Slashdot Mirror
If You're Always Working, You're Never Working Well
An anonymous reader writes: Hard work is almost an axiom in the U.S. — office culture continually rewards people who are at their desks early and stay late, regardless of actual performance. Over the past decade, it's encroached even further into workers' private lives with the advent of smartphones. An article at the Harvard Business Review takes issue with the idea that more work is always better: "When we accept this new and permanent ambient workload — checking business news in bed or responding to coworkers' emails during breakfast — we may believe that we are dedicated, tireless workers. But, actually, we're mostly just getting the small, easy things done. Being busy does not equate to being effective. ... And let's not forget about ambient play, which often distracts us from accomplishing our most important tasks. Facebook and Twitter report that their sites are most active during office hours. After all, the employee who's required to respond to her boss on Sunday morning will think nothing of responding to friends on Wednesday afternoon. And research shows (PDF) that these digital derailments are costly: it's not only the minutes lost responding to a tweet but also the time and energy required to 'reenter' the original task." How do we shift business culture to reward effective work more than the appearance of work?
One of the bigger cultural differences I've found working in both the U.S. and Scandinavia is that American meetings are long, unpredictably scheduled, and really disorganized. A 10am meeting might really get down to business by 10:15 if you're lucky, maybe 10:30, and probably won't end on time at 11:00am. Nobody will have distributed any material to consult ahead of time, or even a proper meeting agenda for that matter, and as a result people don't come particularly prepared, and a ton of time is wasted. Since there is no real agenda, who needs to be at the meeting also hasn't been very carefully decided, so a bunch of people are just in case, and they spend half the time on Facebook or email while irrelevant parts of the meeting happen. The assumption seems to just be that just half-assing the whole thing is the best way to go...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
... what will happen to those incapable of efficient work? :)
At least this way they can do unpaid overtime and convince their boss - who's also incapable of efficient work - that they're useful...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
I find in most business cultures I've had contact with that actually spending time to think about a problem is actively discouraged. Problems get bounced from one person to the next, and the actual work performed by any one person on something is so limited that often no-one understands the full problem. The always connected culture described in the article is part of the problem, but more fundamentally it is that there is such the constant stream of email with so little thought put into it
You are confusing being at work a lot with working hard.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
One of the bigger cultural differences I've found working in both the U.S. and Scandinavia is that American meetings are long, unpredictably scheduled, and really disorganized.
They're also intentionally made that way. Therefore, nobody is really accountable and nobody really has to do anything about whatever problem is discussed, and they can all blame it on the "didn't quite get what was supposed to be done" thing.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
People learn what works. Secretly producing all of your required output in 5 hours then adding some extra on top of it - then going fishing for four days is a recipe for dismissal. Productivity measurement equates to attendance and attitude and workers have adapted by creating a steady stream of noise. You show up at the meetings, respond to email and participate in discussions. You smile. You go all-in any time of day for some trivial shit that you could have let go except demonstrate activity. You are a value to the team. It does not matter that you haven't actually accomplished anything meaningful.
As it happens, Americans are too nice about their own time. If a meeting is more than 5 minutes overdue Scandinavians (and Germans) will brusquely get up and leave. Americans sit around and chew the fat waiting for somebody else to make the move.
All TFA talks about is the hours of working, but there are more aspect of work than mere number of hours
If one really enjoys the work one will not treat the work as _work_, but rather something that is FUN - - EXCITING - - REJUVENATING
I have been in the tech field for decades and I keep seeing people who take the task they are assigned with as challenges that they want to overcome getting the job done faster, with more zeal, and produce much better code than those who take whatever they are being tasked with as "burden"
It's not the hour that you put in, it's the fun-quotient that will ultimately determine whether you will excel in the job you are in, or otherwise
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
One quite pathetic situation/problem in large organisations is that people can be seen to be more effective the more "face time" you have with them. Thus some long meetings exist for the sole purpose of spending time with the people with the power to promote. Apparently it then snowballs into the "company culture".
Since I'm now in a small enough place that everyone has no choice other than spending time with everyone else I can avoid that stupidity but I still see it on occasion when the company I work for takes jobs from some large multi-nationals - I get to see a little window into full-on Dilbert territory. Things like meetings where eight people from the other company turn up but only two speak, who get left floundering with no backup when out of their depth despite all the others there.
Australians are generally lazy but get a reputation for being hard workers overseas due to the way we deal with it. The idea is to get into the work as quickly as possibly so we can get it done and bugger off home early :)
You forgot to mention that no one takes meeting minutes or notes. Thus any decisions made are lost two steps out the door. Which in turn requires future follow up meetings to re-decide/debate the same issues. I've seen heated discussions over issues that were already resolved in a prior meeting.
That's because here in Sweden at least, we learned from childhood to work in groups, including presentations etc, though that has changed a lot now that we've adopted more international methods. Aka, downgraded our education...
For example, when I was a kid, we had student councils in school, from age 10, where each class has 1 or 2 representatives, who then report to the rest of the class at the weekly class meetings etc. It was also a good way to teach students about democracy.
As for the difference between US and nordic culture in regards to meetings, time keeping etc, I do notice that a lot in my freelancing. US clients are more likely to call at completely idiotic times(like calling at 19:00 their local time, meaning it's middle of the night/really early morning for me), and as you say, less coordinated with materials at meetings etc.
I think one contributing factor is the commonly conceived idea of management: Managers tell people what to do and when to do it. They rate their own success at managing and workplace status more by how well others comply with their demands than from their teams' or departments' productivity (that's an abstract number on a report somewhere). Lots of workers are unhappy about the way their managers treat them and want to leave at the earliest possible opportunity, unless of course, they like their colleagues (Should we reward colleagues more for workers' productivity?) When managers can drop the "command and control is good" mindset, then they're ready to do something more constructive, egalitarian, and ultimately productive... you know, like show some support and leadership.
Some people use this to advantage to deliberately re-fight the same debate that they lost last time.
That's one reason minutes, with clearly marked decisions and actions are so important.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
My grandfather, a grizzled mountain man who left school at age 12 and migrated north to work in an industrial sector, bringing up a large family on his single salary, seemed to everyone to be the very picture of the strong work ethic. Then he confessed in his old age that for much of his career he had just been sitting around reading the newspaper, getting down to work only when he had to look busy to management. Ditto for his coworkers. You have a rosy view of the past; slacking goes back to long before internet access at work.
My father and my first boss taught to me complete my work first and then slack off because there was no more work to complete. Most people try to stretch things out during the day to look busy and get into a jam when something urgent crash lands on their desk. It's not my fault if my boss can't provide me with enough work to keep me busy all day.
My time limit is 15 minutes. If no one shows up or I'm not informed that people will be late, I'll leave. I startled many recruiters and hiring managers by walking out on them if an interview doesn't start promptly. Since my Rolodex contain the names of 600+ recruiters, my time is too valuable to waste.
The whole nation of the former 'German Democratic Republic' (east Germany, wtf, don't even know how they are called in english, shame on me) was based on this principle.
When you worked you had to fulfill a plan. A pre planned amount of workpieces had to be crafted e.g.
If you could manage to craft so many, you where payed a normal wage, if you crafted more you where 'over plan' and got extra bonuses.
Every year (or every 5) the heads of state responsible for the economy planned a new 5 years ahead plan, including the most mundane parts like simple screws: oh, and we will need 3million metal screws with diameter 3mm.
And every year inspectors would visit factories and 'measure' how quick the average factory worker could do his 'piece of work'.
All the workers looked really busy, but did not produce much. After a week of watching the inspector would write into his book what could be expected from this factory.
That was used to guide the planning committees in case new factories where needed.
Surprisingly the factory was 'over plan' nearly every year ... so the workers could farm in their bonuses.
Very strange feed back cycles, isn't it? The whole economy is planned on faked numbers of lazy workers, who work 'normally' when they work and farm in bonuses because they produce more than the planners actually had planned. ... or well, there is no 'market'! Hey we could use the screws you made! But there is no plan to have a truck ready to bring the screws to the factory ...
But nevertheless other parts of the economy (like car manufactories) can't produce more because the 'over plan' materials can not be transported
Astonishing how well the east german economy worked for nearly 50 years if you consider this, hm ... lying to yourself system?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How do we shift business culture to reward effective work more than the appearance of work?
Promote managers who have a clue?
We gave management an inch and they took a mile and won't give it back. Every time someone has their weekend interrupted or is told they are expected to monitor work emails at night, they make a mental note to take that time back by goofing off at work. When they aren't paid what they're worth, they slack a bit more until a rough balance is struck.
A few work harder but notice that it doesn't increase their pay or get them promoted so they slack off.
Tracking GDP/capita vs pay (accounting for inflation), really employers are on average only paying enough to get one productive day out of every 6 workdays. The ball is in their court. if they want better, they should identify the willing employees and pay them the other 5/6ths of their proper income.
Some people use this to advantage to deliberately re-fight the same debate that they lost last time.
Pro-tip: The best way to win, is to hold another meeting to rehash the issues, and don't invite the people that disagreed with you last time.
From working from Europe in a global organization a few years ago, it was interesting to see how American colleagues always seem to be projecting the importance of their work and their persona, with an always-on mindset. And it was interesting how emails got answered in the late evening US time zones, with replies that were clearly in the style of "I want you to know that I read your email and am working in the evening", but with no real effort behind the response. And with silly emails like "going away with family on vacation for two days, so I will be reading email less frequently" - dude, why are you checking your emails on a vacation.
Furthermore, US colleagues often seemed obsessed about strengthen their own work position, paranoid about any initiative which may reduce their importance, and generally working relations and politics to make themselves as hard-to-fire as possible. Some people clearly playing their own agenda not really caring about what is right for the company. And creating as little transparency as possible about information they own, making it hard to objectively assess their performance, or replace them with someone else. The kind of person who will do what they are asked, and little else.
In Scandinavia, my experience is we tend to focus on getting sh%# done, and nobody really cares when you do it. In most work environments people are not expected to be always-on, and we embrace the idea that it is good for people to be able to take some weeks vacation once in a while. Plus with public welfare systems - yes, the dreaded "socialism" - you don't have to be overly paranoid about the consequences of losing your job.
One of the most effective tools I have had in terms of time management, is that whenever someone has asked me something with a questionable or unreasonable timeline, I have questioned the time frame and discussed what are actual requirements - and usually there is no problem shifting the timeline to something reasonable. Just because someone asks, that does not mean you have to say yes. There is nothing worse than under-delivering. It is better both for yourself, and for whomever is asking, to push back and find something that works - and then deliver a quality end product. Or some times reducing the scope - someone asks for a big presentation, which you know they may end up changing everything - and you agree on instead making a rough draft and storyline. So you just saved yourself a ton of work, and all it took was 2 minutes of intelligent discussion.
As for changing the culture, I'd say just take a position regarding how and when you plan to work, and let your colleague and peers know. Or at least discuss what is the expectation in terms of work commitments. So they will not be expecting an always-on mindset. In the end, if you keep delivering your stuff, I would think that is what matters.
Australians are generally lazy but get a reputation for being hard workers overseas due to the way we deal with it. The idea is to get into the work as quickly as possibly so we can get it done and bugger off home early :)
I prefer to arrive late and leave early to make up for it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Astonishing how well the east german economy worked for nearly 50 years if you consider this, hm ... lying to yourself system?
I don't know, I drove through portions of former East Germany not too many years after unification, and from what I saw, it worked *exactly* as well as you'd expect. The difference between west and east was stark and startling. In the west, there were occasional items in need of maintenance and modernization, just as you'll find anywhere, but by and large everything was well-built, well-maintained... and cheerful. The last bit is hard to explain, but it was more than just the use of bright colors on stores and signs, it was just an overall feeling of energy and exuberance. In contrast, nearly everything in the east was poorly-built, in need of maintenance, and drab. The roads were narrow, rough and full of holes. The bridges were rickety-looking and clearly needed maintenance. Many, many of the buildings had sagging rooflines, especially the farmhouses and barns. Much was unpainted, rusting steel, or unpainted, drying and spitting wood and what was painted was clearly painted only to make it last longer because it was all gray and black.
It strikes me that that's *exactly* what I'd expect a culture that habitually pretends to work to fool the planners to produce. No energy, no motivation, no reason to innovate.
From what I understand, it has been a huge burden on western Germany to drag their eastern fellows into the 21st century. The other thing I noticed when driving through east Germany, both that first time and even more a few years later, was that it seemed like they were rebuilding the entire country at once. And I know my west German friends grumbled often about the taxes for reconstruction, though they seemed generally to think that it was a price worth paying.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Communism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
One day per week? My company gives us two days.