Tracking what employees do

[EBearhug]

How much information can managers track about you, and what rights do you have to see it?

I don't mean HR records; I know I can request to see those in our company. I mean managers, and in particular, in the context of time-recording.

I'm curious because the departmental lead is currently on a micromanagement binge. I am in favour of some time-recording, to help track how long certain tasks take, to improve expectations and plan time better for future work. But I am objecting to the current excesses, and particularly the Inquisition you get if your worked hours don't exactly match your planned hours. We're an operational department, and I can't accurately predict what hardware failures we might get, or what requests and problem tickets will come in; it's inevitable that you have to change priorities. Plus it's all counter-productive, because people just round up figures favourably.

What I'm most concerned about is the tracking. There are an impressive number of spreadsheets with all sorts of calculations coded in. There are some flaws in logic, though, like I got interrogated for not doing enough hours on something a couple of weeks back; they hadn't taken into account that I had 16 hours (i.e. 2 days) sick leave. Likewise, certain figures are averaged out over a month, but take no account of things like booked annual leave, so in a few weeks time, I don't have a potential 40 hours of work, as I won't even be in the office...

Anyway, a number of people have taken this to senior management, HR and the employee reps, so I am expecting things to improve, and I am not asking about that side of things.

It's just that I know there are all these spreadsheets tracking me and my colleagues, not all of which I have access to, yet I know we are being judged on inaccurate data, and I don't know if I have any rights to know what's recorded about me outside of official HR data. So does anyone else know?

It's not unusual for employers to track this kind of information, though I agree that you should each be able to view your own records. If you've asked for them, and they've refused, you might like to remind them of their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act, and ultimately put in a formal request, citing the DPA. You might also like to suggest that it would help staff to plan their own work if they can see which of their projects urgently need spending on.

My employer records this sort of info about us, but we can view our own details, and I don't have a problem with it. Like you say, time-recording is important... It helps with planning and review, and ensures different projects get their fair share of resource.

What I would have a problem with is if the system was used as a stick to beat us with. If somebody systematically mismanages their time, and neglects certain projects, that's something that needs to be addressed, but otherwise time recording should be all about project- and resource-management.

my old employer used to track everything. they pulled reports on a monthly basis and sent them to all staff showing our "productivity levels"

the reports covered things such as the times we arrived at, and left work (security passes beeping on the gates were logged); the time we logged onto our PC's; the times we logged off, how many emails were sent during the day, internet usage, how many documents were opened, looked at amended, created etc. phone calls. everything.

it was interesting seeing the reports but we did felt that we were being watched constantly.

as per your OP, they didn't take into account training courses/all day meetings/annual leave/sickness.

What I would have a problem with is if the system was used as a stick to beat us with.

This. We get told off if the time recorded in the ticketing system doesn't match the time in the overall time-recording system - despite the former logging time in single minutes, and the latter needing to round it to quarter hours, so unsurprisingly, there's rarely an exact match.

I don't have an issue with time-recording, and particularly for projects which get charged back to customers or other departments. I just object to being judged on things when the underlying logic is faulty, and also that they don't look at what is actually achieved. If they are going to record time in great detail, they should at least be doing it accurately.

For example, there are some tasks I can do far more quickly than others, because not only have I more experience, but I have trained others on it, so at one point, I was living and breathing it; others will have to refer to documentation. Likewise, there are some tasks where I only do them occasionally, so I am the one who is then slower, and has to return to documented procedures.

Also, if two people did the same task - some will do only the very basic steps to get that done. Another may take a bit longer, but will have corrected some errors in the associated documentation and talked things through with the requestor, so they have a better understanding of what's being done. It may have taken an extra quarter hour, and there are times when we are so busy that can't be done - but at other times, that bit of extra time can make things more efficient in the future.

But all that side of things is ignored, and it's only the time taken and how it looks on the spreadsheet which counts, not what was actually achieved in that time.

Still, I think I may be asking to see what data they have on me, and see how the DPA may help.

Urgh. Yes, we have to log 98% billable hours. But.... I also have to manage an entire team of people (not billable) and attend various non billable meetings. All that adds up to about eight hours a week. I've brought it up multiple times with my boss, but it's never going to change. I do ten hours plus a week extra or get dinged because my utilisation is low.

I think realistically, if others are bringing this to HR, let them. No point sticking your head above the parapet if others are already doing so.