Let 'em surf

[OC]

http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,46179,00.html

(the underlining is mine -OC)

Technology that monitors employees' Web usage sounds like a smart way to keep them focused on work. Wrong. Let 'em surf.
By Jeffrey Pfeffer, February 2003 Issue

It's no secret that plenty of workers use their company's high-speed Internet access to shop, make travel arrangements, or just surf the Web. Research firm ComScore Networks, in fact, found that, excluding auctions, 59 percent of all 2001 Web purchases in the United States were made from the workplace. Another study, by Vault.com, found that 47 percent of employees spend at least half an hour a day cruising the Web for personal reasons.

In light of this, it would seem to make sense for managers to keep track of their workers' Web habits. Shouldn't employees conduct personal business on their own time? Think of all the lost productivity!

Not so fast. There are problems with this logic. First, while employers have increasingly been taking the Big Brother approach, thanks to software that tracks Internet usage and even lets the boss read a worker's e-mails, the proportion of absenteeism attributable to personal needs has also been on the rise -- almost doubling in 2002 to 21 percent. Notice the lesson here: If you don't want your people missing work to take care of personal business, maybe it would be better to let them take care of some of that business at work. Losing a few minutes here or there -- or even a couple of hours -- is cheaper than losing entire days.

Other unintended consequences of electronic monitoring are more difficult to measure but potentially worse for business. Studies show, for instance, that electronic monitoring results in lower job satisfaction, in part because people begin to believe the quantity of their work is more important than the quality. Monitoring also induces what academics call psychological reactance: the tendency of people to rebel against constraints. Tell people they can't shop, they can't use corporate networks for personal business, they can't make personal phone calls, and their desire to do all those things goes up. Another worrisome consequence stems from the self-fulfilling prophecy, which simply means that people behave as they are expected to. So if you expect an employee to do a good job, he or she probably will. Act as though you distrust people, and you create employees who are, in fact, less trustworthy.

This is the thinking at SAS Institute, the world's largest private software company and a place consistently ranked in the top 10 on those "Best Places to Work" surveys. Other than flagging for porn sites, SAS doesn't monitor its workers' Web use. The company tells its people to use company resources responsibly but doesn't mind if they, say, check sports scores or use the Web for shopping.

That sounds about right. Management literature is filled with books that use the word "trust" in their titles, and most people at the top claim to understand that cultures based on trust work better than those based on distrust. Yet even as companies say they want strong relationships with their people, they unwittingly undermine those relationships by following their employees' every keystroke.

The prescription is simple. Before you implement the latest technology to monitor your workers, ask yourself, "What does this say about how I think about my people?" If you really don't trust your employees, maybe you should get different ones. If you do trust them, or want to, treat them accordingly.

[coleslaw]

I totally agree with this. Not only are you able to take care of various "errands" while at work if allowed full uninhibited internet access, but it also serves as a good way to take a few minutes off from time to time to avoid getting burnt out from constant coding/meetings/calls/morons.

[dbax791]

Originally posted by coleslaw
I totally agree with this. Not only are you able to take care of various "errands" while at work if allowed full uninhibited internet access, but it also serves as a good way to take a few minutes off from time to time to avoid getting burnt out from constant coding/meetings/calls/morons.

Yeah, I agree with this. When I manage people I set goals and deliverables. I make it clear that I don't care if they need to take care of personal business, just so long as they deliver their work on time and at an acceptable quality level.

There were always distractions...before the net, some people would go to work and gab on the phone all day with friends, play "solitaire" or "minesweeper" etc.

Managers should manage results and not waste time with stupid web monitoring. If people are going to goof off, they'll do it with or without the web.

[Ladogaboy]

I don't agree with this. This is basically saying that it is okay to allow your workers' lack of planning in their personal lives to affect how they do their work on the job. That is a load of crap. The last thing we need is for Americans to find one more way to skip out on responsibilities. :rolleyes:

[OC]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
SNIPOh, come on. Did you even bother to read the article? This has nothing to do with not being responsible. This has to do with people being treated like untrustworthy drones while on the job. It's high time employers allowed people to be people and stopped expecting them to set aside large portions of their humanity just because they're in a place of business.

We spend huge amounts of time at work. To expect us to be mindless, good little robots while we're on the clock is dehumanizing, and so are the practices that this article criticizes.

I for one truly appreciate being able to take a few minutes to take care of minor personal business issues while on the job.

-OC

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
I don't agree with this. This is basically saying that it is okay to allow your workers' lack of planning in their personal lives to affect how they do their work on the job. That is a load of crap. The last thing we need is for Americans to find one more way to skip out on responsibilities. :rolleyes:
did you forget the sarcasm tags, or are you being serious? :confused:

if you're being serious, i don't understand where you're coming from. like dbax said, the important thing is whether you complete your tasks when you're supposed to and that you do quality work. if those conditions are being met, then why should employers be complaining?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by whitak24

did you forget the sarcasm tags, or are you being serious? :confused:


Oh, I was being completely serious. If you are being paid by the hour, that is no longer your time. You have told your employer that you will work for x period of time, and in return, your employer will pay you y dollars. It's not a very difficult concept to understand. Essentially, what you are asking for, is to be paid without giving anything in return. If you have an emergency, or unforeseen responsibilities that come up, that is one thing, and most employers will understand. But if you decide that you would rather do all of your shopping at work because that means you can spend more time doing other things while you are at home, you are cheating your employer out of his/her money.

It has nothing to do with being a "good little robot". :rolleyes: It has to do with doing your job and having some semblance of what some people refer to as a work ethic. When you work, you are essentially selling yourself and your services for a period of time. If you don't like that, then don't work. What the hell makes you feel so privileged that you don't have to actually work to get paid, when a lot of people never have that option? Is it one of the job perks? More than likely not.

OC, you need to seriously grow up. You have one of the most "holier than thou" attitudes I've ever seen, and you're constantly talking about sheep and followers like you're something special. Please. You need to get your skinny, IT butt into a real, blue collar job and see what it's like to actually work for a living. No e-mail to check. No websurfing to be done. Just a bunch of guys with bad grammar, a lack of formal education, and a lot more brains than you. You try so hard not to be a follower that you fit right in. :disa:

I'm perfectly fine with people doing what they feel like when it is on their own time. If they are getting paid by the job and still have time to surf the net and IM, then more power to them. But for a majority of the poor schmucks that actually have to work for a living, this isn't a real option.

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
If you are being paid by the hour, that is no longer your time.This probably applies more for people on salary than people working on an hourly wage anyway...

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
....snip....
i agree with you on some levels, but disagree with you on others.

first, as coleslaw mentioned, i think the discussion was geared more toward salaried workers than hourly workers. but even in the case of hourly workers, i think the same applies as well.

fact is, not many people who i know of work for 8 full hours a day. i mean, i see blue collar workers, which seem to be your ideal of dedicated, no-nonsense workers, drinking coffee, talking to their coworkers, standing around etc. perhaps IT workers check their email instead.

secondly, i guess where i disagree with you is that in my opinion, when you are hired by a company, they are hiring you to perform a set of services for them. if you complete that set of services, then your work ethic is just fine. if you go above and beyond that agreed-upon set of services, then you have an exemplary work ethic, and your employer can reward you, if they choose to do so (of course, in today's job environment, they're just as likely to kick your ass out the door). finally, if you do not perform your end of the bargain and provide the services that you agreed to, then your employer has other options for to deal with that (discipline, layoffs, etc).

what it comes down to is that the idea of monitoring and limiting employees' web surfing or emailing is a symptom of a larger managment problem: managing processes instead of results.

it's difficult to manage results. it takes time and attention and thought from managers (who are probably too busy doing their own online shopping or kissing their bosses' asses to be bothered by managing their employees). results-driven management requires that a manager actually evaluate what employees have produced and work with them to improve the quality of their output.

instead, it's far easier to manage processes. limit personal use of the internet. have rules about how often employees can go to the bathroom. have forms and templates and HR procedures for any little task that can be assigned. at my old job, they were more concerned about whether you got the proper template and filled in all the blanks than with what the template said. as long as the template was being filled at the appropriate rate, all was well. then, of course, as deadlines approached, all hell broke loose because we hadn't dealt with problems all along the way. why? because managers hadn't been dealing with the CONTENT that was going in the templates. they had been checking to make sure that the Estimated Time to Completions were up-to-date for each team member.

it's process management that causes people to lose their work ethic in the first place. it teaches employees that what you do doesn't matter -- what matters is that you sit at your desk all day and "look busy". oh, and gossip to your coworkers rather than surfing the internet, because that's harder for the boss to monitor.

[coleslaw]

From WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1044486883322049333.djm,00.html):


The Internet has brought a fair share of goofing off in the workplace, where some employees enjoy fast access to sports scores, Web shopping and bad e-mail jokes. But what employers lose in productivity at the office is made up in the home, according to a survey by the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business in College Park, Md., and research firm Rockbridge Associates Inc. in Great Falls, Va. It found that employees with Web access at home and work spend an average of 3.7 hours a week doing personal online activities in the office. Those same employees, though, spend 5.9 hours a week on the Internet at home doing work-related chores. Fully 85% of people surveyed admitting using their work Internet connections for personal purposes.

Read into it what you will.

[OC]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
SNIP
Wow. To the best of my recollection we've never crossed swords before. I've always viewed your posts with some respect, as they are usually well-informed and more than a little literate, which is more than I can say for some people. I had no idea you held such a low opinion of me.

I won't waste your time trying to change your point of view. I'll just say that I hope you always have a satisfying and enjoyable work life.

-OC

[revil]

Originally posted by overclocked
which is more than I can say for some people (like revil).
Son of a B... :cry2:

[gwilks98]

My theory is, if they expect me to be able to stay late/come in early when needed and infringe upon MY time without compensation, I ought to be able to do the same. As long as it's done in a tasteful and responsible manner, there is no harm.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Oh, I was being completely serious. If you are being paid by the hour, that is no longer your time. You have told your employer that you will work for x period of time, and in return, your employer will pay you y dollars. It's not a very difficult concept to understand. Essentially, what you are asking for, is to be paid without giving anything in return. If you have an emergency, or unforeseen responsibilities that come up, that is one thing, and most employers will understand. But if you decide that you would rather do all of your shopping at work because that means you can spend more time doing other things while you are at home, you are cheating your employer out of his/her money.

It has nothing to do with being a "good little robot". :rolleyes: It has to do with doing your job and having some semblance of what some people refer to as a work ethic. When you work, you are essentially selling yourself and your services for a period of time. If you don't like that, then don't work. What the hell makes you feel so privileged that you don't have to actually work to get paid, when a lot of people never have that option? Is it one of the job perks? More than likely not.

OC, you need to seriously grow up. You have one of the most "holier than thou" attitudes I've ever seen, and you're constantly talking about sheep and followers like you're something special. Please. You need to get your skinny, IT butt into a real, blue collar job and see what it's like to actually work for a living. No e-mail to check. No websurfing to be done. Just a bunch of guys with bad grammar, a lack of formal education, and a lot more brains than you. You try so hard not to be a follower that you fit right in. :disa:

I'm perfectly fine with people doing what they feel like when it is on their own time. If they are getting paid by the job and still have time to surf the net and IM, then more power to them. But for a majority of the poor schmucks that actually have to work for a living, this isn't a real option.

that is one of the most asinine posts i've seen on this board. you're implication that IT folks don't work is ridiculus. i, like OC, have always viewed your posts with some level of respect. but you know what you sound like in this one? a 2 bit, uneducated and unintellegent hammer swinger who's pissed off at the world because he has to sweat at work while all those "skinny IT butts just kick it in lala land".

that said, here's some **** i see blue collar workers doing instead of checking their emai:

1. checking their voicemail on cell
2. smoking cigs
3. watching 3 other guys work (NC state workers in particular)
4. leaning on a shovel talking
5. etc etc

and you know what? nothing wrong with that either. people need breaks from work. who cares if they get coffee, stand around a water cooler,smoke, or lean on a shovel? if they get their **** done, who cares?