Slashdot Mirror
Don't Let Your Boss Catch You Reading This
Stony Stevenson writes "iTnews is running a piece on the culture of cyberslacking in the business arena. Studies worldwide suggest employees spend about a fifth of their work shifts engaging in personal activities. Most of that 'wasted time' is, of course, spent online. From the article: 'A recent survey by online compensation firm Salary.com showed about six out of 10 employees in the United States acknowledged wasting time at work. About 34 percent listed personal Internet use as the leading time-wasting activity in the workplace. Employees said they did so because they were bored, worked too many hours, were underpaid or were unchallenged at work. Firms all over the world are concerned about potentially harmful effects of surfing they deem to be inappropriate may have on their company's image.'"
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along" never seemed more appropriate.
In the first place, the Internet didn't create the ability to waste time at work. These "studies" never quantify the amount of time wasted at work today to that which was wasted before the Internet. Without comparing before vs. after, one cannot reach any absolute conclusions.
In the second place, I work practically everywhere these days because of the Internet. I work at home, in the airport, in restaurants, in the car, etc. So counting all these other working locations, my productivity is significantly better than it was 20 years ago.
In the third place, people aren't machines. People are more productive, and more creative, if they take a mental break now and then. And people make better business decisions if they stay current with social trends and events. It's not a time waster, it's a cost of doing business.
Nuff said. Now quit bothering me, I really need to get back to work before my boss comes in.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I think 1/5th of the time wasted is a huge underestimate. At my former job (IT), I easily spent the greater part of my days idly surfing the web. I wasn't avoiding work either - I really just had nothing else to do, but if in those situations I asked my boss for some more work, he would just give me some BS busy work like organizing a file cabinet. So after a few instances of that I just stopped asking him for things to do.
As a developer i'm productive at work for 2-4 hours per day. That's less than 50%. You cannot expect from developer to code non-stop for 8 hours and be proficient at it. It simply doesn't work that way... and any employer expecting this is an idiot.
Because in todays economy, it's not how good you are, it's how good you look.
If I look like I'm working, logicly, the company must also look like it's doing good, right ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
This whole subject of "losing time at work" is idiotic for all intellectual professions. Especially ones involving creativity, such as programming, or systems development in general.
Of course there are guys that are paied and do nothing. But even the most job-oriented person needs some time to let the brain do its work.
This entire hype of "spending time on the internet" is IMHO a production of HR staff that want to further decrease wages. Something like the RIAA counting losses.
1. People work too many hours == freakin' unproductive
2. People are poorly managed (nothing to do, boring tasks, other crap)
The problem isn't the internet, nor talking to your co-workers about other stuff that work. The problem is the way we work today. It's freakin' unproductive! We are worn out and tired, and there are few things that require less effort than surfing on the web. Attack the real problem and you'll see that productivity will skyrocket, employees will be a lot happier and have a lot more spare time where they can *gasp* surf on their own, or go hiking, or learn a new language, or travel the world (lots of vacation is GOOD for productivity, not the other way around!).
And yet, somehow, I'm pretty productive.
See, brains are complicated things, and sometimes what I really need is a half hour or so NOT looking straight at the problem, although I tend to be sort of absently thinking about it. And then suddenly I know what to do, and I go do it.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I think there's a fine line (for some) between cyberslacking and taking periodic breaks from the tedium of work. For me, my periodic checks at Slashdot and other news sites are a way to stay sane, so I can hyper focus for other periods of time during the day to get things done. I have a set of sites I visit daily, mostly news/information sites, and my flow works something like this (my days average nine hours sans lunch):
*Arrive, log in, check voice/email messages, responding as appropriate. 30 min.
*Check my preferred websites. 30 min.
*Tackle biggest task(s) for the day. 2-3 hrs.
*Check my preferred websites. 10min.
*Tackle those annoying-but-not-critical tasks. 1-2 hrs.
*Lunch. 15-30 min. (usually at my desk while checking and replying to messages).
*Check my preferred websites. 10min.
*Project work, progress on multi-stage tasks. 2-3 hrs.
*Check my preferred websites. 10 min.
*Follow-up tasks, and assignments to other technology groups. 1-2 hrs.
*IF NOT at the end of the day, check some secondary sites or research some new topics until end of day. 15-30 minutes. This is the one time of day that, for me, comes closest to true cyberslacking. Often I'm just waiting for any final help calls or trouble tickets before our designated end-of-day.
The first site check of the day is longer because most headlines/topics refreshed overnight. Later in the day, I'm only scanning for new headlines or topics of interest. Of course, some days (about once a week), I never get to check my sites. Perhaps once a month I'll have a day where I can read every article that interests me. This works well for me and my employer, as my reading keeps me well aware of numerous trends in and outside of our industry, and it allows me to dive in with greater intesity when I am working. Of course, some will not believe this works without a scientific study, and I'll be the first to say this does not work for everyone. For me, however, I'm glad to work for an employer that allows for some personal use during the workday and is more focused on results than on managing every minute we're in the building. I get my work done on time, seek extra assignments, and pick up slack from my coworkers. Some would argue that my employer is overstaffed [I tried to make that point to a former employer for years until I finally bailed for my current gig, so I know the difference], but that is not the case--it comes down to how I handle my workload. I sprint, then I walk, then I sprint again. My diversions are those little walks that let me run full bore from time to time.
Am I the only one who operates like this?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
So you're saying that you're making your job application process arduous to weed out the useless, and you still claim not to trust your employees?
If an employer has a reason to complain about workforce productivity and sketchy work ethics, he can logically surmise that the problem began when he hired the people he's complaining about.
People do what they feel necessary to keep themselves "running". You can outlaw it, but that doesn't change the fact that they do it, maybe you can change what exactly they do.
If it's not the Internet it's smoke-breaks, talking at the coffee/water machine, or just looking out of the window. Also, lots of people are good at appearing busy.
And I think that's ok.
One, if you really put people in the grinder, force them to work 8 hours, no breaks or diversions, I'm sure you will soon see the quality of their work plummet, as well as their motivation. If you're a factory in backland China that might be a winning strategy, if your business is in any way dependent on thinking employees, it isn't.
Two, if you pay by the hour, and your people are only there for the money, then two things shouldn't surprise you. One, that they try to get as much money for as little work as possible. You do the same, except that you don't call it "goofing off", but "profit maximizing", or maybe your consultants have found an even nicer buzzword. But it's just capitalism. If you don't like it, go somewhere where they haven't dumped Communism, yet.
Two, you shouldn't be surprised that someday soon, some institute, consultant or survey will reveal your employees are rather badly motivated. Money alone doesn't do it. Do your homework in leadership. Throughout history, brilliant leaders weren't the guys who paid best, and that's not they are remembered for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's why you need dual monitors, multiple desktops on each monitor, and your own proxy server :0)
Seriously, dual monitors allow people to work and play a lot better than a single-monitor setup. That's probably one reason why people are more productive with 2 monotirs - you can shove all the "personal stuff" to one side, and keep an ey on it without actually having to stop working on what you're doing.
Kevin Smith on Prince
If it wasn't solitaire or the internet, it would be their iPhones, cell phones, Blackberry, portable video players, mp3 player or host of other electronic gadgets they have at their disposal. If you invest in monitoring their internet use, they'll find a way to proxy around it...those who don't have iPhones. Trying to regulate people's behavior turns into an endless goat rope.
If they're getting their work done and they're profitable, leave them alone. If not, let them go. It's that simple. Inappropriate material is an issue everyone should be aware of by now. If they're not smart enough to leave their p0rn on their iPhone, then they deserve to get fired. If they're not smart enough to keep their steamy email affair off the company mail system, b-bye. This isn't rocket science. So many companies over-think the problem.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I work at a place that actually understands this, and love it. We do agile dev, and 4 "hours" is the daily level.
I don't think you understand agile or the 4 hours of daily work. It does not mean you only work 4 hours a day, it means that you only get 4 hours of *scheduled* work done per day. The other 4 hours reflect business related interruptions, unanticipated/unscheduled work, etc. Agile still expect you to be doing work for the company for 8 hours.
if your projects are getting done, they don't really care how you're archiving that.
If progress is merely being measured by getting 4 hours of scheduled work done per day then this company is probably doomed due to inefficiency. There has to be an overall look at where time is being spent, and some care to make sure employees are not spending excessive amounts of time "relaxing". An hour spent thinking about how to solve a problem before coding the implementation is great, coding without some thinking often leads to crap. An hour on the web beyond normal break times means estimates are being sandbagged and there is poor overall efficiencency.
As a sysadmin slacking off means I'm being productive, since no problems are occurring. You could say that the goal of a sysadmin is to legitimately slack off as much as possible.
"We even have this retarded timesheet system where you itemize every 15 minute block of your day to some project."
I have a friend who's stuck in the same situation. Unfortunately, there is no way to be honest under such a system, because it doesn't allow for such things as research that may or may not be applicable to more than one project, but can't really be attributed specifically to one, time spent on general office and management issues, etc.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Ultimately, that's the real question.... Is the employee really "wasting time" or is he/she learning something potentially useful?
It's a little ironic that most employers have programs where they'll pay a chunk of your tuition to go back to college and take additional courses, and others gladly spend an annual budget on "training", sending you all over the country to seminars and training courses. Yet the self-motivated employee who surfs the net each day to learn more about trends in his/her field, to keep up with the news or current events, or to communicate with others about relevant topics gets labeled a "time waster".
Especially in a field like I.T. - you're paid to basically be the company's "knowledge repository". People come to you with their computer-related questions and expect answers. It's your job to solve their problems and to find more efficient ways to use the tools at the group's disposal.
Unions have served an important place in our history. I just believe they should be temporary, not perpetual entities. They should rise when they are needed and then fade away unless they are needed again. Unions have become self-perpetuating enterprises...
It's interesting, because while I think you're right, you could substitute "corporations" with "unions" and you'd also be right.
Unions are the advocates of their workers. A union is like a lawyer - it doesn't care if you're right or wrong, it will always take your side. Which is why we sometimes see cases where the union allows workers to get away with laziness or incompetence. Because they can become powerful establishments, unions may place the interests of their institution above the interests of their members, which is why we sometimes see unions with corruption scandals or insane bureaucracies.
Corporations are the advocates of their shareholders. A corporation is also like a lawyer - it doesn't care if they're right or wrong, it will always take the shareholder's side. Which is why we see cases where corporations pursue blatantly unethical, exploitive, and even illegal methods for gaining profit. Because they become powerful establishments, corporations may place the interests of their board members and executives above the interests of their shareholders, which is why we sometimes see corporations with corruption scandals or insane bureaucracies.
These institutions are two sides of the same coin - unions arose out of a need to counter the exploitive tendencies of company owners and corporate structures, and companies have conversely adopted more and more aggressive means of exploiting their workers and preventing unionization (see Wal-Mart). Both have their flaws, and generally the flaws increase with the amount of power the institution gains (which is why corporations are the more high profile bad-guys today). But to me, criticizing unions specifically - as though they're the only power structure to ever screw things up - is dishonest, because it carries with it the implication that workers would be better off without a union - just little old them vs. the entire organization of shareholders.
Yes, unions can be fucked up, and it'd be nice if we could get rid of them, or have them be temporary, spontaneously organizing bodies. But it's missing the point to talk about getting rid of institutionalized unions without also talking about getting rid of the institutionalized business structures which made them necessary in the first place.