How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/how-surveillance-changes-behavior-a-restaurant-workers-case-study/?src=me&_r=0

by srivast • 13 years ago

74 68 13 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

silencio• 13 years ago

Some anecdotal evidence: I took over a restaurant a few months ago. Half the surveillance cameras don't work. I don't have video for every incident I know occurs there. But just having the cameras look like they're kind of working is enough.

I had an employee that stole a bunch of cheese and pastrami (I know, right, what's the point of stealing $50 worth of cheese and a block of pastrami?) inside empty pickle buckets he was "taking to the garbage bin" but really took to his car's trunk until said cameras were installed. A couple weeks after camera installation and a couple weeks of my eyeing him suspiciously, he quit saying that all the changes were annoying him and that the cameras were the last straw.

Currently the employees don't even dare to shift the blame for things that go wrong - not to mention I try to cultivate a culture of just being honest with me and giving people a pass for most offenses. They really seem to believe that I'm watching them when I'm really just occasionally checking the cameras for activity at night when the restaurant is closed. I think it also helps that I'll occasionally use the camera and the footage being recorded when a customer is being an asshole - to support my employees.

While I hate the idea of surveillance especially en masse, it seems like certain groups of people are willing to be a lot more honest and hard working when they think someone is watching and when it helps them too.

nodata• 13 years ago

What about the people who like their job less because you don't trust them?

hga• 13 years ago

They might decide it's not quite so simple the moment they see him resolve a "he said/she said" dispute in favor of the employee after reviewing the footage.

saraid2167• 13 years ago

Trust, but verify.

Same reason contracts are written down.

lmakeppleave3• 13 years ago

Nothing ever comes for free. $2,982 x .15 = 447.3 (best case) I don't have any good numbers but its safe to say that the amount of theft prevented (the amount the their income has decreased since this was implemented) is greater than the extra $20-$70 ish dollars that their income has increased from increased sales.

In other words, their net income is down. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the net increase in sales isn't just a temporary scramble to keep income up / items actually being rung up. The truth is this benefit will almost certainly decrease as more knowledgeable and productive servers find jobs elsewhere or find new methods around the system while the remaining lower skilled / productive settle in at the amount their effort is actually worth.

I have doubts this action would produce a net benefit in the long run. (As quality of service decreases.) Its easy to think that the only people stealing are the "lazy and incompetent". In my experience the most skilled "thieves" are also the hardest workers with the most in depth knowledge of the controls the restaurant has in place. They also tend to desire/need/feel they deserve the cash more than the average employee. (and to most extents all three are true) Of course, all of this applies to the tipped employees, non-tipped employees will feel this doubly so though their forms of theft tend to be easier to track / reduce.

Theft in a restaurant setting is a complex issue, there is no magic bullet to stopping it.

jtheory• 13 years ago

I don't follow your math here -- their revenue increased by $2982/week after installing the monitoring software, not decreased, due to the effects of employees who felt observed being more conscientious.

sp332• 13 years ago

Since law enforcement can demand your footage after the fact, your cameras are actually contributing to surveillance en masse.

mikeash• 13 years ago

Depends on what you consider to be "surveillance en masse" and what the laws are like where you operate.

I would equate "surveillance en masse" to be cameras that are constantly watched by the government, tracking me in my daily life even though I have done nothing wrong.

In a legal environment where police need a warrant to compel private shop owners to turn over surveillance footage, an owner who installs cameras and requires warrants (this is key, plenty of people will just bow to any request) is not contributing to what I would consider to be the problem.

jka4• 13 years ago

I think the article in question spins a very positive light on surveillance - in the given context, theft has been occurring and is curtailed by the change in behaviour of staff, regardless of whether or not action is taken based on the surveillance being present.

The larger problem with surveillance is that there is no global notion of what is 'right' and 'wrong' - theft is assumed wrong to almost everyone, but few readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral.

These changes in behaviour push us to comply and work 'in-line' with whatever the watching power signals as being appropriate; and at least in the U.S., that largely appears to be increased revenue margins and employee efficiency - which has a very dull and power-imbalanced end game. There is more to life than work and producing value for someone else.

WalterBright9• 13 years ago

I don't agree with the notion that someone is entitled to steal just because they make minimum wage.

lmakeppleave3• 13 years ago

You don't have to agree with it for it to be happening. Though, understanding that side of the argument can help solve the problem for both sides of the equation.

fnordfnordfnord10• 13 years ago

"When someone pays you minimum wage he is trying to say he would pay you less if it wasn't against the law." -- Chris Rock

I agree, but it is hard for me to find sympathy for businessmen who hold wages so low. This behavior is widespread in the restaurant business, and it isn't limited to the staff stealing from the restaurant.

saraid2167• 13 years ago

few readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral.

WalterBright's comment indicates some confusion with this, so I'll help explain.

There's a basic notion of fairness that what you've contracted to do (your job) in return for money (your wages) is fair. But a lot of people don't see minimum wage as a fair wage: it's simply better than no wage. As such, in the context of a business whose payroll policy is perceived as unfair, then the notion of "what's fair" begins to tolerate theft: what you're being paid for isn't fair, so you're making it fair by stealing.

I don't agree with this, but I do understand it.

rustynails77• 13 years ago

I don't agree with it, nor do I understand it. I see the same behaviour in corporate bankers are are earning many millions per year. It's OK to steal because I deserve more. People like this are common thieves - and nothing more. Growing up, my family went from poor to middle class. We did the hard yards. We never stole. Why? Because its about principals and ethics. Never, never excuse a thief. If your statement were true, i'd rip off the volunteer organisations that I _volunteer_ in ... because they don't pay me enough.

fnordfnordfnord10• 13 years ago

positive light on surveillance

Positive for whom? Do you suppose NCR offers a product that helps waitstaff recoup tips stolen from staff by restaurant owners/managers?

jka4• 13 years ago

Quite the opposite - a positive for restaurant managers and business owners:

"The software is intentionally set so that a restaurant manager gets only an electronic theft alert in cases that seem to clearly be misconduct. Otherwise, a manager might be mired in time-consuming detective work instead of running the restaurant."

Equals: "managers: persuade your boss to buy our product and you will have more free time"

"The impact, the researchers say, came not from firing workers engaged in theft, but mostly from their changed behavior. Knowing they were being monitored, the servers not only pulled back on any unethical practices, but also channeled their efforts into, say, prompting customers to have that dessert or a second beer, raising revenue for the restaurant and tips for themselves."

Equals: "restaurant owners: we will improve your bottom line, and nebulously your staff may end up working harder for tips, so it's all good, here's an argument you can use if anyone complains"

Interesting that customers are arguably pressured into consuming more by the new configuration as well.

dnautics• 13 years ago

there is a difference when a private entity, whom you patronize (or are employed by) at your own choice, engages in surveillance and when a public entity does so. If you find the private entity abusing its surveillance, you can leave, or in egregious cases, take legal action. When the state does so, you cannot easily leave, and more fundamentally you have a problem: Quis ipsos custodiet custodies?

eCa• 13 years ago

In the new study, the tracking software was NCR’s Restaurant Guard product, and NCR provided the data.
Not surprisingly, NCR is delighted by the results.

I really hope they had a neutral third party going over the data.

thex86• 13 years ago

As a person who generally prefers to be private wherever possible, I am still divided on a related topic: security cameras. I don't want them to be recorded everywhere I go, but then on the other hand, I do realize that the world does have a few bad people and in many cases, they are caught with the help of cameras/CCTV footage.

I had always wondered if someone can shed some light on this debate from the other side perhaps and this article comes close.

I have still not figured out where I stand on the CCTV cameras in public places though.

TausAmmer• 13 years ago

Yes, you can beat man to submission, true that.

xpressyoo• 13 years ago

Our current society really tends to mix up dangerously the notions of "trust" and "surveillance"... at all the possible levels.

malandrew2• 13 years ago

I don't dispute these findings, but the entire spin on this article made me feel like I was reading a PR piece. Who were these researchers funded by? It sounds like it was funded by a company selling a product that benefits from these findings.. Besides referring to specific software products by brand name, there was a conspicuous absent of any downsides from surveillance.

chaostheory• 13 years ago

I wonder how surveillance changes creativity?

LloydPickering• 13 years ago

If they went back and looked at business theory from the 20s and 30s they might have come across a famous phenomenon called the Hawthorne/Observer effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Basically, when employees are being observed (which you could read as under surveillance) their productivity improves.

Rather than suggest we turn into a panopticon loving society, it speaks to me that restaurant owners should in fact be paying more attention to their staff, and creating a workplace where they feel valued. This should improve productivity, and reduce turnover - but maybe my perspective is skewed because of the differences in being a restaurant waiter/ress vs a software dev.

In any case, if you want better profitability then why not incentivise staff? If they have a share of profits, then you can be sure they will be trying to maximise profits - including reducing wastage, up-selling and reporting other members of staff not pulling their weight/stealing.

How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

Related Stories