Office Work Ethic In the IT Industry?

An anonymous reader writes "As a recent graduate entering industry for the first time at a large software and hardware company, I have been shocked at what seems to be a low standard of work ethic and professionalism at my place of employment, especially in this poor economy. For example, at my company, the large majority of developers seem to each individually waste — no exaggeration — hours of time on the clock every day talking about football, making personal phone calls, gossiping, taking long lunches, or browsing the Internet (including, yes, Slashdot!). Even some of our subcontractors waste time in this manner. Being the 'new guy,' I get stuck with much of the weekend and after-hours grunt work when we inevitably miss deadlines or produce poor code. I'm not in any position to go around telling others to use their time more efficiently. Management seems to tolerate it. I would like to ask Slashdot what methods others have used to deal with office environments such as this. Is my situation unique or is it common across the industry?"

Comments

People aren't robots

[AuMatar]

They aren't going to sit down, do 8 straight hours of work, then go home. You'll burn out even trying. People work better with short, frequent breaks taken at their own rate. So long as they get the work done, there's no problem. The only issue I see here is you- first off, grow some balls and refuse to work the extra hours. Trust me, you won't be rewarded for them. Secondly, unless someone isn't making their individual units of work, mind your own business. Or maybe even join in the next time they talk football, you might make a friend or two.

Re:People aren't robots

[Corporate Troll]

Mod parent up. This "Ask Slashdot" is a typical reaction of someone who is very very new to the workforce and doesn't understand (yet) it has a human component. During your studies, you don't work 8h straight either, but you don't notice. Well, most of them don't. I remember that, when I was a student, I could at most study 4h over the whole day. However, when I did that, I was concentrated. My neighbour claimed 10 to 12 hours studying per day. In reality I caught her more than once just staring out of the window, not really studying. For her that was part of "studying" but in reality it isn't.

Personally, I still adhere to the 4h/day effective work. If you have worked fully concentrated on your work for 4h during the work day, you did have a productive day. At least in my eyes.

Re:People aren't robots

[beelsebob]

This!

The Idea that if people are browsing the internet, or having a coffee break, they aren't working is *bull*. Programming is hard... It needs problems to go round in your head for a while before you settle on the right way to do something. Doing something idle is *exactly* what's needed to get that to happen.

Programmer productivity is not measured in: lines of code written
Programmer productivity is not measured in: amount of time spent not browsing the web

Programmer productivity *is* measured in: Actually solving problems at a reasonable rate.
Programmer productivity *is* measured in: Ability to tell people why solving problem x will take 5 days {more | less} than expected, *before* it's too late.

Re:People aren't robots

[RogueyWon]

I'm not necessarily sure you read the full question. From the information contained there, it sounds like the big part of the problem is that the work isn't getting done; at least not to the quality that's needed.

I've been in a similar situation once before, early in my career, when I came as a relatively junior member of staff into a part of my organisation that had a really toxic, time-wasting culture. And despite what you may think, ill-disciplined working habits were a big part of that. I understand that people like to structure their days differently and that properly managed, this can make people more productive, but there needs to be some form of control exercised to prevent people from crossing the line into taking liberties. By all means, show toleration of slightly eccentric working patterns, people listening to ipods at their desk and a moderate amount of personal web-browsing, provided it doesn't start to eat up most of the day. But if the job isn't getting done, remedial action is needed to break the culture. And yes, in the short term, this might involve imposing a draconian regime (with rigidly set hours, dress code etc), which can be relaxed slightly back to a more normal level once it's safe to do so.

The problem is that if you have come in at a junior level, there's almost nothing you can do, particularly if your management chain are complicit in the culture. Personally, when I found myself in that situation, I transferred sidewards to another part of the organisation after a few months; I didn't want my reputation to be tarnished, and was worried that the lack of self-discipline shown by my co-workers would rub off on me. About 18 months later, the head of the division in question was replaced, with his replacement apparently having a specific brief to clean the area up. So yes, working hours were suddenly enforced more rigidly than anywhere else in the organisation, dress codes were were imposed, music at desks was banned, all personal web-browsing was blocked and so on. About half of the staff resigned in protest (we weren't in a recession at the time), while the other half knuckled down and became more productive. 18 months after that, the area looked more or less like the rest of the wider organisation.

The message: sometimes "I work differently to other people" is just code for "I don't want to do any work". Learn to recognise the difference and stamp ruthlessly on the latter. Also, understand that if not monitored, the former can develop into the latter over time.

Oh, and working the odd late night or weekend can, in the right situation, do your career a power of good. Try not to make it a habit, but a willingness to do so when actually required will usually be noticed.

Re:People aren't robots

[aurispector]

You guys are a bunch of lazy assholes. The guy even says they miss deadlines and the code they produce is crap. Of course people rarely work full out for an entire day, but he's clearly describing a situation far worse than normal. The organization obviously lacks leadership and focus because tolerance of this sort of behavior comes from the top.

Why is it that coders typically seem to have enormous egos when it comes to their work. Everybody works hard. There's nothing special about coding. My workday include tasks that are both physically and mentally taxing, I often juggle several tasks at once and am held to a very high standard of quality. Man up, buckle down and produce because you don't work in a vacuum.

Re:People aren't robots

[Nursie]

This.

Try to code your ass off for 8h straight every day and you'll end up tired, burned out and making a huge number of mistakes where you haven't thought things through properly.

You can do it for a while after you first start working perhaps, I know I did and I was more productive for a while, but you can't keep it up forever and frankly if you can stay interested, inspired and creative for four hours a day your doing bloody well!

I know one or two people who are the exception to this. They seem to live for their work and revolve their lives around it much more than most. They are very highly valued but they are not always promoted first or given the best opportunities. They also seem to be the types with little to do when not at work.

Re:People aren't robots

[Nursie]

If you're missing deadlines then that's bad, sure.

But most people seem to work about half the day as far as I can tell, inside and outside of programming.

Re:People aren't robots

[selven]

The guy even says they miss deadlines and the code they produce is crap.

So the people who make the deadlines are at fault. If they loosened their deadlines, code would be done on time and there would be time to make good code, which would save time and make people even more productive later on.

Re:People aren't robots

[91degrees]

That is indeed a big problem. However, the submitter seems to think it's his problem.

Certainly, a professional will solve these problems but there's a big difference between being a professional and being a doormat.

Re:People aren't robots

[Nursie]

I work with one who turns his brain to the whole thing, design, methodology, requirements, coding, testing. Highly, highly valuable. Not the world's best team lead, and no life to speak of outside of going to see his parents once in a while.

I'd hire him in a second, were I in charge of a company, and promote hime way up the technical chain. He's that good. But I don't want to be him.

Re:People aren't robots

[djjockey]

I'm amazed at the defensive attitude in most replies. Given the audience, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does seem the majority here are very defensive of their 'down time'. I accept that it is necessary. I do it myself. Read the news, make private calls, go on job interviews... or whatever. But I got the feeling that it's far above the normal in this environment. Regardless of whether this is normal or not, the best way to deal with it is probably to worry about your own output. If it's a good place to work, they'll notice you. If they don't appreciate it or notice, maybe it's really not a great place to start a career.

At my company, there is a strong relationship focus. We can "waste" a lot of time talking about stuff that is only moderately related to work, but it's all valuable.

At my company, discussing things like "what if our biggest competitor designed a flying car, what would we do", or "if we were to build a new datacentre what colour makes it go faster" is work. Gossiping, farmville/pet society/etc, long lunches, is not work, and should only be a minor part of the day. Valid down time yes, but dont' tell me it's work.

I've heard of the 5pm rule, where after 5 you stop work and just talk to people. And yes, there is still the talk of football or the stockmarket, oil prices water shortages, or whatever. My role is not specifically technical, but part of it is process and systems design, testing and improvement. Most days I would probably only contribute 4 of real output. 2 hours of thinking about solutions, 2 hours of dealing with day to day shit that comes up, and 1-2 hours of relationship building.

Oh, and the excuse that code is crap and deadlines are missed because the deadlines are a problem.... I'll buy that only after you stop bitching about your boss long enough to do some work.

Re:People aren't robots

[RogueyWon]

That an organisation is big and hasn't failed yet is absolutely no guarantee that it isn't headed to fail now. I think that is one lesson we can absolutely take from the events we've seen in the wider economy over the last two years.

More broadly, it's by no means uncommon for organisations to lose focus as they grow, and for the original culture that made them successful to be diluted, or for smaller sub-cultures of failure to develop within parts of the organisation. I don't work for Microsoft (or indeed in the tech sector), but I've certainly heard many plausible accounts from people who do of this happening there.

And is it the submitter's problem? Yes. Of course, as a junior member of the team, he's not going to be the one who fixes it, but if the area he works in has a bad reputation within his company, or if his company has a bad reputation within the marketplace, then this can and will impact on his career prospects further down the line (as well as making him more vulnerable to layoffs). He needs exercise some good old-fashioned self-interest and weigh up his options. If he can't give up the income and has absolutely no other job prospects (such as an internal move to a better part of the company, or even a move to another company in the same field), then he may just need to hang in there for the time being and protect his own reputation as well as he's able to. Sometimes, being the only useful, helpful person in a team full of idiots can actually be beneficial, in the short-term. You might stand out more to colleagues elsewhere, who may try to poach you. The most important thing is to avoid falling into the same bad habits. It's generally a good idea in the workplace to try to fit in and get along with your immediate co-workers. However, there will always be some cultures and cliques where thee last thing you want to do is fit in (a lesson most people should have learned by high school). Tolerating some unpleasantness now may turn out to be worth it further down the road.

Re:People aren't robots

[RogueyWon]

One thing I've noticed over the years is that factors such as dress code can have a significant impact on how people behave around the office. You take people who aren't used to wearing suits and make them do so, and you pull them out of their comfort zone to a degree. You put them on edge and send the message that things are different. This is vital if you're going to start breaking down bad workplace habits. Of course, there's a lot more to it than this, but a competent manager tackling a really broken workplace will know that the first job is to destroy the old culture, so that something more functional can be put on top of it.

You can't keep people on edge like this for too long; it has its own negative impacts upon performance. The trick is to use it as a short(ish), sharp shock. Once the day job is actually getting done properly, you can let things relax a bit again, and let people get back into their comfort zone. If you've done things properly, their comfort zone should now overlap with where the organisation actually needs them to be if they're to be productive. For example, it might now involve a bit of web-browsing first thing in the morning and an hour or so over lunch, whereas before it was taking up the entire day.

Methods like this are almost always unpopular and never result in the manager being liked. In fact, what often happens is that when the manager does start to slack up, the employees read it as a victory. You'll also get a good few employees who will just up and quit (though these are often the ones you'd want to lose anyway). But a competent manager (and yes, not every manager is competent) will know when he can chalk his actions up as a success.

Re:People aren't robots

[JackieBrown]

I was on a team were nobody took their schedule breaks. They were very proud of their work ethic. What they left out and didn't even seem to peronally realize was that they rarely did any work. They would spend half their shifts in the breakroom or cafeteria but when it came down to when break or lunch was scheduled, they would be at their desks working.

They were scheduled 1 hour of breaks and lunch and probably spent at least 3 - 5 hours away from their work area or chatting about nothing.

They all threw a fit about how under appricated they were when they were called out on this.

Re:People aren't robots

[SuurMyy]

I used to smoke and very often I figured things out when I got up from my desk and went for a smoke. Another old regular was that I figured things out when I was walking home, about 300 meters along the way. Nowadays a common time is in the morning brushing my teeth. So there's a lot of stuff happening in the background and what's on the foreground may be distracting. I also often take the old pen and paper way when I really need to design something or when I need to figure out a hard problem. For some reason when the problems are really hard changing your approach can help.

Re:People aren't robots

[SuurMyy]

To me it seems that the sustainable maximum of actual real work is about six hours a day. Anything beyond that and it starts to get uncomfortable and uncomfortable is bad in the long run. Also, I've noticed that the harder I work the less tolerance I have for just sitting around when I have nothing more to give. And sure, it depends a lot on the tasks. The more routine they are the more you can do. If it's really new/hard stuff, four hours a day may be the maximum. I believe that developers are most productive when working about 30 hours a week.

Re:People aren't robots

[FShort]

Nice attitude by that contractor. No wonder IT jobs are being shipped overseas to people that are willing to work twice as hard for 1/5th the pay.

Re:People aren't robots

[mcvos]

I believe that developers are most productive when working about 30 hours a week.

That's why I want to work only 4 days a week. Gives me one workday to handle private stuff and hang with my son. It's amazing how many companies still object to someone working 4 days. They save 20% on my salary, and I really think they get more than 80% of a full week's productivity.

Re:People aren't robots

[mcvos]

Of course when I spend the day in some coffee shop working on my own projects, I find myself to be much more focused and productive. Probably because it feels a lot more like "getting something done" and less like "putting in my hours against a charge number."

You're more productive when you're working on something you care about. Which is also a valuable lesson for companies: they need to make their employers care about the project they're working on. They need to feel involved, and not just cogs in a machine. Make their input count. That sort of stuff.

A co-worker at my previous job said his work there felt like free time. He happily worked nights and weekends, because he cared about it and he got to make a lot of decisions on how it should be done. It felt like it was his private project. That kind of feeling is what management should try to instill in their employees. (There's a downside of course: he frequently ignored the CEO because something else was more important right now, and besides, he knew a better way to do it. He could be a real bastard about that too, but he delivered the goods, so nobody complained.)

Re:People aren't robots

[ultranova]

Nice attitude by that contractor. No wonder IT jobs are being shipped overseas to people that are willing to work twice as hard for 1/5th the pay.

Yeah. They had real work ethic in the early days of Industrial Revolution: 16-hour work days and the rest of the time spent on-call in case of fire or something, none of this "safety regulation" stuff, the manager could ask you to bend over (literally) anytime to get himself a little extra morality boost perk, and the children also worked rather than waste time in school or playing! And when you got injured or crippled by those machines with no profit-eating safety devices, you didn't suck on public teat by expecting to be fed, no: you starved to death so your betters didn't need to pay taxes. Then Marx went and invented communism, and suddenly everyone is afraid workers rather than treating them as the subhuman wage slaves they are, and giving them things like rises and social security!

Good thing we can outsource to India, China and Africa to help return us to those glory days when hads were gods and had-nots were nothing.

Re:People aren't robots

[Anonymous Coward]

It took me two years and near burn-out to discover this. I managed to piss a lot of people off along the way but now that I stopped working so hard everyone is happy. The problem is that the American worker force has been completely demoralized by corporate culture. They know that management doesn't give a shit about them. They know that if they work hard it will just mean that management assigns them more work. You do not want to get a reputation as a person who can get a lot of things done, they will just keep dumping shit on you until you break. Or as in my case, you become demoralized. My manager makes $25K a year more than I do. When I started here it was closer to $50K a year more and most of my coworkers were making at least $20K more. I was the lowest paid worker in the department and yet I was the hardest working. I'm still the hardest working and get great performance reviews, management loves me. I do more in a day than most people do in a week. I do about 1/5th the amount of work in a day as when I started here. I've been promoted as high as I can go without becoming a manager. Hard work is not rewarded anymore because the higher you go up the corporate ladder the less actual work gets done and no one down at the bottom gets any sort of respect or loyalty from those at the top. If you look at the statistics, worker productivity has actually skyrocketed over the past decades. Corrected for inflation workers earn less now than they did in the 1970's, the only people who earn more are those at the top. All the value from increased worker productivity hasn't gone to workers. It's no wonder the American empire is dying. American corporate culture is feudal and treats workers like serfs.

Websites

[mxh83]

Many people browse IT websites at work. In this industry, how to you propose we keep ourselves updated? You sound like one of those irritating prudes who can't understand how the normal world works.

Get use to it !

[ls671]

It's the same in every field of activity (banks, everything), not only in IT.

I admit it might be hard to realize at first but you should get use to it eventually ! ;-)

Oblig XKCD

[El_Muerte_TDS]

http://xkcd.com/303/

I'm starting to wonder if there is a case where no XKCD comic applies.

It is simple supply and demand

[Colin Smith]

The more real work which is done, the less it's worth. As a supplier of work it makes no sense for you to reduce the value of that work.

 

Time for you to grow up

[BasilBrush]

This is how the world of work is. In time you'll fit in. As the new boy, expect to take the crap. You won't always be the new boy. Until then don't be a pain in the arse trying to get everyone else to change.

As a coder most work is done in youre head.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they might be working you just don't understand it since you do "grunt" code that requires no thinking.

Normal

[CountHiss]

This is just the way it goes - nobody is able to do the same routine job they've been doing for a while for more than say a cumulative 6 hours a day. Taking a break to say read slashdot (= keeping up with developments), socialising, talking about football (= good for teambuilding!) relaxes the mind and will allow for another few hours of good, concentrated work. If you want to make a career, better to join in occasionally, otherwise you'll be the odd one out, the one who won't be part of the team, and, importantly, the snotty just-out-of-school kid who thinks he knows better that everyone loves to hate. Which in end-effect you are because a. you have no experience, b. no life-experience and c. you don't keep up with developments, whether it be professional (slashdot reading!) or social (talking about football, the families and so forth). So, relax, get used to it and participate as much as you can without screwing up your own portion of the work.

Not unique across industry. Actually S.O.P.

[VShael]

In my experience, this is common. I've been at both ends. The weekend working newbie employee, and the casual relaxed contractor not busting my ass.

There are a number of reasons for the perceived slack of attention that you notice. One main one, which relates to something you don't necessarily learn in college, is that even in a technical environment surrounded by socially awkward geeks/nerds, there is a necessity for social bonding. It can make the work day less stressful, lead to cross-pollination of ideas, outside perspectives on problems you've been working with, etc...

We tend not to value these things when we're fresh faced and eager to code 40 hours straight. Give me a problem and let me solve it. But the older you get, the more you realise the advantages in it. For one thing, as we get older, our brains require some distraction to avoid burnout. Even when coding, sometimes you need to take a break before the subconscious can solve a problem you've been consciously wrestling with.

Basically, there's a reason management tolerate it. They've learned that if they crack down on this sort of behaviour, and start clock watching themselves (monitoring lunch breaks, toilet breaks, net usage, phone usage, etc...) the company suffers. Either because humans will strive to find ways around rules they perceive as unnecessarily restrictive, or the really talented guys get depressed and move somewhere else.

My 40 hour working week these days is very different to my 80 hour working week 15 years ago. I may not produce as much code, solve as many bugs, etc... But I have a good idea of everything that's going on in my department. I am regularly asked for advise by colleagues on technical matters. I know which of my co-workers are good people, who are the experts and in which fields, and which are assholes. I know who can be relied upon, and who can rely on me. Basically, I'm better at being able to bring my years of experience to bear on different problems. And that doesn't require me to knuckle down and concentrate fully on these problems for 40 hours in isolation.

This isn't 1999.

[Anonymous Coward]

...tell the boss you'll work the hours and you'll work hard while you're in the office but you have other commitments and you'll not be able to pull all nighters. And if they say that this isn't fair, and you should be prepared to sacrifice your life to the job, you should be looking out for other employment.

What do you think this is - 1999?!?

I know someone who was called in for the weekend to just be there after a previous weekend where he sat around doing nothing because his supervisor apparently just wanted her people in to show her boss that she was "cracking the whip". He didn't show that weekend of this BS and was considered to have quit - he was walked out by security that following morning and he couldn't collect unemployment. He had two lovely toddlers.

In this economy, you can be replaced easily and getting another job is near impossible - that's assuming you're not Steve Jobs or Linus.

I'm a PHB and on the rare occasions that I need help, I get swamped with resumes from qualified people - and I'm sure my boss feels the same about me - MBAs are a penny a dozen now and getting cheaper.

Re:This isn't 1999.

[CAIMLAS]

As opposed to some user id and account based upon a throw away email address?

Someone with a UID under 100,000 probably isn't considering the address a throw-away, on account of their UID being from pre-dotcom bust... and boom. Or, at least, close to it.

Dont judge too quickly

[PeteV]

I've been on both sides of this, as a developer and as a manager: first off, its wholly impractical and counter-productive to try and control every thing staff do. The more controls you impose, the more time you spend policing the rules - and all that does is make for a miserable unproductive environment. One of the first rules of a "happy" productive team, a happy engineering team, is mutual trust between those doing the work and those responsible for ensuring it gets done - its a quid pro quo. And at the end of the day, in my experience, good engineers WANT to work, want to solve problems, want to design, they/we get a kick from it, job satisfaction if you will, pride in a job well done. And every single engineer needs "think" time - chaining people to a rigid set of work methods really doesnt work (unless you are working on a production line). THAT said, it is certainly true that some offices/teams are poor, thats the nature of things - and if productivity is low and people are just taking the p*** then sooner or later the manager gets replaced and the situation is rectified or the good engineers move on. My teams get total freedom, the senior designers have the flex to work from home too. But i know exactly who is and who is not productive - and I get rid of engineers who dont pull their weight - its that simple (and very rare). And that never causes an issue with the others, and nor did it when I was a "grunt" - in fact, you dont want idiots in around you who dont do any work. Gauging productivity is the managers job and responsibility - they should be able to do it, they should have a range of choices/skills/options that allow them to improve it when needed. As a new person with little industry experience your assessment may be premature - I would say dont jump to instant conclusions or be too judgemental, it may well be you've landed in a poor office - and in due course you will either understand that to be the case and move on to a better place, or you will adjust. Bottom line, if you're unhappy and remain unhappy, find somewhere else.

All things in moderation

[RiffRaff06078]

Is it a sin to spend a few minutes talking about last night's game while you're on the clock for the company? No. Socialization creates camaraderie in the workplace, which ultimately increases morale and productivity. Is it a sin to spend several hours surfing sports websites while on the clock for the company? You betchya, and I'll be the first one with my boot up your ass when I review the network activity logs. As usual, it all comes down to common sense. Our network policy states "no personal surfing on the clock." Period. Do I enforce that to the letter? No way. I have no problem with someone checking their bank account or a news site while they're sitting on hold with a customer. I recognize that employees who do this are going to be more productive and happier in the office. When I review network activity, I always allow a small percentage of personal traffic even though it's technically against company policy. My superiors know I do this, and they trust my judgment. As for your situation, you have two options as I see it. You can abide by your own work ethic, which might not accomplish anything other than being able to sleep better at night; or you can lower yourself to the standards of your coworkers. Either way, until you have more seniority or move into a supervisory position, there is little you can do about it.

Pay your dues in respect, peace and silence

[Anonymous Coward]

You are green, so keep that in mind when I call you a proper wanker. You work the shit jobs not because everyone else is fucking off but because you need to pay your dues mate. This should be true everywhere. You may be superfly TNT mental giant wonderbra and your manager could be half a monkey's cortex but as far as management is concerned, he has shown up every day for the past 5 years and all you do it bitch. Who's the liability?

First thought is good for both women and business. If you walk around and point out flaws you see in the system, you are going to create two effects for yourself. You are going to get frustrated with the workplace and the workplace is going to get frustrated with you. The former makes you look like a know-it-all and the latter is because you question people's competence without enough experience. Similarly, if you meet a women and start to critique her decisions, the result will be the same. You have two options: 1) accept what is in front of you; 2) go somewhere else. But you don't want to go somewhere else because there's so much about THIS situation that could be fixed so we can all MAKE MORE MONEY. Don't go down that road, dog. Sit back, relax and enjoy the easy work. Have fun. Watch some football and goof off. It's a recession and people are holding on tight to their jobs. Your chances of shooting up are low. So kick it, maybe have a beer. Hopefully get laid and just do your work and listen.

Second, well, there is no second but I think a lot of you can use some advice in this area -- and by you I mean grads. Because I was the same way. Gung-ho. In a rush. Complaining about wankers. Until I realized that in fact, I was the wanker. Go watch Glengarry Glen Ross -- learn the score before you say anything.

And remember, if you don't like the way something is done, you can always go start your own business.

Re:Then maybe they're just no good

[aurispector]

Bullshit. The only reason they can get away with acting like "keepers of the secret flame" is because "outsiders" don't have the tools to adequately measure productivity. Nobody ever told me to take 10 off for every 20; if I did that I would have flunked out. If you can't hack more than 20 minutes of work at a time you're either lazy or stupid.

My advice of the author of the article is to start looking for a new job NOW. Find someplace where the company culture includes a work ethic because productivity means profit and profit means paychecks.

Reading /. != slacking

[Shag]

Working as a developer back in the 1900s, I had free subscriptions to some relevant magazines. Yes, the time I spent reading them was time I didn't spend coding, but it meant I kept abreast of developments in the field, which was a Good Thing as far as my employers were concerned.

Slashdot's "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters" are generally more useful, and certainly more timely, than those magazines ever were. I'm not in IT any more, but I'm close enough to it that people still appreciate and value me knowing what's up in technology.

Don't worry about it

[Inda]

Something I learned a long, long time ago was don't worry about your peers. Just do your work and don't worry about anyone else. Don't go crying to your boss, he'll already know the score.

Turn up on time, do your work, go home, get paid. You'll be happier with this attitude.

You probably already know that life is not fair and some people seem to get all the breaks. Life is not fair. Take it on the chin. Play the cards you have in your hand.

give this guy a few more years in the workforce...

[Dr_Ken]

...and we'll see what he says then. It always looks different when you're outside looking in. Talk to us after your first layoff kiddo.

Why are you asking us?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Ask the people at your workplace. I keep an eye on various relevant technical and social issues with Slashdot, and it keeps me on my toes to chat with sharp people here who know about other fields. A certain amount of slack at work while my code is compiling or my brain is working on other fields seems harmless, and I normally put in plenty of after hours work to cover any missed worktime. Conversely, you may be right about people slacking off: it can be due to many reasons, such as genuine frustration at not being allowed to do anything useful or watching their good ideas being thrown out by an incompetent manager.

Also, IT work is often like firefighting. You spend a lot of time cooking meals and reading magazines and keeping yourself and your equipment fit, and then at disaster time you and your equipment are supposed to go all out with skills and _plans_ to fix things and recover data. That on-call time can be valuable, too.

It starts from the top

[RedCuber]

I'm sure this will probably be an unpopular comment.. but it starts from the Top. I've recently joined a large investment bank in London (transferred back from the US) and it's IT dept 'was' run in a very similar manor. Lots of screwing around, no customer focus and a second-rate service. If management are willing to tolerate it, and are not willing to put in the extra hours/effort to fix the culture of the department, nothing will change. I'm management and it's a continual up-hill struggle to motivate not only the team, but also the other managers. Happy to report though, we're making progress. If i were the grad, either work your ass off to rise above the clutter, or ride the wave of bone-idol. Good luck!

Re:Then maybe they're just no good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would have flunked out by taking 10 minutes off for every 20 minutes studying, then you are the stupid one.

One of my first jobs

[SlappyBastard]

We were openly encouraged by the boss -- a lesser geek himself -- to use company time and equipment to screw off. To his perspective, if it encouraged loyalty and relaxation while dealing with tough projects, so be it.

I've seen some very tightly wound geeks in my time. Especially among the talented ones. I think if a business has to err on this issue, it's probably wiser to err on the side of relaxation.

Concentrate on your own habits not your fellows...

[stink_eye]

You called it!

'You are in no position to comment, being the new guy.' Although it will be of practically no use telling you this here it is. (I was just as bad in my opening days of corperate employment, and after 15 years in the workforce am only just coming to this conclusion) :

Working hard for your corperate overlords is an excercise in futility, a waste of time akin trying to keep small children and pets amused and content for long periods of time or trying to staunch a sucking chest wound with a paper towel... An ultimately useless and never-ending chore.

Unlike small children and pets these cogs in the corporate machine will keeping sucking the life and productivity out of you until your 'career' becomes a war of attrition to keep providing more justification for your existence in their machine. When you eventually and inevitably fail at that, your career will be chalked up as unnecessary overhead and your job will be shipped to the next person (or continent) that will do your job cheaper even if less effectively.

Concentrate on honing your own skills and becoming competent in your craft so that when that time comes you can either start your own business, or move onto another job...

Working hard for other people is at this point an excercise in futility because corporate entities no longer have loyalty to their people but to an ideal of a pursuing a profit at any cost for as long as it takes them to sell and get out, or until mismanagement and egotism drives it under before it can meet that end.

Serve yourself first, work only as hard as is necessary to keep yourself fed and sheltered. Spend less time observing others work habitats and start examining why they act the way they do. Hone your skills and grow your own opportunities. Once it becomes even marginally hard to do that move on as fast as you can.

IT vs. factory

[thewiz]

You're entering the Information Technology field, not a factory to produce widgets.
IT requires creative thinking and, in my experience, creativity comes when you think and create a solution to a problem.
The next stage is implementing the solution via coding, building, or other processes.

What you seem to be expecting is everyone bent over their keyboard, hammering away at the keys, for 8 straight hours a day. That's the mentality of someone who works on an assembly line.

You are all ready way ahead of most

[unclegus]

Work your ass off. In no time you'll be their manager. Trust me. If you want to be professional, then be professional. Work as hard as you desire. It's what you get out of it, not what others do. Get used to encountering an incredible amount of idiots, morons, slackers. etc in the work place. It's pure statistics, if everyone were like you the world would be a better place, however you'll quickly realize there are more idiots in the world than not. Someone has to tell them what to do. Prepare yourself to realize that you can work your ass off, run circles around your peers, and not see an equitable compensation. You have to work your ass off, build your resume, work there 3-5 years and make a move to another company, take your experience and your professional work ethic and cash in on that. Also keep in mind that more often than not, managers are worse because the majority are managers because they caused more issues as developers.

Re:Hang Gliding while being paid to write code...

[cayenne8]

"This person would show up for work on time, punch-in (or clock-in) to show that this person was there... "

Wow, this struck me as strange...last time I actually 'punched a clock', it was working food service.

Seriously, does anyone in a professional job (I generally consider IT to be pro work, I get pro PAY for it) actually clock in and out??

I've worked W2 and 1099...and I've not had to deal with a time clock in decades.

Yup, or leave..

[El Jynx]

If it really bothers you, either start looking for another job - or join them in slacking. But be prepared to log all your hours - and those of your colleagues - so that when the inevitable gripe comes you can show that you're more productive than your colleagues, as endorsed by management. That's no way to really run a company (normal for governments though). I'm guessing they're in a segment where there isn't much competition. Once that heats up they won't know how to get into gear on time, and will either need an interim manager that wipes away the crusty crap or they'll go belly up.

It's an annoying fix to be in (although on the positive side, people in those types of organisations are usually far less stressed out, and having been burned out myself I know that's a BIG plus) and I guess you just have to choose what you want from your work and out of life in general. Some focus on career, others work for money and get enjoyment from family or sports or hobbies or whatever.

Re:Hang Gliding while being paid to write code...

[cayenne8]

"Yes. And I bet you do to, but you just don't know it. If you have to badge-in to get in your office, you are clocking in. And don't kid yourself that HR doesn't check those records. We recently used them to let go of an individual who regularly couldn't be reached but claims he was coming to work."

Some jobs yes...some jobs no.

I know at some places, they do NOT want to know...as that often they might find people are working actually MORE hours than are being billed, and it is a big no-no to do free work for the govt...by govt law.

I also have worked with some people that worked that system up, and know for a fact this was the case.

I think it is mostly for security...never really had to do that much till post 9/11 with badging in/out of buildings. Unless you are really trying to defraud the company/govt...they aren't looking at that data.

Re:Hang Gliding while being paid to write code...

[vrmlguy]

The other problem is that the work ethic has slipped off quite a bit

The work ethic has been slipping since WW2 ended. Organizations (not just companies) got so large that a manager could take actions adversely affecting thousands of anonymous employees with impunity. As managers were rewarded for these actions, others copied and amplified their actions. In the 70s, the phrase became popular, "Don't love your company because it can't love you back." This is true; the only time to love an organization is if it has fewer than ~150 people. Any larger and it becomes impossible for a person to know everyone, meaning that it's impossible to care about everyone. Since the 70s, the process has only accelerated. To chose just one example, Bernie Madoff was, by all accounts, a decent man. The only people he swindled were strangers, so he tried to protect his family and friends as things fell apart. Had he only been allowed to invest the money of his friends, I doubt he would have even started his scheme. As it is obvious that the people at the top don't care about the people at the bottom, the people at the bottom have reciprocated. No one cases about doing a good job, just about doing whatever's needed to avoid getting fired.

On a more positive note, there was a recent TED Talk about new social organizations starting to emerge. The speaker (I can't find the talk via Google right now) was mostly discussing NGOs, but his remarks also apply to Open Source and other movements. New organizations are being created that are remaining small and tightly focused. The membership is committed to their organization's ideals, and everyone in the organization knows everyone else well enough that no one can hide misbehavior. Because of this, these new organizations are able to accomplish things (humanitarian or coding) that larger ones cannot.

tarnished reality

[fusiongyro]

It's pretty obnoxious, isn't it? But I still feel guilty about it. I think I probably waste about an hour to an hour and a half. It takes me a little while to get ready when I get in and sporadically through the day one takes little five minute breaks while waiting for the code to compile or whatever. That time adds up. But in practice, most of us in most workplaces, waste a certain amount of time each day. If it's more than a certain amount or if it's endemic, it might be a bad workplace. Watch "The Office." If it seems comparable to the show or worse, it's too much.

I still remember the surprise I had when I first started working in high school. I had an internship with the county government that started right after school (3 PM). By the time I got there, most everyone was already cruising for 5 and I was fired up wanting to get some stuff done. I thought they were shockingly lazy. That summer I had a full time internship for the local electric company. You just can't keep all processors going at 100% for 8 hours straight.

I am a writer!

[Prien715]

When people ask me what I do at bars/parties, I've taken to saying that I'm a writer in a language known by few. And if I do my job well, very few people will ever read my work and no one one will buy my work to read it.

Re:I am a writer!

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason people are asking you want you do is because they do not know you. The reason they do not know you is because you are new there. The reason you are new there is because the last party you were at you gave that same answer when asked what you do and they never invited you back for other parties.

Re:I am a writer!

[Zarf]

I've said the same thing... but not as an opener. I usually say something like "I invent new computer programs" ... this usually communicates the right information and also keeps me from getting asked to fix the printer.

Simple

[S-4'N3]

The problem here isn't that the coders are spending alot of time slacking off, talking about football, or browsing the web. The problem is that their output is of poor quality and consistently late.

If the code was high quality and delivered on time, than the apparent slacking behaviour could go on indefinitely unnoticed. Or who knows, perhaps even noticed. But when somebody in upper management walks through and questions the slacking, the direct manager would be in a position to say "the code is good and is delivered on time." Ask the same question now, and the direct manager would have no defense.

Situations like this can not go on indefinitely. The quality of work may improve (unlikely) and this will no longer be a problem. Management may lay down the law and put a stop to the slacking (somewhat likely). Your customers may get fed up with a poor quality product (quite likely) and take their business elsewhere putting you and your team out of work. In either case, don't think that nobody will notice your effort. If you have a strong work ethic, stick true to it. If and when the axe falls, you might be spared. And even if your not spared, some day you might wind up working for one of the slackers you were working with and that work ethic of yours will likely be the reason they remembered you.

Re:Hang Gliding while being paid to write code...

[JWSmythe]

    It all depends on your environment. I have a pack of 8 HID cards (badges). They were all used for different places. There were weeks I never went to my "office". I'd work from home, drive to a datacenter, fly to another datacenter, etc, etc. Sometimes they couldn't get me on the phone, depending on the datacenter. I could have lied and been asleep at home, but said "I was down in the datacenter doing work. The phone doesn't work in there." Then again, all my work was always done, and done right, so there was never a need to question me, and I really worked at least 60 hrs/wk.

Comparison

[Stormcrow309]

Let me make a comparison. I and another analyst are working similar projects with a similar timeframe. He has worked here for a year after college. I have worked for ten. We have four weeks to finish the project. I finish mine in two weeks at about four hours a day, five days a week. He takes all four weeks, working ten hour days, seven days a week. The difference between us is really experience. I will spend my time up front learning my users wants and needs, while he works on the rock methodology of requirements analysis. (User: I want a rock. Analyst: Is this the rock you want? User: No, find a different rock. Goto Beginning.) I take time every week to network with my users and learn their business processes and what their problems are. My cohort just is to busy showing everyone how smart he is and how hard he works. That is why I read the WSJ, Slashdot, Wired, the Economist, some industry rags (our core business, not IT), and Tech Review at work. It helps for me to understand what my customer needs are, sometimes before they do. Design iterations are quicker and more complete solution wise. Trying to explain it to a fresh face out of college who has been taught just to code is very difficult.