According to a recent survey done by Salary.com, Americans admitted to wasting time at work. Apparently, about six in ten workers said they wasted at 1.7 hours while on the clock.
American popular culture is full of images of undefined office workers conspiring not to do work. It is also full of images of people who work in offices and seem to get paid very well. The 70's are long gone in TV and the movies, there are no working class people or poor people. Nobody gets dirty and nobody has jobs without health insurance. Nobody comes into work when they shouldn't because they can't afford to be sick.
The survey cites the main "time wasters" people admit to are internet use, socializing, and conducting personal business. One might believe by glancing at this survey which had a little over two thousand respondents that everybody actually has internet access. It also fails to mention that many large companies have means by which to monitor the negligent little workers if they dare engage in internet follies.
The main reasons workers aren't engaged are that they feel bored, underpaid, unchallenged and perceive their hours as being too long.
I work as a low level supervisor at a large hospital, and since I do not have one of those tyrant bosses, I am allowed to attend the occasional management seminar. Inevitably the topics hit three major areas; how to communicate effectively, how to motivate people, and how to deal with difficult people. They are always run by some high energy man or woman who borders on aggressive, starts the day by saying how we will all learn much more if we "participate" and then proceeds to laud their own accomplishments. Workers get divided into sub-types: the slacker, the victim, the bully, the chronically late, the schemer, and we are given strategies on how to deal with them. I always get the impression from attending these seminars that workers are "problems" to be solved, molded, and made to be more productive. It is in the "how to motivate people" realm that I get myself into the most trouble. I have had plenty of experience dealing with these "problem" workers but at least in my profession, there are fewer than one might expect. Frankly, everybody has a bad day or goes thorough a bad stretch, and they say and do things they shouldn't. My philosophy has always been that unless a pattern develops it isn't anything to become preoccupied with. At some point during these seminars I will raise the issue of compensation. the script often goes like this.... Me: isn't it possible that people revert to destructive patterns when they believe they aren't paid well? Seminar leader: Certainly sometimes that is the case but research shows money is not the only concerns Americans have. Me: How can we expect workers not to be resentful when there are cuts, layoffs, and they know the CEO or upper management aren't being subject to the same constraints? Seminar Leader: Well your job as a supervisor is to help them see opportunities for growth even admit chaos. Me: Workers might just see it as an opportunity to be scrutinized even further not to step up. Seminar Leader: You're taking a negative approach, you can't buy into that kind of thinking. Me: People want to be paid fairly and get health benefits, how can you expect the lowest wage workers to be "motivated" and be "team oriented" when they are barely getting by? Seminar Leader: Are you sure you're a supervisor?
Several years ago there were rumors that there was going to be a local attempt to unionize nurses in my area. My hospital hired a high profile HR firm to come in and interview the managers and supervisors institution wide to get a sense of how things were functioning and in the nursing department we were encouraged to verbalize our "fears" about an organization attempt. My interview lasted about five seconds. I was asked what my perceptions were of unionization. I said as a supervisor I had no difficulties in forming a relationship with unionized workers, and that if the idea gained currency among nurses then perhaps, bad management and I included myself in that category, was a huge factor in that. I was thanked and dismissed. Although we were told not to discuss our interviews with one another, mine was clearly the shortest one.
If people really are wasting time at work, and I would have to see a larger survey conducted to be convinced, can we blame them. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics about 12 percent of Americans are in a union. Americans are very aware that there is nobody in the work place to protect their interests, to speak for them, to advocate for their health and safety, and to protect or advocate for benefits. The only revenge they have left is to passively undermine productivity by socializing or surfing the internet. If they are working longer hours and citing that as a reason for "time wasting" then they are dealing with real problems: who can pick up the kids, who can watch them, and how to get them to the doctor when they are sick. I admit I let folks leave early if things are slow and their colleagues don't mind to deal with exactly those daily issues.
I actually contemplated doing an MBA a few years ago thinking it might either help improve my skills as a supervisor, or add a broader context so I could look "marketable" if for some reason I left my current
position. I suspected that I would be a spectacular failure. Corporate success seems so simple to whether it be in a large or smaller organization: pay people decently, give them benefits, and create a work environment that acknowledges people for their talents. If the seminars I have attended over the years are any indication, those issues seem secondary or absent in the business world, and mangers/supervisors are not encouraged to think about them. We are always told to "enhance" our "critical thinking and problem solving skills" to "motivate" people and yet the most obvious things are neglected in favor of hegemonic fairy tales about "team work" and encouraging new "skill sets." It seems to me the bottom line in management philosophy is figuring out how to get more out of people, while giving them substantially less.