Current Events > Woman fired from work from home job for not typing enough

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or you could just talk to the employee.

If your employer is micromanaging you to the point of counting keystrokes, and thinking that qualifies as "work," then nothing about this was fair.

Those are employers who know fuck-all except metrics, which have nothing to do with the job.

Or you could just talk to the employee.

Her manager noted Cheikho had performance issues, including difficulties in meeting deadlines, being absent and uncontactable, missing meetings and failure to lodge documentation with the regulator, which resulted in IAG being fined.

well, they did.

Let me ask you then, if you're not in the office with them how do you expect them to monitor her productivity without them?

Enlighten me please? I'd like to know your methods please. Because ive worked in corporate middle management for about 10 years.

I shouldn't give this sort of ignorance credence, but I will one time in this topic. I own a software development agency/consulting agency. Right now I have about 20 employees on staff. Before this I have worked in corporate hell.

Measured output, meeting expecations of the job requirements. If they are failing that, then you can simply ask why, and if that doesn't lead to productive avenues then you fire the person.

Not sure why you think measuring keystrokes is necessary here.

Measured output, meeting expecations of the job requirements. If they are failing that, then you can simply ask why, and if that doesn't lead to productive avenues then you fire the person.

Because it's a remote, type-heavy job, and it could have given them insight into what may have potentially been holding her back. Like I said, if it showed she was typing a lot, then that would have told them it was an efficiency issue. Maybe she was filling the forms out wrong, maybe her responses weren't being saved correctly, whatever. It would have helped guide them where to look and how to help her.

All of this can be assessed by just talking to an employee. Frankly, most management don't have the analysis skills to translate keystrokes into any meaningful output that would aid employees. Their toolbelt extends as far as "how many keystrokes, and how consistently" which as discussed isn't even a reliable signal for work so is likely going to be misapplied anyway.

All of this can be assessed by just talking to an employee. Frankly, most management don't have the analysis skills to translate keystrokes into any meaningful output that would aid employees. Their toolbelt extends as far as "how many keystrokes, and how consistently" which as discussed isn't even a reliable signal for work so is likely going to be misapplied anyway.

All of this can be assessed by just talking to an employee. Frankly, most management don't have the analysis skills to translate keystrokes into any meaningful output that would aid employees. Their toolbelt extends as far as "how many keystrokes, and how consistently" which as discussed isn't even a reliable signal for work so is likely going to be misapplied anyway.

All correct. Which is why the keystroke thing was just a small factor in a much bigger issue with this particular employee.

The clickbait title of the article sure did its job though.

I notice you cut off the rest of my post. If an employee doesn't know they're doing something wrong, then talking isn't going to help. Sometimes, the only way to discover the problem is to actually monitor the work being done.

Yeah it takes a genius to look at the data and figure out there's days she's not working lol.

She works in insurance she's not building furniture. My sister works in insurance claims and works remotely. There's no amount of time she's not on her computer during work

All of this can be assessed by just talking to an employee.

Frankly, most management don't have the analysis skills to translate keystrokes into any meaningful output that would aid employees. Their toolbelt extends as far as "how many keystrokes, and how consistently" which as discussed isn't even a reliable signal for work so is likely going to be misapplied anyway.

What new information did the keylogger provide?

All of this can be assessed by just talking to an employee. Frankly, most management don't have the analysis skills to translate keystrokes into any meaningful output that would aid employees. Their toolbelt extends as far as "how many keystrokes, and how consistently" which as discussed isn't even a reliable signal for work so is likely going to be misapplied anyway.

They already know she's not working because she's failing to meet normal expectations that she's met for 18 years. What new information did the keylogger provide?

That is simply untrue. Yes, a talk should be had, but leaving it just at that is a joke.

If my staff already has a habit of lying about their performance, having a talk alone isn't going to be helpful to me. I need to actually build a case against this person.

To be frank, the company in this article was beyond generous in handling her.

If you have a conversation with somebody about not meeting work expectations, and they don't improve, then you fire them. Why was the keylogger necessary?

Because they wanted to go a step beyond and try to help her improve instead of just firing her.

In this case, they were doing even more to try and HELP the employee.

No need to ever collect the keystrokes though! Dismiss the employee for not meeting expectations, especially after meeting with them, finding no reasonable excuse or roadblock, and then seeing now improvement.

All a keylogger does is open the door for abuse. Functionally, it provides nothing. And it can be abuse. Why stand by the practice?

They already know she's not working because she's failing to meet normal expectations that she's met for 18 years. What new information did the keylogger provide?

If you have a conversation with somebody about not meeting work expectations, and they don't improve, then you fire them. Why was the keylogger necessary?