Is monitoring our actions spying
If you drive through school zones, airports or various pedestrian-rich settings you are likely familiar with digital displays that provide “thoughtful” feedback on your current speed. I’m intrigued and humored by these devices. The added cost of these systems provides information that is completely redundant with my speedometer. The systems are widely non-punitive – they do not automatically issue citations nor are they accompanied by live law enforcement. But they seem to work. A study from city engineers in Garden Grove, CA proved that drivers slowed an average of 14 percent when passing through the display zones.
There are many explanations regarding the effectiveness of these systems. One is that the location and novelty of the information are driving factors. Most drivers focus on the environment immediately outside their vehicle and not their speedometer. Compared to the vast majority of static, reflective signs, these radar-display systems are relatively rare. We are thus open to their feedback because it’s unique and presented in the pertinent field of view. The feedback invokes our social consciousness and activates our intent to contribute to the public safety. This makes perfect sense but does not explain the queasy feeling I get when my speed is broadcasted well over the posted limit.
Perhaps the fear of punishment overwhelms my understanding that these systems are non-punitive. Others insist a more visceral cue is responsible: When we realize we are being watched we fall in line accordingly. I suspect few are immune to this powerful effect. Once we realize our actions are measurable and sharable, we place greater scrutiny on how we may be perceived – and how we behave. Is this feedback alerting our social consciousness or is it manipulating our ethics via social engineering? Good question. In either case, a broader opportunity looms to steer human behavior. It is both exciting and a bit unsettling.
Similar concepts have been effectively deployed across innovative companies. In his recent book, “Great by Choice,” Jim Collins emphasized the value of clear metrics, carefully imposed by inspirational CEOs. Collins cites medical device firm Stryker Corp. under CEO John Brown. From 1977-2002, Brown led Stryker to exceed his peers by over tenfold. Part of his success was due to a perennial “march” to grow net income by at least 20 percent annually. Executives falling below Brown’s waterline received a snorkel award. They were asked to display the snorkel prominently in their offices until the metric improved. Brown’s executive team was quite committed to avoid this award and Stryker delivered this income growth more than 90 percent of the time.
Personally, I’ve worked with clients to help internally benchmark performance and enact similar feedback loops. A favorite recent example was a Fortune 500 large equipment manufacturer. Looking to improve component availability in final assembly, they ranked worst performing facilities on a small set of key metrics. Through technology, performance was visible in real time across the supply chain organization. Like the radar equipped speed limit signs, there was no immediate punitive impact. However, these dashboards served as an ever present reminder: you knew your management and peers were monitoring you.
The bottom line: Advances in data visualization and simpler analytics offer executives intriguing opportunities to shape team behavior. I like to think we are advancing the art of Total Quality Management: providing real time awareness on key performance measures; leveraging positive and negative feedback systems; continuously adjusting metrics to insure novelty; encouraging open, transparent communication. When in a less optimistic mood, I wonder where Big Brother may be lurking. What do you think?
By on 14/12/2011