Slashdot Log In
Quarter of Workers' Time Online Is Personal
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Sep 25, 2008 09:03 AM
from the this-is-why-we-created-the-idle-section dept.
from the this-is-why-we-created-the-idle-section dept.
sloit writes "Most people spend more than 25 per cent of their time online at work on personal activities.
And 80 per cent of emails sent by volume in the workplace are personal.
Bosses often have no way of tracking Internet activity or policies to define what staff can and cannot do.
Paul Hortop, who reviews company network security for consultancy Voco, said the most common websites visited by personal web surfers were online trading sites, instant messaging/chat services and peer-to-peer sharing sites (allowing movie, music and software sharing)."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
the most common websites visited by personal web surfers were online trading sites, instant messaging/chat services and peer-to-peer sharing sites
Cue the collective "You left out slashdot!"
And GBTW!
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>25 per cent of their time online at work on personal activities.
Shocking.
And before computers existed, they spent 25 percent of their time standing-around the water cooler, or sitting at their desks daydreaming.
Parent
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best milk comes from the happiest cows.
If you want to squeeze every last penny of time out of your workers, then you had better be prepared for the drop in productivity and quality that follows. This isn't to say that you should be providing lazer tag sets and two hour lunches to use them in. But it does mean that if you create a work environment with the rules of a gulag, then can expect good workers to leave, middling workers to become poor, and poor workers to either bomb, revolt or take advantage of the situation. In effect you will be spelling the end of your business.
Just like cows, it doesn't take a lot to keep workers happy either. Friendly environment, free food, good furniture, understanding they have outside lives. These things cost you little, but deliver far more. If people like where they work and who they work with, they won't want to leave. Balance in all things of course, but at the end of the day, allowing geeks to browse Slashdot, or people to call back home will cost you far less than insisting you get back every nanosecond of the time you pay for. After all, what is it that you do at work all day?
If you want the best milk, you need the best cows, but also the best fields.
Parent
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfettered web access leads to ridiculous losses of productivity.
That's a hypothesis. Is there proof one way or the other? If my job boss tried to increase productivity by a few percentage points by micromanaging, blocking all non-strictly work related websites, and tried to put blinders on me, I personally would spend more time trying to get around them and THEN goofing off than I would if they just left it up to my best judgement. Plus I'd think less of my job and would be less motivated.
That's just me though, I suppose other people might welcome the fetters, and possibly on average your approach would increase productivity. So lets see a study.
Parent
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, most of you out there are on salary, right? That is supposed to pay you to get your work done , no matter if it takes longer, or less than 40 hours a week, right?
Parent
Re:gbtw... (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, but it does mean it's tough to caught ;)
Parent
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeeeeeeah.... I call shenanigans, sir!
Humans just aren't built for eight hours of straight focus. It's just not effective. And the kind of companies that try to shoehorn you into "Maximum productivity" tend to just stifle you into mindless drudgery.
This is why Google's "Work 25% of your time on a project you choose" is so genius. It sets up an outlet for this that's also productive.
Either way, we need to get rid of the idea that employment means OHMYGODMYEMPLOYEROWNSMEIMUSTMACHSCHNELLALLTHETIME!!! I've been at more places that fight with me over federally mandated break and lunch times (an especially sticky issue for a hypoglycemic) than not.
Also: Your example is diarrheal crap. The bankers weren't lazy, they were criminally fraudulent. Their motivations: not lack of a desire to do work, but ACTIVE DESIRE TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS PAST A REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE POINT. It's not that they didn't want to risk check, it's that they deliberately shuffled the risk around paper accounts so they could present the portfolios as better than they were. And given that many of those mortgages were sold under basically fraudulent terms, given hard sells to people who couldn't afford them, and jacked up to ruinous interest rates without warning, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's not primarily an entitlement problem either.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, we should be living in Stalinist Russia instead. that'll show those lazy bums sending personal e-mails at work!
if everyone worked as secretaries, burger flippers, or other entry-level positions/menial jobs, then i would agree with you. but some of us do more challenging and intellectually demanding work. as a web developer and graphic designer, i couldn't imagine doing work on a computer that has an internet whitelist.
even if there was a whitelist that contained all work-related sites that i could pot
Re:gbtw... (Score:5, Insightful)
of course, if you are one of the workers who *can* get it done in less time, in many situations you are probably still expected to be there.
If everyone in your company is working the 10 hour day, even if you *can* do it in 8, you may not be able to leave so it seems reasonable that people would insert more interspersed downtime into their work to stretch the work out to fill the day...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it would be interesting to see a system in which you were given specific responsibilities, instead of a schedule, and left to yourself when and how much time to finish them. You'd have an overall deadline, but more flexibility to set up your working times.
Of course, I'm talking about a humanely designed workload, not the current abuse of salaried employment to get loads of free overtime. I guess I've answered my own question here about where that would go in our current environment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd pretty much have to in order to get the same amount of work in while having 4-6 weeks of paid vacation and more holidays than U.S. people and not working 3/4 of the hours that the typical U.S. IT person has to work.
Just try getting in touch with anybody in the European office in August.
only a quarter? (Score:5, Funny)
It's lower for me cause ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's lower for me cause ... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com] - Coding Standards Training
Dilbert [yahoo.com] - Management Training
Re:only a quarter? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as 80% of e-mails being personal, my experience in the work environment is that this is probably off by at least an order of magnitude. On my work e-mail, I easily get 200 work related e-mails for every personal one, and even that is only if I consider non-work related snide comments in response to work related emails to be personal. Some of the guys at work like to send each other youtube links and forward each other urban legends, but there is no way it is 80% of their emails. Now if you consider that 90% of work related emails are unnecessary then yes I'd guess that you get about 4 personal e-mails for every useful work related e-mail.
Parent
Re:only a quarter? (Score:5, Funny)
"I have gmail and slashdot up almost 100% of my day"
You took an excessive 20 minutes to comment after this story was posted. You are slacking off.
Parent
No posts? (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone reading this article started doing their job?
Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Insightful)
People have always found ways to waste time at work, and that's not going to change any time soon. Trying to make it stop will only breed resentment, lower employee morale, and reduce productivity. I frequently take short work breaks to work on personal stuff, especially when I am trying to think through a problem.
Re:Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Funny)
"It's the principle of the matter!", commented one beancounter, completely forgetting he has the wrong principles to start with.
Parent
Re:Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Informative)
Acquantance of mine owns a light manufacturing business. When he first wrote-up his business plan he went to see his bank manager (yeah, no shit Sherlock). This bloke looked at his figures, in particular at the throughput estimates. This is roughly how the conversation went:
(my apologies if any of my manufacturing parlance is off)
The bank manager was spot-on with his prediction too. It doesn't matter if it's on Slashdot or pissing around on the shop floor, employees will always waste time.
I'd bet money the kind of micro-managers that like to complain about this are sneaking onto Yahoo! Finance, to look at their personal stocks, when they think no-one is looking though.
Also, there's a fault with the article:
What if a worker only goes online during their allocated break time? Surely we need an accurate percentage of worker's total time at work is spent on personal Internet surfing. That wouldn't draw enough sensationalist headlines though! :)
Parent
Re:Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Interesting)
To take this a bit further, I was working with a financial services company, and for years the staff was allowed to listen to internet radio at their desks, which virtually everyone did. Recently, their partner company was taken over my a much larger organization, that filtered out the internet radio as well as many other "time wasters" with their web filtering.
Not only did this filtering interfere with getting actual work done (e.g. couldn't access some websites that could provide valuable information), they found that at the end of the quarter productivity had dropped a full 15%. The internet radio helped prevent the mental fatigue associated with performing mentally taxing tasks all day. Sometimes people need a context switch to stay productive.
Parent
Re:Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Interesting)
The "context switch" you mention is incredibly important. I have pretty varied responsibility at work (the downside of working in an IT department with a total staff of 12 people). Sometimes I'll be doing almost nothing but coding for days on end - sometimes I'll have nothing at all to do. Sometimes I'll have email server issues. Right now I'm manually creating a conversion table to switch a land classification system in one old system to a better system that we're implementing. In short, sometimes my work gets monotonous.
I've found that if I stick to it straight for hours on end, not only do I get cranky and less productive, but I also feel so drained that I often don't even feel like doing anything when I get home. So, I take an approach of working diligently for 40-45 minutes, and then going off and doing something else (personal email, Slashdot, whatever) for 10-15 minutes. Doing that I generally get more done and feel much less drained when I get home at the end of the day. You just have to have something to break up the chores that you have to perform.
Parent
Re:Unlikely To Change (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea how untrue that is. Have you ever worked on a factory production line, have you worked on a building site for a subcontrator, have you ever worked any where that you are in fact supervised for the entire eight hours shift plus overtime.
All places where middle management spend their whole day squeezing every bit of labour of the workers they can. Not to belabour the point, but the strangest thing of all is the more you get paid the less you work and the less you are supervised but work on minimum wage, the very worst pay, and you are supervised constantly and you will get fired for slacking off.
You also get absolutely no internet access, no email, personal phone calls are restricted and even toilet breaks are monitored. People who get it easy should always think of those that get it much worse, not that you should join the as slave labour for minimum wage but, you should always consider ways that their work conditions should be improved (man those people really are underpaid for their miserable work conditions).
When it comes to professionals of course I forecast that the biggest time waster in the future will be UMPC's and unmonitored cellular internet access.
Parent
Re:Unlikely To Break in. (Score:5, Insightful)
People aren't machines. And if your job is creative, you *need* to turn the switch from time to time to force you to think about something completely different. Otherwise you keep thinking the same way about a problem (tunnel vision), instead of finding a new and better way to solve it. At least, that's what I think.
Now, back to work..
Parent
If they were getting their work done... (Score:5, Insightful)
who cares.
If not, fire them.
Chime the horde of corporate apologists and micromanagers pissing in the wind.
Re:If they were getting their work done... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the correct answer. Salaried employees are hired to do a specific job, not work a particular number of hours. Thus it is at the discretion of the employer to decide whether or not that job is getting accomplished. If an employee manages to work only 2 hours a day but accomplishes more work than his 8-hour/day peers, why would an employer complain?
This aspect of being a salaried employee is actually codified in US law. (See: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for "exempt" employees) The law was configured for workers who may end up working odd hours or irregular hours or traveling for their employer. Since the job is much more complex than just "lift this item" or "cut this metal", charging on an hourly basis does not make sense.
Long story short? This is a non-story. If any employer believes that his employees performance is sub-par, he should take it up with the individual employees directly rather than concerning himself with the details of their personal internet surfing.
Parent
Re:If they were getting their work done... (Score:5, Insightful)
If an employee manages to work only 2 hours a day but accomplishes more work than his 8-hour/day peers, why would an employer complain?
greed?
stupidity?
Many managers out there are way too stupid to understand a guy that can work in very intense bursts and then assume they can operate that way 24/7
Parent
Re:If they were getting their work done... (Score:5, Funny)
Now I feel guilty that I did too much and am making my peers look bad... so... you'll see me around here more
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many managers out there are way too stupid to understand a guy that can work in very intense bursts and then assume they can operate that way 24/7
This is capitalism. You have one guy who can work for 45 years for you at 60% productivity. But you want 80%+ so you squeeze him until he breaks and then get another guy to do his job. You pay lower wages and keep some movement in your workforce that allows you to adjust headcount down easily (you just let a few workers drop off and don't hire more).
That guy you mention can probably operate at "burst rate" for 8 hours a day, just not for more than one day. The money chasers only care at the balance point be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice in theory, but it does not always work out that way.
On the one side you will have people who get employed and get things done in 2 hours and then could go home.
On the other side you have employers who give you so much to do that you need to work 16 hours instead of taking 2 people who work 8 hours.
Both extrem examples, but 1 hour per person is already a nice amount of money you do not need to pay.
So I do work 8 hours and if they wish to give me only two hours work then I do /. for 6. If they give me 9
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In an economy where we're bleeding money (especially in the large corporate world) I fail to see how this is a non-story.
Ohhhhh, so we should work harder. We lose money on every unit we produce, but we make it up on volume!
No way of tracking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bosses often have no way of tracking Internet activity
Bosses have no way of tracking Internet activity? Maybe they should read the rest of the article...
Paul Hortop, who reviews company network security for consultancy Voco, said the most common websites visited by personal web surfers were online trading sites, instant messaging/chat services and peer-to-peer sharing sites (allowing movie, music and software sharing)."
Seems like they can track Internet activity pretty well?
Re:No way of tracking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what?-Goof balls. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
As long as the work gets done... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)
If you do the work you're supposed to be doing then so far as I can see you're free to do whatever you like with the rest of the time you spend at work.
right person for the right job (Score:4, Insightful)
25% (Score:3, Funny)
I don't code *without* having a browser window open. Sometimes for looking things up that are concerned with work, but more often because I like to take a quick random browse now and then while I ponder something (why are there no easy programming problems when you get decent pay?).
My boss knows, and doesn't care. All that matters is the code required is delivered in a reasonable time.
Sure, not browsing the web for 'personal use' would speed things up, but then I'd be less happy, which would impact work quality.
By my calculation I've been paid £5.30 to read slashdot today.
[turns round to tell boss]
Yup, no problem.
I'm paid to do a job of work NOT watch the clock. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm paid to perform a job of work. Not to watch the clock. If something has to be ready for, say, Friday then assuming it's possible I'll get it ready for Friday. In the meantime I might talk to some colleagues, surf the 'net etc. etc. Guess what ? the work gets done.
Managers who think you should be spending every second of the working day "working" are idiots. If that's what you want employ a robot.
Employers who are stuck with this Victorian "factory clock punch" mentality rarely do well as working for them sucks and anyone with half a brain leaves at the earliest opportunity (been there, done that). The ones left usually spend most of their time in a fug of resentment and when forced to perform do so with minimum effort.
Ho hum, another silly management study.
Idiots did the study one sided (Score:4, Insightful)
How about listing the percentage of time on the phone AFTER work that is for work?
Or how about listing the percent of people's free time that is taken by 'overtime'. Or emails from work received in my personal email box.
Or at the VERY least they need to see how much of that 'time spent on line' was done during 9-5 and how much of that 'time spent on line' was during overtime hours.
For many people, it could be 25% spent of online time at work is 'personal', but 90% of that is done in their 9th hour at work. I.E. I really need to be shopping for a birthday present for my wife but the boss needs me here at work, so I'll log on and get something from Amazon while I'm waiting for Joe to call me back with the answer to my question.
Too bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad. (Score:4, Funny)
why should I work harder than the smokers when I get paid less than they do?
So you don't?
Parent
What about the other 75% (Score:5, Interesting)
Am the only person who thinks that it's amazing that many workers spend 75% of their on-line time doing work for their company? How much work can you do for your company on the web? I know there are specific jobs which require it, but most workers?
We provide web access for all workers because there's that 10% or 5% of the time they use it where it's actually necessary for the company. We also provide it, sometimes, to improve their quality of life, and reduce the amount of time they spend away from the job on personal stuff.
Doesn't the 25% number seem absurdly low?
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
That's a good point, this study didn't say that 25% of the employee's time was personal, but 25% of their online activity was personal.
Oblig. Office Space (Score:5, Funny)
Bob Slydell: You see, what we're actually trying to do here is, we're trying to get a feel for how people spend their day at work... so, if you would, would you walk us through a typical day, for you?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Bob Slydell: Great.
Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh heh - and, uh, after that I just sorta space out for about an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
Results Only Work Environment (Score:3, Informative)
This is why we should be moving towards the Results Only Work Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROWE). Stories like this are based on the workplace as it was 50 years ago, it's a lot different today. Performance should be based on what you get done; Employees shouldn't have to worry if they are 'appearing' busy.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I say this as both a manager and an employee:
The minor loss of potentially productive time described here (25% of some undefined (didn't RTFA) percentage of the user's overall work time) is blown on personal tasks and unofficial communication not explicitly related to work..... and? This doesn't seem even remotely unusual, regardless of the availability of an Internet connection. Aside from those few jobs where contractors and the like bust their ass 12-14 weeks a quarter like in construction work, having an adequate amount of time off in between tasks, I'd say the distraction of socializing with your colleagues and dealing with certain personal matters is often a positive thing. If you're working 9-5 and you present the choice to your boss that you've either got to take an afternoon of leave to deal with your financial matters outside of the office or that you could accomplish two hours from the office via electronic means if he/she wants you to stick around, I'd expect most bosses to just roll with it. If you're working nights under my supervision and you pull up a flash game of Tetris after remedying a server outage that dominated your time and energy so much that you obviously need time to switch gears, you've earned your rewards. If you're working under me and you've got 40 tasks assigned to you and, after working each of them to the point where you want to hit Slashdot, more power to you.
Chew 'em out when it starts to prevent them from getting their tasks completed. Reward those who goof off less, but you must accept a reasonable minimum if you want your employees to be productive, sane, and present. Most people in adequately staffed organizations wouldn't think twice about a person who takes two or three short "coffee breaks" per day or a lawyer/congressman's intern/city councilman's assistant that chews through each days newspaper during work hours. Why should you care if someone CTRL-TABs into Google News or the Wikipedia for an hour a day? Judge your employees by specific goals set ahead of time, in a fair and equitable manner. Don't jerk them around for "misusing" company resources at no cost to the company and for being human enough to need to think about something other than work a couple of times per shift. You'll get more done and have a level of morale that you can't possibly build up by micromanaging people to the extent that the summary implies that you should.
Results-Only Work Environment (Score:4, Interesting)
They did away with schedules, compulsory meetings etc. and it let them weed out people who accomplished nothing, whilst allowing everyone else take control of their own time. In other words, to bring it back to the article, they suggest that ALL time is personal - it doesn't matter how you do it, provided you get what you need to done on time. Staff retention, motivation and productivity went through the roof because of it. Unfortunately most workplaces aren't willing to treat their employees like adults so the idea is not exactly widespread (yet).