Websurfing Damaging U.S. Productivity?

Bert writes "Ars Technica does a good job of debunking a study that claims that American business lose $178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace. Particularly alarming is the fact that the study used the beliefs of 350 IT managers to determine how many hours a week the average employee wastes online. Like the article asks: where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at home?"

Comments

Guilty as charged

[skurk]

I mean, hey - look at me, I'm at work right now, reading and posting on slashdot.
I even spent a few minutes reloading the front page so I could go for first post.

But *Ahem* Seriously though, I love my job and only surf in between tasks.
(-: (siht sdaer ssob ym esac ni tsuJ)

Re:Guilty as charged

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I even spent a few minutes reloading the front page so I could go for first post.

The star sign next to your Slashdot ID says that you even spent a few *dollars* so you could get first post.

I congratulate you Sir for being a very conscientious employee: you knew you'd have to spent incredible amounts of time reloading the /. front page over and over to have a chance to get first post as a non-subscriber, but instead you decided to become a /. subscriber to be able to RTFA and post ahead of time, thereby saving time and company money!

Re:Guilty as charged

[fshalor]

I even put down "google" skills as a job requirement.

Now, sure, I surf at work for fun/pleasure/personal (*Not* that type of pleasure!)

But what about the time I've saved googling faster than a speeding library trip.

Not to mention all the online howtoos and news groups which have "real" solutions to real problems. /. , and BOFH should be required reading for any IT job. ;)

Re:Guilty as charged

[LetterJ]

I used to work with a guy who would sit, staring at a completely empty, default WindowsXP desktop for HOURS at a time. Just stare. No dozing off, no listening to music, no spreadsheet or requirements document or text editor open even to look like he was working. Just the rolling hills wallpaper from Redmond. You could walk by on your way to a meeting and then on your way back and he wouldn't have moved an inch. Downright creepy.

BUT, he wasn't surfing the Internet, so they left him alone.

Re:Guilty as charged

[Irashtar]

Hm, I wonder if I can get my title changed to "Network information researcher"

Re:Guilty as charged

[bladesjester]

It's that big blue room that occasionally has leaky pipes.

answer work e-mail at home?"

[Threni]

> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at
> home?"

Uh...zero. Why would I want to answer work email at home. I don't, nor do I answer phone calls from work on my mobile when I've left work. If they want to arrange paying me to do either, that's fine, but they haven't. I'm suprised this is even an issue.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

I think you have a reasonable outlook but not everyone is fortunate enough to work at a place that allows you to escape. And, the problem is that "IT Decision Makers" routinely expect well in excess of 40 hours per week from their employees. My current position is with a company that has a good work-life balance but when I was working in major corporate IT divisions I was *expected* to work more than 40 "if needed". And since we tended to get projects assigned with unrealistic deadlines, "if needed" meant "damn near always".

So if I am expected to put in extra effort and extra hours it is up to *me* to determine whether I want to do a couple surfing runs each day so long as I'm not doing things that put the company at risk (surfing porn, emailing competitors, etc). As long as I meet deadlines and my productivity is good, it's none of their business how I divvy up my time. And this doesn't even touch the fact that it is almost impossible for a senior IT worker to get a real "day off" anymore.

That being said, there is a serious problem with a minority of people who do things like daytrading, fantasy sports, shopping, etc all day long while doing the absolute minimum to avoid losing their jobs. But that is a management problem not a technology problem and it is wrong and short-sighted to punish 95% of your employees because mid-managers are too lazy (or too busy daytrading and playing fantasy football) to stay engaged in their employee's tasks and responsibilities.

I wish there were some surveys to compare the relative productivity of companies with liberal internet policies to those with a "total lockdown" mentality. My suspicion is that good management + a liberal policy would result in greater productivity (from improved morale) than an IT policy that treats the employees like untrustworthly spoiled children.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[YomikoReadman]

Agreed all the way. Most people seem to have the thought in their heads 'If I make myself a slave to my job, I'll get promoted faster and get more payraises.'. I'd kindly like to throw the BS flag on that one; all it does is encourage your employer to walk all over you and wring you for everything you're worth.

To the GP, advancing yourself at work is accomplished by showing up, doing what needs to get done, and doing it well. If you want to put forth extra effort into your job, then I'd suggest accomplishing tasks in less time than was alloted, and then utilizing your extra time to further your own skillsets, or looking for more work to do. Helping folks around your shop is never a bad thing either. However, I'll reiterate that making yourself a slave to your job, while it will get you noticed, is really just a good way to make you hate where you work.

I'm on break

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm reading this during my lunch break, at which time reasonable personal use of the Internet is explicitly allowed by our local management.

I wonder if I count as "lost productivitiy"?

Let's not forget the increase in productivity...

[jmcmunn]

As a programmer, I have to say that my frequent visits to coding sites (ie codeproject) have often increased my productivity as I tend to find bits of code that can be used in whatever I am working on, or at least inspire me to do something similar.

Without the web, and the resources it provides for helping solve problems, I would waste much more time when I get stumped on the job.

They found the IT guys?

[coinreturn]

Particularly alarming is the fact that the study used the beliefs of 350 IT managers to determine how many hours a week the average employee wastes online.

Since the IT guys are the ones you can never find at work and never respond to pagers, how did they even ask them? How about, How much productivity is lost trying to find the IT guy?

Re:They found the IT guys?

[PsiPsiStar]

How about, How much productivity is lost trying to find the IT guy?

Or gained. If you could find us, you'd only be asking silly questions anyways. Now leave me alone. I have a ..um... server that needs cooling. It's very important.

Of course....

[wpiman]

Ars Technica is going to attempt to debunk that fact that web surfing hurts productivity. A good portion of their readership, hence ad revenues, comes from people who are surfing at work.

Good business sense, don't talk your business model down.

Re:Of course....

[gilroy]

OK, but Websense has a business interest in promoting the idea that "unregulated" Net access hurts productivity. So really, Ars Technica is just giving the other view -- and the truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

Work email at home?

[nmg196]

> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend
> answer work e-mail at home?

Err probably zero.

How many companies...
1. Bother to set up their email systems so that the employees can use it from home.
2. Then train their employees on how to set it up on their home machine or use the webmail.
3. Have employees which actually DO check their mail from home AND reply even when someone's set it all up for them?

I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.

On the other hand, how many employees surf the web for non work purposes while at work? Probably the vast majority.

BS

[CrazyTalk]

Old timer chiming in here - I was working in the days before the internet (or more correctly the world wide web and the common availability of email). You know what? We found time to goof off then too. I think there is a certain amount of time a person is likely to do actual work during the day and a certain amount of time they need to/will goof off - it's just the method of goofing off has changed. Now we surf the web and exchange emails. In the 1980s and earlier people would take coffee breaks, cigarette breaks, read magazines or newspapers, talk to their families and friends on the phone, talk to their cube neighbors, etc. People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensly focused on it. Time spent not working hasnt changed - its just spent differently.

Re:BS

[Wansu]

it's just the method of goofing off has changed

Some people still goof off the old fashioned way. One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly. I see people reading magazines. There's a guy with a guitar in his office. People zone out and listen to iPods. I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.

There was one guy who camped out in the handicapped stall in the restroom and read the EE Times and the newspaper. Our boss used to take notice of what kind of shoes this guy wore because he might have to go looking at feet in the stalls to find him. Another old redneck technician said, "He's gon' git th' hem-a-roids frum settin' in'are sa'long."

Mandatory overtime

[EWIPlayer]

I've said this before... when companies mandate unpaid overtime (and i know there are a lot of you out there that are affected by this in one way or another), what do companies expect?

Companies show time and time again that what they care about is "who's at the office?". Not "How smart do they work?" or "How much do they get done?" but simply whether the parking lot is full after 5pm.

Goofing off during those mandatory "overtime" hours is not only a healthy "fuck you" to the establishment but also the only way to slow the burnout rate.

Ah, but what's the burnout of one more "resource" (a wonderful term that is about as slimy as "It's not personal, it's just business") when compared with a better bottom line?

Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[pegasustonans]

$178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace

So, basically what they're saying is that if everyone stopped web-surfing at work, then we'd have enough money to build a space elevator and kick-start a Mars colony. Somehow, those numbers seem a little high to me. But, even if it were true, all the extra cash would most likely go into a bunch of a-holes pockets who would then use it buy another Mercedes or two. So, what was the point of this research again?

Slashdot's Stats

[GuitarNeophyte]

Just looking at my website statistics from people coming to my website via slashdot.org, I actually have a large number at the beginning of the workday, and towards the end, but during the day, it looks like most people stay pretty productive...

Or just that they do their slashdotting in the morning and other non-productive surfing later :-)

Luke
----
If you also have a website that's geared for computer newbies, get a hold of me. Maybe we can partner up or something.

Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Ancient_Hacker]

Love the word fungible. It means something like "exchangeable for similar things". Web surfing is NON-FUNGIBLE. That means if we were not web-surfing, as a respite from the stress of working with computers, we'd NOT be working, we'd be walking to the vending machines, looking out the window at the girls, or otherwise unwinding from the daily headaches.

it's lunchtime!

[Cederic]

I'm posting this during my lunch break.

Then again, I'm salaried. I got here at 7.35am, I'll leave some time this evening. In the meantime I'll be spending several hours constantly flicking to the live internet commentary of the cricket.

Cricket is more important that work.

What I'll also do is meet my commitments. I have meetings to attend, documents to write, deadlines to meet. I'll do all these things. I'm paid to do these things.

If the cricket makes me take longer to write a document, I'll stay a little later to get it finished. Sure, that's impacting on my non-work time - but since I'm letting my personal desire to watch cricket outweigh the need to do work it's a fair exchange.

Is there productivity loss? On an 'output per hour' basis, definitely. But on an 'output per month' basis, there's a productivity gain. By taking a relaxed approach to my job I can sustain my working patterns without getting stressed, killing people, taking time off ill, etc.

More to the point, I get my work done. My employer loves me. Life is good. And I get to watch the cricket.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Hello Cederic,

This is Robert, your boss down the hall...

Then again, I'm salaried. I got here at 7.35am

The starting time for your shift is 7:30.

I'll leave some time this evening.

As a friendly reminder, your shift ends at 5:30.

In the meantime I'll be spending several hours constantly flicking to the live internet commentary of the cricket. Cricket is more important that work.

Cederic, would you mind stepping into my office when you have a moment? Oh and bring one of those pink A5 sheets by the secretary's desk on your way if you please.

-- Robert

Are results accomplished?

[Himring]

I am of the firm belief -- having a boss myself and then people under me that I delegate to -- that if someone produces the work I've requested in a timely manner, and that if I in turn produce for my boss, then I really don't care what else that person might be doing during the day. The best work environment is one where there is trust -- as in any human relationship. Whenever a marriage or a work place turns into one of distrust, where one is held accountable for all minutes and hours of the day -- where you were, what you were doing -- then the relationship simply isn't worth keeping. Give people tasks, give them a deadline, and then leave them alone. Take away the web and they'll do crossword puzzles, or do their nails or talk on their cell phones. If nothing else, they'll sit and stare. Someone who will not complete tasks will not complete tasks with or without the Internet. As a matter of fact, that same Internet just might help them do their job....

Time != Productivity

[blueZhift]

When are people going to realize that more time spent "working" does not mean more productivity. The real measure of productivity is whether or not assigned goals are met on schedule. So which is better, the guy who comes early, stays late and looks like a hard worker but never delivers on his projects, or the gal who seems to be on the web all the time, leaves early, but has the uncanny ability to deliver good work consistently? Which one of these will make the company more profit?

Everyone on /. knows how easy it is to look like you're working hard, but truly delivering the goods is another matter.

In Other News...

[Linurati]

Employers cost employees billions annually in clothing and shoe sales to conform with arbitrary company dress-code policies. Film at eleven.

Seriously, though. How much car maintenance, clothing shopping, gasoline and other work-related expenses do you pay out of your paycheck with zero-reimbursement for your employer?

Re:In Other News...

[dusik]

Yeah, it pisses me off that I spend $4/day in gas just to go to work! Never mind the miles I'm putting on my car. It only makes sense to recoup the time=money on /. :)

*flips to next excuse...*

Kind of

[Apreche]

Web surfing doesn't really destroy my productivity. I write software for a living. I work from 9-5 every day. I can't really write code straight from 9-5 with a lunch break. It can't be done. I get most of my work done early in the day, then my rate of work slows down. Every once in awhile while I'm thinking I'll hit the news and other sites. I don't do a lot of e-mail, but I do a lot of IM.

Basically, I do as much work as I can in a day. If there wasn't the web and such to occupy time I would be twiddling thumbs or reading a book in that other time.

If I had a job that was just 9-1 every day I would get the same amount of work done since that time would be solid full productivity work. I would also be much happier with that kind of schedule. But nobody is willing to pay me the same amount to work 9-1 even though the result of my work would be nearly identical to me working 9-5. Four hours every day wasted. Hurts me more than it hurts the company.

salaried workers

[be-fan]

I'd like to see a calculation of the amount of money lost by salaried employees who work more than the mythical 40 hour work week without anything resembling overtime. Let's do some math.

Let's consider just engineers. There are 2 million engineers in the US, nearly all of whom are salaried employees, nearly all of whom work over 40 hours a week. The average engineer makes 70-90K/yr. Let's take the average at 80k/yr. Now, assuming a 40-hour work-week and the standard 3-weeks vacation, that works out to about $41 an hour. Now, I'd say your average engineer would believe they work, on average, 50 hours per week. That's $40bn in lost wages for engineers alone, using conservative estimates. Now, consider the number of other overworked, salaried employees. The lost wages could easily run to 10x that!

Websense is pretty evil.

[Gannoc]

They sold their filtering software to the Chinese government for use in censorship of pro-democracy sites. They actually had the news release on their website a few years ago.

When asked "Gosh, do you think that this is a moral thing for an American company do to?" they replied "Hey, we just sell the software, we can't be responsible for how people use it."

Anyone who has worked with sales before knows that is a load of shit. Before you start talking to a customer, you learn about their needs so you can better sell your product. There's no way they just passively got a contact with the chinese government. I promise you, they were over there for weeks, showing powerpoint presentations claiming that their product could filter and report on dissidents MUCH better than the competition.

They've been putting up this bullshit about web usage for years. A few years ago, it was porn at work, and how companies are at risk for lawsuits if they don't immediately buy a filter. Of course, this fails the "What if it wasn't on a computer?" test, since if I brought an old-fashioned porn mag to work and was caught reading it, i'd be fired, and the company wouldn't be negligent. They don't need a $100,000 porn scanner at each door... but since it is on a COMPTUER, well, it is magic.

I mean, check out the management. Their CEO looks like he is about to rip off his false face to reveal the reptilian features underneath.

Another bit

[be-fan]

If we're going to count the amount of time I spend thinking about Slashdot at work, how about we count the amount of time I sit thinking about work on my personal time? When I'm working on a project, code is going through my head all the time. I'll be in the shower thinking about an algorithm, or eating dinner trying to figure out where a bug came from. When it gets bad, I'll be trying to get to sleep, but I'll be distracted by code. When I finally do get to sleep, I'll dream about code. I'd like to see a study done about this...

Nobody caught this?

[kilodelta]

"Websense, a company that develops web filtering and blocking software for schools and offices, is behind a study that's trumping up the costs of online surfing. First, their claims:"

Most of what we take as news today is actually a press release being used to stimulate business. Of course Websense would see that illicit browsing is up, they want to sell product.

The same has been proven true of the "Year of the Suit" campaign. Turns out that Gentleman's Wearhouse had been cranking out PR's stating that suits were back in, etc.

It's all advertising pretending to be news. The minute you see a specific company name in a supposed news article you know it's a press release.

So it's hype. Don't worry about it.