When companies seek to justify employee monitoring, they sometimes cite the item that by monitoring employees, they can determine whether assets are being allocated appropriately. One of the primary areas of concern is that software is being use loadively, and also that software is used by the dependable people within the organization. For example, a company may visit that although it has purchased software licenses for Microsoft Access, only a few of the people who fox the licenses actually use the software, and of those, perhaps another program on their computer (such as Microsoft Excel) would prove sufficient to their needs. Or, the company readiness determine that employees are not as well deft in the use of software as they could be, and that they need excess training in order to make them more proficient.
In these situations, companies are able to decrease their asset cost and improve their competitive position by offering appropriate and by the bye training to their employ
The greater seam against employee monitoring is that it can have a deleterious effect on employee morale. This is particularly true since most employees consider that their motion should be the overriding standard against which they are judged, and if they write personal e-mail or make personal phone calls, but they still get their job done (or stay lately on those occasions when they have spent time on personal business), the personal business they conduct on questionable company time should simply be a non-issue. These employees (and their advocates) paint a picture that employers are better off seeking to monitor military operation rather than keystrokes, and results rather than phone calls (Ramsey 4).
Ramsey, Robert D. "The 'snoopervision' debate." Supervision (Aug 1999): 3-5.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.