Thank you, thank you, Matthew White, for your intelligent, reasonable,
mature, experienced, insightful words of wisdom. They were like a breath
of fresh air. I don't know what planet some of the other writers on this
subject inhabit (Planet of the Pollyannas, perhaps?), but it's not the
same one we're on. Matthew is absolutely right. You MUST have written
policies on a wide variety of topics in the workplace to protect both
employees and the integrity of the business (and in the case of a
museum, which is a charitable trust with moral, ethical, and legal
responsibilities to protect its collections, you'd better have some
solid rules and procedures concerning employee conduct).

I could hardly believe that a director of anything would evade
managerial responsibilities on the basis of a belief that employees "who
are trying to get away with something" are merely "responding to the
'strangle-hold' school of management." It is clearly true that
overzealous enforcement of rules may pique an employee to play games and
try to outwit the boss. Most of us have observed such petty, childish
behavior. But it is also very obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or
knows anything about human nature that placing too much trust in an
employee can also lead to trouble. The Washington Post recently ran a
series of articles on embezzlement, and the point that was hammered home
was that serious embezzlers succeed (and may even be tempted by) being
in positions of trust with their employers. It may be that some people
become more trustworthy in proportion to the amount of trust placed in
them--but other people take unfair (sometimes illegal) advantage. If you
think you can tell the difference, feel free to gamble with your own
money and resources, but if you take such a gamble with someone else's
money or resources (such as, say, the collections HELD IN TRUST by a
museum), you're not just good-hearted--you're irresponsible.

I have heard lots of horror stories from people in a variety of work
situations, including museums, about co-workers (and supervisors) who
loaf, cheat on their time, daylight (perform profitable sideline work on
the employer's equipment while on the employer's time), take home
samples, etc. One of the most frustrating and stressful situations that
a conscientious employee can experience is to watch a co-worker getting
away with murder due to the boss's laxity, general obliviousness, or
lack of backbone. Such situations are perceived as extremely unfair and
lead to much anxiety, squabbling, pettiness, and ultimately cynicism.

In addition, I have observed people in "professional" jobs (nowadays,
that might mean anyone who uses a computer at work--since we started
with computer policies) rationalize their cheating or other
inappropriate behavior on the basis of their "trustworthy" professional
status--as "professionals," they shouldn't have to be subjected to
someone looking over their shoulder. Baloney. Workers on assembly lines
have few opportunities to goof off, cheat, or steal. "Professionals"
have more opportunities--and a few bad apples seize every opportunity
that presents itself. There's a very slippery slope here. Give some
people an inch and they'll take a mile. I don't have a problem, in
principle, with people conducting a limited amount of personal business
on the job, but where do you draw the line? In my observation, many
well-meaning people have unrealistic attitudes about their alleged
"professionalism," and don't even realize how much time (and sometimes
free samples) they're stealing from their employer. But other people see
it and resent it (and sometimes they misinterpret what's going on--just
as one person wisely cautioned about even a momentary diversion with a
computer game being misperceived.

Getting back to computers, I have absolutely no personal games or files
on my computer and can't imagine any need to have them. I carry around a
floppy disk with some personal files, such as an address list, in case I
need to call a friend or family member during the day. But I have plenty
of museum-related files on my home computer, believe me--partly because
I find my own computer setup more reliable than the office LAN.

I think trust is earned. I don't think an employer really has a right to
trust employees until they've proven themselves. We are not
automatically trustworthy just because we have eager, honest faces and
call ourselves professionals. Oh, by the way, I'm sure the estimates of
1 or 2% miscreants are 'way too low. I can't quote specific surveys, but
I often read about "honesty" polls in which 30% or more of those
surveyed indicate that they would lie, cheat, steal, run red lights,
rape, and pillage if they thought they could get away with it. I'm sure
some of the supervisors of these folks are facilitators and enablers
(because, after all, most of them have to have regular jobs--they're not
all daring, talented, or desperate enough to become "professional"
criminals).

I'm not cynical, in case you wonder. In fact, I'm often accused of being
too optimistic. I try not to pre-judge individuals. I give them the
benefit of the doubt. Some have been inspiring, others have been
enormous disappointments. I just try to be objective about people, and I
find that being TOO trusting of everyone ultimately isn't fair to
ANYone.

 David Haberstich