Chapter 26 Exercises: Performance Reviews and the Measured Employee
Exercise 26.1 — Taylorism Audit: Measuring Your Own Work
Type: Individual reflective analysis Time: 45–60 minutes Materials: Paper, pen, or word processor
Instructions
Frederick Taylor believed every job could be optimized through systematic measurement. This exercise asks you to apply Taylor's logic to your own work or study, then critically evaluate what the process reveals.
Part A: Time-and-Motion Study (20 minutes)
Select a recurring task you perform regularly: a study session, your work shift, a creative project session, or a workout. For 20 minutes, record the following data in real time: - Every activity you perform, with start and end time (to the minute) - Any interruptions or deviations from your planned activity - Any moments of "idleness" (not performing the primary task)
Part B: Analysis (15 minutes)
After the observation period, calculate: 1. What percentage of time did you spend on the primary task? 2. What percentage of time was "idle" or diverted? 3. What were the most common interruptions?
Part C: Reflection (15–20 minutes)
Write responses to the following: 1. What does your activity log not capture that was nonetheless part of your productive work? (Examples: thinking, decision-making, transitions between tasks) 2. If a supervisor received this log without context, what conclusions might they draw? Would those conclusions be accurate? 3. Which of your activities during the observation period were valuable but would not register as "active" in a monitoring system that tracks keystrokes or mouse movement? 4. How did knowing you were being observed (even by yourself) change your behavior?
Exercise 26.2 — Goodhart's Law Case Study Analysis
Type: Small group analysis (3–4 students) Time: 40–50 minutes
Instructions
Goodhart's Law predicts that any metric under accountability pressure will be gamed. Your group will analyze real cases and develop a theoretical framework for predicting when and how Goodhart's Law effects will occur.
Cases to analyze:
Case A: The Chicago school attendance bonus A Chicago school district implemented a policy awarding bonuses to teachers whose students had high attendance rates. After implementation, some teachers began marking absent students as present in order to protect their bonuses.
Case B: The Amazon review system Amazon's seller rating system uses customer reviews as a key metric. Sellers discovered that sending free products in exchange for positive reviews could improve their ratings dramatically.
Case C: The hospital mortality metrics Several UK hospitals were measured on mortality rates within 30 days of admission. Some hospitals responded by discharging patients just before they were likely to die (so the death occurred at home, not in the hospital's 30-day window).
For each case, discuss: 1. What was the original legitimate purpose of the metric? 2. What was the gaming behavior that emerged? 3. Who benefited from the gaming? Who was harmed? 4. Was the gaming rational from the individual actor's perspective? Irrational from the systemic perspective?
Synthesis: Develop a list of 3–4 conditions that make Goodhart's Law effects more or less likely. (Consider: How consequential is the metric? How easy is gaming to detect? How strong is intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic pressure?)
Exercise 26.3 — The Performance Review Conversation: Role-Play Analysis
Type: Paired role-play with written reflection Time: 50–60 minutes
Instructions
Performance review conversations are surveillance rituals with specific power dynamics. This exercise explores those dynamics from both sides.
Setup: One partner plays Manager, one plays Employee. The scenario:
An employee has been working in a data entry role for 8 months. Their accuracy rate is 97% (2 points above the team average), but their speed is 12% below the team target. They have been informally mentoring two new employees, a contribution not tracked in any metric. They have also requested FMLA leave twice this year for family caregiving.
Round 1: Manager conducts the performance review using only the data available (speed below target). Employee responds as they feel appropriate. (10–12 minutes)
Round 2: Switch roles. Employee now has access to all the data (accuracy, mentoring contributions, full context). How does the conversation change? (10–12 minutes)
Debrief Discussion: 1. What aspects of the employee's actual performance were visible in the metrics? What was invisible? 2. How did information asymmetry change the power dynamics in Round 1? 3. How did the conversation change when the employee had equal access to information? 4. What would need to change about the performance management system to make Round 2 the default experience?
Exercise 26.4 — Call Center Monitoring: The Hidden Architecture
Type: Individual research and mapping exercise Time: 45–60 minutes
Instructions
Call centers are described in this chapter as operating multiple simultaneous surveillance layers. This exercise asks you to research a specific call center monitoring platform and map its full surveillance architecture.
Step 1: Research one of the following platforms: - NICE inContact (NiCE CXone) - Verint Quality Management - Genesys Cloud CX - Calabrio ONE
Use the company's public website, product documentation, and any available journalism or third-party reviews.
Step 2: Create a "surveillance map" that identifies: - What data is collected (calls, screens, keystrokes, etc.) - How data is collected (continuously, sampled, triggered by keywords, etc.) - Who has access to the data (supervisors, HR, senior management, the worker themselves) - How long data is retained - How data is used (quality scoring, discipline, training, etc.)
Step 3: Write a 500-word analysis addressing: 1. Is this surveillance architecture disclosed to workers in ways they would likely understand? 2. Which elements of the architecture would surprise most call center workers? 3. Which elements serve the stated purpose (quality assurance/training)? Which elements go beyond that purpose? 4. If you were a call center worker, would you want to know the full scope of monitoring before accepting the job?
Exercise 26.5 — Badge Data and Function Creep: A Policy Analysis
Type: Individual written analysis Time: 45–55 minutes
Instructions
This exercise asks you to develop a policy framework for legitimate versus illegitimate uses of employee badge data.
Background: A fictional company, TechCorp, uses a badge-based access control system. The stated purpose is security — tracking who enters the facility and when, for emergency response and access management. The system captures: timestamp, door location, and employee ID for every badge scan.
Scenarios — classify each as Legitimate, Borderline, or Illegitimate, and explain your reasoning:
- Using badge data to verify that an employee who claimed to be working overtime was actually in the building during those hours (expense verification)
- Using badge data to track whether employees are arriving at work on time
- Using badge data to identify which employees attended an optional after-hours team social event
- Using badge data to track whether employees who requested medical leave were actually absent
- Using badge data to identify which employees frequently visit the floor where union organizers are known to have offices
- Using badge data to verify that security-sensitive areas are accessed only by authorized personnel
- Using badge data as input to a productivity score (employees who spend more time at their desks receive higher scores)
- Using badge data to reconstruct where an employee was at the time of a reported workplace incident (for investigation purposes)
- Using badge data to identify employees whose movement patterns differ significantly from their stated work schedules (as a fraud detection measure)
- Using badge data to analyze which teams interact most in common spaces (for organizational design research)
Synthesis: Based on your analysis, write 3–4 principles that should govern legitimate use of employee badge data.
Exercise 26.6 — Jordan's Dashboard: Design Critique
Type: Individual written assignment Time: 50–60 minutes
Instructions
Jordan's warehouse uses a performance dashboard that their supervisor can view in real time, but that Jordan cannot access. This exercise asks you to critique the current design and propose an alternative.
Part A: Current System Critique (250–300 words)
Analyze Jordan's current situation using the concepts from this chapter: - What surveillance asymmetries exist? - What consent issues are present? - What Goodhart's Law effects might you predict? - What does the current system assume about the relationship between Jordan and their employer?
Part B: Alternative Design Proposal (300–400 words)
Propose a redesigned performance monitoring system for the warehouse that: - Preserves legitimate management interests (ensuring work gets done, identifying safety issues, fair allocation of work) - Reduces surveillance asymmetries (how would Jordan access their own data?) - Incorporates worker input into metric design - Provides a meaningful appeals process for metric disputes - Addresses Goodhart's Law risks
Part C: Reflection (150–200 words)
What organizational or economic constraints might prevent your proposed design from being adopted? What would need to change — technologically, legally, or culturally — for worker-centered monitoring systems to become standard practice?
Exercise 26.7 — Comparative Analysis: Historical Monitoring Across Industries
Type: Research and comparative analysis Time: 60–75 minutes (can be assigned as homework)
Instructions
This chapter focuses on contemporary monitoring, but worker measurement has a long history across many industries. Research the monitoring practices in ONE of the following historical or alternative contexts, then compare to contemporary digital workplace monitoring.
Choose one:
A. 19th-century domestic service: How were household servants in Victorian England monitored, evaluated, and disciplined? What role did the "character reference" (a written performance record) play?
B. 20th-century assembly line work: Beyond Taylor's time-and-motion studies, how did Ford Motor Company's early 20th-century factories monitor worker behavior? (Research the Ford Sociological Department — a genuine historical case.)
C. Piece-rate garment work: How are garment workers in contemporary fast-fashion supply chains monitored and evaluated? How does piece-rate pay function as a surveillance mechanism?
D. Agricultural labor contracting: How are migrant agricultural workers in the contemporary United States evaluated and monitored? How does the gig-like structure of agricultural contracting affect worker protections?
Comparison framework: - What technologies of monitoring were/are used? - What were the metrics of performance? - Who had access to performance data? - What were the consequences of poor performance? - What worker resistance existed?
Written output: 600–800 word comparative analysis identifying both differences and continuities with contemporary digital monitoring.