Interesting comment about how employees can sometimes harbor information and contacts to their advantage. Protecting or concealing certain data is not covered by lying, cheating or stealing.....unless the company requires employees to tell all they know or do regarding their job.
So the code of conduct can actually go two ways: what you are NOT supposed to do, and what you ARE supposed to contribute. Holding back certain knowledge or data could be harmful to a corporation, yet it happens every day and in every company.
How do you know where to draw the line? What information is enough when trying to make a new sale or implement a highly technical system?
Related Stories: | Topics: |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
July 16, 2004 at 11:58am by iProceed.com
In a knowledge-based economy, information is power and there is an incentive for employees to "compete" with their colleagues and employer for that power. But you are raising several important issues here and I am addressing some of them in my blog. We need to rebuild trust between employer and employee. Legal action is not the solution.
July 17, 2004 at 8:01pm by Chris Woodruff
I believe that to be open about information that directly correlates to your job and job role within your organization. I have been told that my opinion and information that may help teams outside of my department is not wanted and to stay within my job role. So that is what I am doing. But I still "collect" that information and hold it in case it may help me, my team or future endeavors.
July 18, 2004 at 10:10pm by swoop
It is Extremely difficult for companies to prove that employees know something and are not sharing it. Sure, the code of conduct can specify or define "what employees ARE supposed to contribute". Fact of the matter is, employees can choose not to comply and there's little that the company can do to discourage/punish this non-compliance.. because to punish, companies must first prove non-compliance i.e. that their employees know something and are not sharing it. And that's near impossible. It's like asking someone to reveal their true intentions. Very subjective.
There's a flip-side to that coin. "What employees are NOT supposed to do" is easier to prove because non-compliance is invariably, or as far as I know, manifested in observable conduct.
July 19, 2004 at 3:31pm by James Durbin
Or companies could work on fostering an environment where employees share information because it helps the company overall.
If an employee is holding something back, there must be a perceived advantage to doing so.
Hiring the right people, encouraging them to work across teams and groups, and rewarding them for doing so is possible, but not easy.
Perhaps that's why threats and codes make more sense to many companies. It's easier.
July 19, 2004 at 3:42pm by NoMan
Fuck off. Companies withhold information from employess like a miser hoarding his pennies for their own interests. If employess are keeping some things stored away in order to help keep themselves employed, and more to the point, paid enough so they can stay afloat, then good, they've gotten smart. When employees can trust employers not to screw them over, maybe employees can open up, too. But there is no such guarantee in the employer-employee relationship. I see no reason why the "code of conduct" on information should be so lopsided against the employee.