). In this country offering bribes is common and legal, however it is considered immoral and illegal for you and your culture and country to offer the bribes. So you go to the business deal the the owner says, you are offering a fine offer however what is in it for me (wink, wink). Do you. 1. Turn down the bribe and loose the business. 2. Offer the bribe and hope they don't find out. 3. Offer to close the deal near your headquarters in Orlando Florida, and give him prepaid tickets and cover expenses (and his family who should be leaving his side) to come to headquarters to fill out the deal. The problem is the more diverse set of people you meet the more muddy ethics get.
It only seems complicated because (most?) businesspeople think there are a separate set of rules just for them. Hence the fact that the term "business ethics" even exists. Option 1 is the correct answer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Option 3 seems like the best compromise, all around, and if the company is willing to bring the client and family out for a visit (which happens all the time), the option of showing him OUR culture opens up. This
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, what you are proposing is that US rules are better. Why? Why isn't "grease" an acceptable answer? It has worked in many cultures for longer than the US has been in existance.
Maybe it doesn't work well in the US, which is fine. But it is difficult to say it should not work in China or Saudi Arabia because ... well, just because. Because it is wrong in the US isn't an answer for everyone else.
Now, the specific idea of bribing people to do business with you is certainly in effect strongly i
Re: (Score:2)
It's less about a cultural pissing contest and more about establishing a relati
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't bribes. Bribery is when you are paying a decision-maker for another entity.
Buyer "A" approaches Seller "B". In your examples, "B" gives a little extra to "A" to close the deal. There is no ethical issue here.
With bribery, you have Agent "A" for Buyer "C" approaching Seller "
Re: (Score:3)
Even in countries where it is common, "grease" is still called corruption. Growing numbers of people in at least some of those cultures recognize that it doesn't really "work". In other words, it's not culture, it's prevalent crime. Any apparent dilemma is due to a faulty premise. That's the moral hazard of relativism.
A coupon isn't a bribe since the benefit accrues to the payer. A kickback is corruption because the agent personally benefits to the detriment of his employer (often the people).
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is insisting that I behave unethically, especially after I've explained my situation to them, then they are not worth appeasing. Clearly they have no interest in meeting me halfway, and if they are pushing for unethical behavior up front, who knows what kind of unethical behavior they will employ during the length of the business relationship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Especially once you have handed them such juicy extortion material.
No good deed goes unpunished (Score:2)
My grandfather was a senior executive at a large electronics company doing business in Saudi Arabia. He faced this precise dilemma. He opted for option #1, lost his company a big contract, and was then moved to a more-engineering and less-management position. His replacement presumably paid the bribe (baksheesh), given that his replacement became a vice president.
In Saudi culture baksheesh is NORMAL and EXPECTED. They think the Americans are weird immoral for not doing things that way.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is exactly why corruption grows. People like you insist on option 1, no compromises. Consequently the ethical companies go out of business, leaving only unethical companies around, and the circle of corruption grows worse.
The correct answer is option 3. Offer something of similar value to a b
Re: (Score:2)
Option 3 happens all day, erry day, in the business world, and the only time anybody actually complains is when the "gift" becomes fur coats, stock options, straight up cash, etc. In your example, Option 3 actually had value from a business standpoint, in that the client gets to see your facilities, staff, meet you in person, etc. It is simply a way to cover all the bases, get the client into your sphere of influence, and attempt to show him the value o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're still trying to rationalize unethical behavior. If you are going to get fired for not doing something unethical, that job was not worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
If more people took option 1, employers wouldn't have the option of firing ethical people.
So, still option 1. YOUR ethics aren't what is causing the problems. For extra credit, leak the details to the world so they can focus on the cleptocrat that is spreading human misery everywhere he goes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you work for a large company, even the IT guys have to abide by the FOCA act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act [wikipedia.org]. We spend days (Seriously) learning what we can and cant do, even though we are IT. We don't even speak to customers, sell anything or buy anything and we have it 24/7!
If you get caught, worrying about your employees is the last thing you will be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Option 1. That's how ethics work- you do the right thing even if it isn't the most profitable or convenient thing to do. If the most ethical option were the most profitable and convenient, you wouldn't need a code of ethics anyway.
If it were customary in some country to murder a dozen orphans to celebrate closing a deal, while it is obviously illegal (and considered somewhat unethical) to do so in your country, you opt for Option 1- you don't do it. Justifying doing it in order to make more money is the abs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's about doing your fuckin job, which, in sales, is to make and maintain as many relationships as you can.
If "doing your fuckin job" requires you to do unethical things on a regular basis, then you are a terrible person.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I should have argued with my mod points instead of my words, for this is NOT going well. (new sig? hmm)
Re: (Score:2)
The original question is structured so that option 3 appears to be just a bribe wrapped in sugar coating. 3 would be fine if it was going to happen even if a bribe was not requested and both parties HONESTLY believed it's primary purpose was to foster better communication. A good test there is would the offer still have been made and accepted if the corporate headquarters was in east nowheresville where they roll up the sidewalks at 4P.M.. If it is offered because of the bribe request, then it is a bribe.
T
Re: (Score:2)
For a less corporate-y example, I deal with situations all the time where someone wants me to make them free prints as "samples" before they'll purchase from me. They've seen my work, they don't need samples of it to know it's good. Rather than give the
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you don't feel bad about it. They are the actual paying customer, not merely an agent. They're not asking for a bribe and you're not giving them one. They're asking you to sweeten the deal a bit and you're making a counter offer that they accept.
A bribe would be if the customer was a representative of a company that wanted you to make 'sample prints' of their kid's birthday party. It becomes quite clear if they then accept your inferior offer (or if they reject your superior offer in favor of the
Re: (Score:2)
I guess what makes the difference, to me, is whether both companies are aware of and have sanctioned the "solid", and whether it is a vehicle to move business forward. The "p
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it gets a little fuzzier once the blatantly illegal (or at least termination offenses) get removed.
I suspect the best test there is how the parties feel about it if the dinner happens and the deal doesn't. If the person who picked up the tab feels ripped off, it was a bribe. If the dinner guest now feels obligated, it was a bribe. It's one of those things where the people involved can probably figure it out if they reflect honestly upon it, but proving it would be nearly impossible.
In any event, yes, t
Re: (Score:2)
But whatever, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I'm getting more pissed off tha
Re: (Score:2)
How are the two NOT being compared?
Here, this should help: http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm [rhlschool.com]
The GP's question, rephrased: "Offering bribes is unethical, but you're willing to do it for cultural reasons. Well, what if murdering orphans was a cultural tradition. Would you do it then?" For fuck's sake, YOU compared the two by basically asking "Since your job requires offering bribes, if your job required orphan killing would you ALSO be ok with MURDERING ORPHANS, you scum?"
Again: http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm [rhlschool.com]
But whatever, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I'm getting more pissed off than it's worth. I'll keep taking my clients to lunch to keep my little shop running, and hope my competitors agree with all you dumbasses.
Yea, you do that, since you obviously need all the practice talking to folks without being a total self-absorbed dick that you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly your links do not help me, for I must be retarded. Can you try again, this time explaining, with very small words, what concepts you are referring to, and how they bolster your argument that the two concepts were not being compared?
Your problem is, you're assigning associative properties to posts for which no association is made;
Here's the original post:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying your ethics should change depending on where you are? Then those ethics were not very deeply instilled in you to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethically speaking, 1 is the only correct answer. Any other answer leads inexorably to your own culture becoming corrupt..
Re: (Score:3)
I would do number 1. This is not a hard question. There is no muddy ethics. Don't do business with corrupt countries.
Is that why you are posting anonymously? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the MBA track, that class is AKA "comic relief".
Then they go to the serious class about how to commit atrocities and keep it out of the press.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess, your statement has more to do with simply not wanting to get caught
That's about the only thing a sociopath fears. That's why the "threat" of video documentation is so effective.
than being ethical.
I don't see what ethical people would fear from this. Not at the workplace, anyway.
I think this situation has merely arisen to cope with a modern reality: that altruism and enlightened self-interest are at an all-time low. Many people won't even fake them anymore to be thought of as "good" because it is the value of those things itself that is eroding. People like this are self-absorbed and often live as though other people don't exist and could not be inconvenienced or harmed by their bad decision-making, something you can witness in traffic daily. It's not that they are malicious, it's that they don't even notice how their actions affect other people. They don't even have sense enough not to block doorways or other basic things like that. People like this need a selfish reason to do the right thing, like avoiding embarassment, because they can no longer be trusted to have any other kind.
Of course there have always been bandits, assholes, etc. The difference is they used to be rare enough to stand out. Self-absorbed obliviousness as a societal norm is the next logical step after ADD and perpetual victimhood ("nothing's ever my fault"). That's where we are today.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem: 100 people on a sinking boat, only enough lifeboat space for 50
Ethical solution: Pick 50 people at random for the boats
Politically-correct statement the public wants the captain to say: "Put a few extra people in the boats! We'll save as many as we can!!">
Politically-correct statement the company wants him to say: "We'll make a lottery, remove ourselves, and pick 10 people at random, then we'll let them take their families, and pick more until we run out of space"
Quick statement: "We'll pick 50 people at random. There will be orphans."
Frankly, I'd be pissed if my knee-jerk reaction statements were recorded, too, regardless of whether my behavior is ethical or not. The public at large is so quick to become enraged, and the media is so willing to sensationalize, that anything but silence in a bad situation is a PR mess.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Reality solution [wikipedia.org]: Crew grabs lifeboats and leaves the sinking ship, passengers will survive, or not, who cares.
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about ethical people. Or are you saying there's no ethical people in reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there are. Sadly, since elbows determine your advance on the career ladder, they are rarely in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about ethical people. Or are you saying there's no ethical people in reality?
There are, but they all drowned trying to save those who are not.
Re: (Score:2)
From a pure Darwinist point of view, it means that the scumbags will thrive while the ethical intact will perish...
Re: (Score:3)
From a pure Darwinist point of view, it means that the scumbags will thrive while the ethical intact will perish...
Explains a lot about modern society, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ethical Solution: Everyone sits discussing the relative worth per kilo of the various passengers. All drown.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a boat going down, you've already got a PR mess.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Traditional and majorly accepted solution: "Women and children first."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what ethical people would fear from this. Not at the workplace, anyway.
Why do so many people here lack imagination. Ethical people still do and say stupid things (even if they generally are intelligent), ethical people can still get embarassed.
It's not (my) imagination issue, it's (your) reading comprehension issue. The context was fear of getting caught. Too bad ACs don't have reply messages, but here's to hoping you'll read this anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a supervisor. If my employees video me at work they're going to show the world that I use Putty and Chrome to get a more-than-occasional peek at Slashdot or Twitter.
As long as they are getting their work done to my expectations and especially the expectations of the customer, they can pretty much do what they want as well.
So why would I care that they video me and why would they want to in the first place? Are supervisors really that unethical and misbehaving so often that this is really a concern?
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most places won't consider "just following orders" to be a reasonable excuse, even if they're the ones who told you what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's not greed and immortality leading to money?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unethical or bad behavior is not the point. Comedy is the point - making someone look like a fool. So you walk into the office and trip over something and end up with coffee on your shirt. Expect it to be on YouTube within the hour.
Some people think this is funny and the new explosion of camera phones and web services make it possible for these people to illustrate to others the humor (?) they find in the office and on the street. Maybe recording people in bars are good for a few laughs as well. Ever g
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds a lot like the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
As an ethical manager, you have few worries about your behavior being reported.
Are supervisors really that unethical and misbehaving so often that this is really a concern?
Yes, it's rampant.
Re: (Score:2)
My brilliant idea is that if you're a boss BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY, ethically and fairly. It's not that hard.
There are many appropriate, ethical, and fair things one can talk about or do with employees, but that are nevertheless not intended for public distribution. However, people who break confidentiality without (the intention of) exposing something illegal can be disciplined or fired anyway, so yeah, following that suggestion is a good way to avoid embarrassment.
Re: (Score:2)
That woudl be ok (Score:3)
But only if people would stop being hypocrites and decide that the things they do themselves are appropriate for others to do.
You can do nothing legally, morally, or ethically wrong at work and still not want to be filmed because you still can do things that people will hate on you for or make fun of you because.
Like maybe when you listen to music, you rock out and dance in your chair. You don't even know you do this, but you do. Suddenly there's a video of it online and people mock you for it, including pe
Re: (Score:2)
Really old example of this: Jetson's cartoon where Mr. Spacely brings in a new robot for the office. Robot tapes everything George says and selectively plays back stuff to Mr. Spacely that is "colorful". Sounds remarkably like the office culture has finally caught up to 1960s cartoons.
Can you think if the response when at some ungarded moment you say something about your boss that is perhaps unflattering? And then have the video of that moment posted for all to see or sent around to all employees?
Re: (Score:2)
I extend that to "If you are a human being...."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are describing is pretty much a rule for all of humanity from now on. If you don't want it posted, permanently, for everyone on the planet to see, don't do it.
That means having a beer with friends is pretty much off-limits. Not only might you do something stupid, but there are plenty of people that think instead of out having a beer you or your friends should be home with the wife and kids. And they will call you on it. Loudly.
Ever fallen down? Expect someone with a camera to record this momen
Re: (Score:2)
Ever fallen down? Expect someone with a camera to record this moment and make sure it can never be forgotten. How about a TV show titled "Funny Falls" where they just edit together some posted videos.
Reminds of Idiocracy, and "Ow My Balls!"
Re: (Score:3)
Because of the double standard where they do it with impunity while we shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody likes having someone look over their shoulder and judging. Why should bosses be different?
Because they got to do it without penalty for so long?
Re: (Score:2)
Because then your boss couldn't call you while you're at the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
article seems to mention company parties - which from now on will be cancelled of course to the detriment of your colleagues and the revenue for the hospitality industry (congrats!)/quote.
1). Don't drink so fucking much? It's not that hard (unless you're an alcoholic, and if you're in recovery, then one would question the wisdom of you being at that kind of party to start with).
2). I'm sorry, but the revenue for the hospitality industry is not my concern, especially when compared to possibly bringing light to unethical behaviors of my supervisors.
Relevant Quote (Score:5, Funny)
You know, the courts may not be working any more, but as long as everyone is videotaping everyone else, justice will be done.
- Marge Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
Och! They no catch me with my breeks doon! I wear a metaphorical kilt! - Groundskeeper Willie
Re: (Score:2)
As we see with dubious edits by James O'Keefe and his co-conspirators of films at NPR and Planned Parenthood, there is little way for the public to know if a film depicts other than a particular viewpoint. Any recording is this way. Take the NBC edits of the 911 call. In the original it appeared that a question was being answered, in the edi
Not My Boss (Score:2)
My boss doesn't fear this (Score:2)
Hiding under a bed (Score:3)
Re:Hiding under a bed (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't there a French saying to the effect of "No man will check under his wife's bed unless he himself has hidden under a woman's bed."?
Not sure about that because this is Slashdot and I've never had a GF -- let alone a wife. But I do check under my bed before I go to sleep in case there's monsters or ghosts hiding under there. Sometimes I check twice just in case there's a nymphomaniac under there, but no luck yet.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nymphomaniacs sound like fun, until you actually live with one Mine had daddy issues, and printed out loads of really fucked up fantasy porn stories. While reading those, she raped me, repeatedly. Seven times in one night. After seven times, walking hurts, sitting hurts, and not just outside, but inside, too.
Say that you decide you don't want any that particular night. Well, that's just too bad, because you're her fuck toy so you just have to put out. Mine used to accuse me of being gay, if I didn't w
Re: (Score:2)
so what? (Score:2)
It has much more to do with recording/distributing copies of something that might show ones deficiencies than it has to do with behaving ethically.
It's the same reason people have a fear of public speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah... Bosses are human, too, of course. They don't want to be embarrassed any more than anybody else, but being at a higher position within the company, their reputation is directly tied to many other people's reputations as well. That goes for any other collective entity, too, including churches, charities, sailing crews, police, etc... Nobody wants to have anything recorded, because they know they might make a mistake, and that recording will be used against them, out of context and long after any
Re: (Score:2)
It's always the same with these kinds of sociopaths- they really don't give a shit about anything which doesn't affect them personally. Anything which has that potential is feared, and if you observe their behavior you'll see most of their efforts are a direct result of such fears, and are directed towards making sure that when Shit Flies, it doesn't land on them.
Congratulations, you just described every living person. Not that I don't think that people in power are in general shitty people, but if the past is any example, you'd be the exact same way, and so would I.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were such an expert on sociopaths, you would know that advising one to go to a psychiatrist is pretty useless advice on a number of levels.
My (extremely un-sociopathic) point though, was that you aren't nearly as good as you think you are, so you 1.) shouldn't be so quick to judge people who rightly fear their every move being put under a microscope because you can make just about anything look contemptible with the right framing, and 2.) if you've never been put in a shitty situation, you'll be surp
The rapidly expanding boss video market? (Score:3)
The company that paid for the study, note, promises to "securely distribute business video simultaneously over multiple Edge routes," so they probably don't mind some workplace paranoia.
So, what, they are proposing that companies pay for the secure distribution of their employee's secret boss videos? A delicious thought, but I don't see that as a rapidly expanding enterprise market.
News Flash: Bosses are human (Score:2)
Two can play this game (Score:4, Insightful)
The bosses have been spying on employees for years. Feels kinda different now, doesn't it?
Which is why I wear a LooxCie all day... (Score:2)
Works great, and all the executives act highly polite when they see it on me.
Fear my life streaming!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looxcie already works that way. but you CAN dump the whole video buffer if you want. having a 6 hour buffer means you can grab things you missed if they happened in the afternoon.
The cool part is the button on it when you hit tag grab the previous 30 seconds as well, so you get every bit of that punk kid crunching his crotch on the railing because he was trying to free run past everyone instead of being polite and waiting his turn.
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
No reason only ordinary people should go through life feeling like an amoebae under a microscope.
I enjoy the occasional article posted to Slashdot about law enforcement organizations lobbying against police being videod ( it is time to retire the word "filmed" as obsolete ).
I love the irony of the authorities, at least some of them, being told what they tell us.
"Gee officer, if you are doing your job and following all the rules then you have nothing to be worried about"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "acting properly" part is my guess as to why they have trouble with being on video
Bosses make rules (Score:2, Interesting)
And one of them might be: No recording devices on company property. Another is: Anything recorded on company time/property belongs to the company.
I've worked at an outfit* where these were the rules. In addition, management refused to contact employees via anything other than company phones, voicemail, e-mail, pagers, etc. In other words, no records were to be left of any business on anything they didn't control.
*At one point, they were assessed a civil penalty of $500 million for ethical violations. It w
Survey says... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the employee is not doing their job correctly, it is your bosses jobs to correct their actions or dismiss them. Now people don't like change and may see this corrective action as treating the employee poorly. If you have a good employee who gets their work done, and is helpful to other members, vs someone who doesn't get anything done and distracts other workers. The boss may allow the first to get by browsing the web, talking to their family during company time. Vs.
Re: (Score:2)
If the employee is not doing their job correctly, it is your bosses jobs to correct their actions or dismiss them.
More commonly, the problem is incompetent managers who think name calling, barking out orders, and big brotherism is the same as corrective action.
The good manager will show the second employee in your example how they can become trusted like the first employee. The second employee may STILL take offense, but if/when they do videotape the boss, they'll just look like an ass calling you out for being a good manager. They might even provide you with all the evidence you need for a justifiable termination if i
Re: (Score:2)
A thousand times agreed. If your employees are out to get you, there's a goddamn reason.