Social networking sites cost UK economy up to £14bn pa

neverdespairgirl

I'm self-employed. So if I spent the afternoon chatting, and messing around, no-one's going to tell me off. It just means I'll be up late preparing for court the next day.

I share a room in Chambers with a bloke who works the same way I do, which is great for both of us. I'd hate to have a radio on, and I like to do a burst of hard concentration, then make a cup of tea and chill out for a few minutes.

The worst is someone who says something inane, but wants a reply. ten minutes later, you've just remember where you were, and they say something again. Drives me mad.

LydiaJ

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't mean to sound condescending, but this is exactly the outdated type of thinking I'm talking about.

"We're an amazing company, so if you don't like it here, there's plenty of people who will take your job. So like it or lump it."

I guess it's one way to run a business. But increasing studies show that this new generation is vastly different to the ones that have come before (although I fully understand that you could debate whether this is a good or bad thing). People's perceptions of what a job is, and their relationship with an employer, have changed. If you want the best people then an organisation needs to move with the times and look at new ways to engage and attract the best young talent. Part of this is to really look at flexible, adaptable ways of working relationships between employer and employee.

Looking at Facebook whilst during the 9-5 work hours, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that you're wasting your employers time when you look at the bigger picture of how much they contribute to the organisation.

I agree with everything you say, except that I don't think it's just a young people's thing. I'm 40, and I'd hate to be dictated to about exactly which minutes I'm supposed to work and when I can take a break. I've never had a job like that, and I wouldn't ever choose to take a job like that if there were alternatives. (Obviously there are exceptions for forward facing work and the sort of teamwork where you all have to be there at the same time.)

I'm an adult, and I regard myself as a professional. I can be trusted to get the work done, properly, and on time. My employers get the best out of me by treating me accordingly.

In the school where I teach, we provide a lot of structure for the 11-13 year olds. They have very few slots in the timetable where they don't have a lesson, and when they do, they have to go somewhere specific and work under supervision. There's more flexibility for the 13-16s, and the 16-18s have a lot more free lessons and can do what they like - drink coffee in the commonroom in every free lesson if they like. But they also have a lot more independent work to do, and we expect them to get it done without our standing over their shoulders. Evidently some posters on this thread think adult employees should be allowed less autonomy than sixth-formers. I don't agree.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

In the school where I teach, ...11-13 year olds. ...have very few slots ...where they don't have a lesson, ... and the 16-18s have a lot more free lessons and can do what they like - drink coffee in the commonroom in every free lesson if they like.

They get free lessons?

Blimey, school HAS changed. There were no free lessons at schools years ago. Is that all schools, or just yours?

Even when I was at full-time College there were no free lessons, even that was Mon-Fri 9-5.

PasturesNew

I said earlier in this thread that people are at work to work, but I've never worked anywhere where there was any time when there wasn't 1001 things to be done.

But what I didn't mean is that people should be owned. Feeling owned is my big inhibitor to going to get a job. I am scared of it, I've been owned so many, many times before. I even had one boss who dictated which side of my keyboard the phone was on and which hand I should pick it up with.

Being owned is one thing I can't do.

I think the problem I have with modern offices is that there's no professional hum of busyness.... there's too much random social action/movement ... so it's probably more to do with my special traits. I can't cope/concentrate/work in an environment where there's a lot of random jollity when I am trying to concentrate on detailed planning work, figures, etc. My work tends to be very meticulous, detailed and 100% correct. I work with a lot of data and logic ... so a squeal as somebody's received a funny photo on their phone and now wants to wee themselves while they totter round the office showing everybody ... is not my idea of a working environment.

StevieJ

kabayiri wrote: »

Let's get this right.

This is one of those companies trying to get relatively cheap publicity by hiding under the 'it must be true coz we did a survey' drivel.

Ban internet access for social reasons at work, and we won't see any of this 14bn losses materialise on balance sheets.

Did we have the same number of surveys before the arrival of 24 hour news coverage? They seem to exist to feed the beast that is the news industry.

I think you mean the VI press release industry

tomstickland

Imagine the world where the people who write these reports would like to live. Humour would be a crime.

There's a strong substitution effect. Take away facebook and people will revert to chatting in the real world, like they used to do. I always say that there are 1000s of ways of avoiding doing work.

tomstickland

worldtraveller wrote: »

Maybe it could be done in less time, with less staff, saving your company money, if staff are not allowed to log on to social networking sites on company time?

That's the management "robot" approach.
Maybe they could do more in the same time and still look at facebook. Keep people motivated and busy, take an interest in what they are doing, give them plenty to do and leave them to work out how they are going to do it.

tomstickland

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One of the places I work at had a new manager. This new manager basically said "do what you like". We couldn't believe it. If we want to get up, go to the shop and buy a sandwich off we go. If we want to take lunch at 2.15 instead of 1pm, we do so. Obviously common sense dictates that if you are required to be at a meeting or something, you go to that meeting on time.

It's bizzare. We now all take mini breaks instead of full hours. So we actually find ourselves at our desks more, doing more work....just pop to the shops if we want to.

The 5pm drop and go routine has dissapeared. People are still around at 5.15 etc, finishing things off....they used to be out the door at 5pm and ready to walk at 4.55pm.

Basically I can do what I want, even have an Xbox360 and TV at work. It's pretty good, though the expectance is that you get whatever you have got to get done, on time and in a professional fashion. If that means working half an hour late, so be it.

The other place I work at, it's all "ooo, i stayed 10 mins late that night, wheres my time sheet" and people sitting down to another 4 hour block of work, moaning that so and so has a better model of footrest. It simply doesn't work as well. People seem determined for instance to take their lunch hour in full, regardless of what's actually going on. Problems could be happening, but it's hit 1pm, so it's out the door and everything waits until 2pm. 11am, everything stops for a 10 min coffee.

Google have it really sorted.....just ace!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7290322.stm

Sounds brilliant. I always say that companies should move away from blocking and banning. Once the novelty has worn off then most people lose interest. The problem should then manifest itself as people who visibly never get anything done.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

This has indeed been an interesting thread. It mainly boils down to how people define "work". Many seem to still look at it as labour on a factory production line; worker x spends y hours producing z amount of an item. Some jobs, specifically those in Sales I would think, still lend themselves to quantifiable targets where you can measure an employee's productivity with some degree of accuracy against co-workers. My job is nothing like this though; I organise a large number of Very Busy And Important types and a huge chunk of my day is spent waiting for other people to get back to me with their decision on what they want and how they want it- I can't decide for them. I physically cannot proceed without authorisation and thus have large gaps in my day, which are happily filled with the internet. If this was banned (unlikely in a university environmnent, where it's utilised widely for all kinds of research and of course self-promotion) I would have to amuse myself with crosswords, reading the paper etc. It is just the nature of the job.

The thing about browsing the internet is that you can minimise or click off a screen in an instant and refocus your attention on an incoming phone call or email. People seem harder to drag off their mobiles, and I do find it a bit unprofessional to have those on all day at work. I've never worked in an open plan office and guess I would find it pretty annoying.

tomstickland

worldtraveller wrote: »

Of course I have, but, IMHO, the pendulum has, in recent years, generally moved too far towards the "taking the !!!!" area. Just ban the use of social networking sites & personal phone calls, etc. in company time and it's very simple to control. In that situation, if people don't like it, they can just go elsewhere, their choice.

Why do you need to control something? You're missing out on a much better way of doing things. Give people responsibility and trust and measure the outputs and they'll be more productive than if you feel the need to control them. They'll resent you for it.