<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;productivity&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Study: Viewing Cat Videos At Work Can Make You More Productive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/14334820644/study-viewing-cat-videos-work-can-make-you-more-productive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/14334820644/study-viewing-cat-videos-work-can-make-you-more-productive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many, many years, we've pointed out just how silly all those studies are that claim that any time not directly spent working -- such as on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/0228247.shtml">"personal surfing"</a> -- was somehow lost productivity.  Companies who sold filters to businesses often would put out these exaggerated "studies" that extrapolated the amount of time that people spend doing "non-work" things at work, multiply it by an average employee's hourly salary, and claim that much money was "lost productivity."  That number is obviously bogus.  First of all, it doesn't take into account the amount of time people spend "working" when they're not at the office either (many of us check our emails, for example, while at home).  It also ignores the much more important point that productivity is not an exact relationship to time worked in many jobs.  In fact, being non-stop focused on work every minute of the day can certainly be a <i>drag</i> on productivity, because it doesn't give your brain time off to process stuff, and doesn't give you a good way to focus in on what you need to do.
<br /><br />
Finally, there's a study to help point this out... and it does so in the most internet-awesome way imaginable.  The study has found that <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046362" target="_blank">staring at cute images can actually <i>help</i> productivity</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Performance indexed by the number of successful trials increased after viewing cute images (puppies and kittens; M &plusmn; SE = 43.9&plusmn;10.3% improvement) more than after viewing images that were less cute (dogs and cats; 11.9&plusmn;5.5% improvement). In the second experiment, this finding was replicated by using a non-motor visual search task. Performance improved more after viewing cute images (15.7&plusmn;2.2% improvement) than after viewing less cute images (1.4&plusmn;2.1% improvement). Viewing images of pleasant foods was ineffective in improving performance (1.2&plusmn;2.1%)....  <b>Results show that participants performed tasks requiring focused attention more carefully after viewing cute images.</b> This is interpreted as the result of a narrowed attentional focus induced by the cuteness-triggered positive emotion that is associated with approach motivation and the tendency toward systematic processing.
</i></blockquote>
I love academic speak trying to basically say "seeing cute animals makes you happy, and helps you focus" and turning it into: "a narrowed attentional focus induced by the cuteness-triggered positive emotion that is associated with approach motivation and the tendency toward systematic processing."  Either way, while the study really only focused on "cute" images, it didn't take long for people to (perhaps reasonably) <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12406/20120928/want-more-productive-watch-cute-cat-videos.htm" target="_blank">extrapolate the findings to cat videos</a> as well.
<br /><br />
So, in the interest of helping your productivity, we offer the following:
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0Bmhjf0rKe8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/598IdFlOXcQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<iframe width="420" height="236" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z8GHf-aELjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
</center>
Your boss can thank me later.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/14334820644/study-viewing-cat-videos-work-can-make-you-more-productive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/14334820644/study-viewing-cat-videos-work-can-make-you-more-productive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/14334820644/study-viewing-cat-videos-work-can-make-you-more-productive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-comes-up-with-these?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/14334820644</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:55:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft 'Anti-Piracy' Campaign Explains Why It's Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02523816811/microsoft-anti-piracy-campaign-explains-why-its-bad-businesses-to-pay-microsoft-software.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02523816811/microsoft-anti-piracy-campaign-explains-why-its-bad-businesses-to-pay-microsoft-software.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the distant past, Microsoft used to be willing to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070312/165448.shtml">admit</a> that -- especially in developing countries -- the company was significantly <i>better off</i> due to infringement.  Bill Gates famously said: "As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."  More recently, of course, Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive when it comes to its anti-piracy campaigns.  The company recently did a PR stunt around <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/antipiracy/Default.aspx" target="_blank">Global Play Fair Day</a>, in which it released a study, done by Keystone Strategy, which I think is supposed to explain the importance of <i>not</i> infringing.  However, the message that it <i>actually</i> seems to be sending is: "paying for Microsoft software is bad for business."
<br /><br />
I'm not joking.
<br /><br />
The key point that we learn is that companies in Brazil, Russia, India and China "ultimately have a $1.6 billion (U.S.) competitive advantage over companies that play fair by using genuine software."  In other words, if you pay for our software, you're at a competitive disadvantage.  Some of the other points from the press release, which only seem to drive this point home further:
<ul><i>
<li>Piracy creates more than $2.9 billion of competitive disadvantage per year across manufacturers in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific regions.
</li><li>In specific countries, Keystone determined how much pirated software harms manufacturers playing by the rules as follows: Brazil ($186 million), Russia ($115 million), India ($505 million), and China ($837 million).
</li><li>Over a five-year software life cycle, manufacturing companies in BRIC countries will lose more than $8.2 billion to their cheating competitors.
</li><li>There are more than 4.1 million PCs legally licensed by manufacturing firms that play by the rules in China. The competitive disadvantage to these firms amounts to about $837 million annually, or $4.18 billion over the typical five-year software life cycle.
</li><li>Indian manufacturers experience $505 million per year in competitive harm. Their pirating competitors could use this money to hire more than 215,000 new employees.
</li></i>
</ul>
That last one seems to be saying: "pirating software creates jobs!"  Again, the overall takeaway from this appears to be that paying for Microsoft software is bad for business, puts you at a competitive disadvantage and is going to cost you millions.  I guess kudos for the honesty, but I'm sorta confused as to why Microsoft is sending out this kind of message.   Well, chances are that it's part of a push to influence not companies, but policymakers to "crack down."  But, even so, it's an odd campaign.  If not paying for software gives you such a huge advantage, couldn't this also be interpreted as a massive promotional campaign for free and open source software?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02523816811/microsoft-anti-piracy-campaign-explains-why-its-bad-businesses-to-pay-microsoft-software.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02523816811/microsoft-anti-piracy-campaign-explains-why-its-bad-businesses-to-pay-microsoft-software.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02523816811/microsoft-anti-piracy-campaign-explains-why-its-bad-businesses-to-pay-microsoft-software.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-don't-get-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111118/02523816811</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:03:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/11374815964/no-angry-birds-is-not-costing-15-billion-lost-productivity.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/11374815964/no-angry-birds-is-not-costing-15-billion-lost-productivity.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Every so often we hear various stories about how this or that online "thing" is "costing $x billions in lost productivity."  For years it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/0228247.shtml">"personal surfing"</a> at work was costing billions.  Then things like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070302/101103.shtml">March Madness</a>.  Or even just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml">"keeping up with the data stream."</a>  The latest killer of productivity?  You guessed it.  It's Angry Birds.  Prisoner 201 sent in the news that people are now calculating <a href="http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Angry-birds-Lost-Wages-Rovio-AYTM-200-million-minutes,news-12525.html" target="_blank">the lost productivity from Angry Birds</a>.  Of course, in the past, most of these stories tended to come from companies (conveniently) selling filtering software.  This time it just seems like some reporters looking for a story. 
<br /><br />
But, of course, this is ridiculous.  While I have no doubt that there are some people who get sucked into playing Angry Birds and don't get their work done, that's an issue for that employer and that employee.  It's not Angry Birds causing the lack of productivity.  It's the employee.  The bigger issue, of course, is the basic assumption here that hours equals productivity.  If so, you could equally argue that <i>commuting</i> and <i>sleeping</i> are massive killers of productivity, because that's also time that is spent not working.  While it does depend on the type of job, many jobs do not involve a constant level of productivity.  In fact, many jobs have ebbs and flows of productivity, and that's a good thing.  Letting someone play Angry Birds to clear their mind for a bit could, conceivably be <i>good</i> for productivity.  What if they're struggling with a hard problem and working on it just isn't getting anything done... but taking a break and starting again clears things up?
<br /><br />
Considering that other studies have shown that trusting your employees to do their jobs creates <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030131/0120250_F.shtml">happier, more loyal and more productive workforces</a>, perhaps we shouldn't be so worried about people playing Angry Birds, rather than going out for a smoke or hanging out at the water cooler.  If they get their job done, they're productive.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/11374815964/no-angry-birds-is-not-costing-15-billion-lost-productivity.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/11374815964/no-angry-birds-is-not-costing-15-billion-lost-productivity.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/11374815964/no-angry-birds-is-not-costing-15-billion-lost-productivity.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can-we-get-the-mighty-eagle-to-smash-this-ridiculousness?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110915/11374815964</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:00:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Politicians, Innovation &#038; The Paradox Of Job Creation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a ton of talk from politicians lately about the importance of "creating jobs."  This comes from both major political parties, of course.  We've seen the Democrats jump heavily on the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/175027-democrats-try-to-pivot-to-jobs-agenda-working-on-details">jobs agenda</a> and the Republicans have been hyping up their ability to create jobs as well.  A few months ago, <i>This American Life</i> produced a fantastic episode on the hilariousness of <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/435/how-to-create-a-job" target="_blank">politicians claiming that they're going to "create" jobs</a>, with a focus on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (one of the few stories about him that has nothing to do with unions).  
<br /><br />
All of this talk about "job creation" from politicians has really been bugging me... with the only really "honest" politician I've seen being the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/7/gop-voters-ask-johnson-who/?page=all" target="_blank">totally ignored</a> Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson.  After the National Review praised him for being <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270098/which-gop-candidate-has-best-job-growth-record-katrina-trinko" target="_blank">"the best job creator of them all,"</a> (based on jobs numbers associated with all the GOP Presidential candidates), rather than accepting the cheap political accolade, Johnson responded by <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/gary-johnson-i-didnt-create-a-single-job/" target="_blank">rejecting the crown</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor."
</i></blockquote>
Instead, he noted that it was "entrepreneurs and businesses" that created the jobs, and all he tried to do was keep obstacles out of the way.
<br /><br />
Still, it is true that governments <i>can</i> create jobs.  It's just that they're almost never the jobs that actually help the economy.  The government <i>can</i> hire 20 million people to move piles of dirt around or to just sit around if it wants.  That will "create jobs."  But it won't be good for the economy, because those people are not <i>productive</i> for the economy.  They won't be adding value or producing something of value that expands the economy.
<br /><br />
This, of course, was famously explained a century and a half ago by Frederic Bastiat, who explained <a href="http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html" target="_blank">the fallacy of the broken window</a> as an economic or "jobs" stimulator.  And, yet, it's still oh so tempting for politicians to jump on this train.  But the problem for those who buy into the "broken windows fallacy," is that they make really <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/01223415426/why-president-obama-has-jobs-equation-backwards-supporting-patent-reform-that-limits-jobs.shtml">bad decisions</a> on "jobs," because they create the easiest jobs to create, which will almost always add the least value to the economy (and most likely take away value from the economy).
<br /><br />
It's why you get amazing statements from President Obama (who really <i>must</i> know better) in which he <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/should-the-government-ban-atms-and-create-spoon-ready-projects/" target="_blank">talks</a> about ATMs meaning fewer jobs for tellers and auto check-in kiosks at airports that mean fewer jobs for airline employees.  But this turns out to be wrong in oh-so-many ways.  First, it's just wrong <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/technology-and-unemployment" target="_blank">on the facts</a>:
<blockquote><i>
At the dawn of the self-service banking age in 1985, for example, the United States had 60,000 automated teller machines and 485,000 bank tellers. In 2002, the United States had 352,000 ATMs--and 527,000 bank tellers. ATMs notwithstanding, banks do a lot more than they used to and have a lot more branches than they used to.
</i></blockquote>
It's "easy" to claim that technology "destroys" jobs, but it's <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399704275939640.html" target="_blank">never the case in practice</a>.  It may <i>change</i> jobs, but <b>increased efficiency creates jobs</b> through economic growth.  There are all sorts of complex economic proofs of this in action, but the simplest way to understand it (and there's lots of both empirical and formulaic proof to back this up) is that when you increase efficiency, you can produce more for less, and thus, by the very definition, you have increased the size of the overall pie.  Now plenty of people can (and do!) quibble about how that pie is divided and allocated, but arguing that jobs are destroyed by technology is a red herring.
<br /><br />
It's for that reason that I'm a bit surprised to see Jeff Jarvis more or less <a href="https://plus.google.com/105076678694475690385/posts/3U8yyTKfjUA#105076678694475690385/posts/3U8yyTKfjUA" target="_blank">jumping on this bandwagon</a> by claiming that "we're going to have a jobless future":
<blockquote><i>
Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth. That is the notion I want to explore now.
<br /><br />
Pick an industry: newspapers, say. Untold thousands of jobs have been destroyed and they will not come back. Yes, new jobs will be created by entrepreneurs -- that is precisely why I teach entrepreneurial journalism. But in the net, the news industry -- make that the news ecosystem -- will employ fewer people in companies. There will still be news but it will be far more efficient, thanks to the internet.
<br /><br />
Take retail. Borders. Circuit City. Sharper Image. KB Toys. CompUSA. Dead. Every main street and every mall has empty stores that are not going to be filled. Buying things locally for immediate gratification will be a premium service because it is far more efficient -- in terms of inventory cost, real estate, staffing -- to consolidate and fulfill merchandise at a distance. Wal-Mart isn't killing retailing. Amazon is. Transparent pricing online will reduce prices and profitability yet more. Retail will be more efficient. 
</i></blockquote>
While I agree with Jarvis on many, many things, he's missing half of the equation here, and doing a sort of reverse "broken window fallacy."  He's looking at jobs that are changing, but not looking at the massive new opportunities it creates.  <a href="http://blog.ericreasons.com/2011/08/jobless-recovery-or-jobless-future.html" target="_blank">Eric Reasons</a> points me to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0253385345.shtml">my own post</a> which touches on this.
<br /><br />
It's easy to look at how jobs <i>appear</i> to "disappear" in a dynamic market.  Whether it's the tellers President Obama is talking about, or the "journalists" that Jarvis talks about.  But that ignores all of the new jobs created around the new efficiencies.  Take, for example, the fears that a telephone switching network would wreak havoc on our economy, decades ago.  After all, telephone companies employed thousands of operators whose job it was to "connect calls."  Automate that, and all of those women (and they were predominantly women) were "out of work."  Devastating, right?  Well, no, actually.  Not at all.
<br /><br />
A switched telephone network not only made the phone system more valuable and useful (increasing its usage), but opened up all sorts of new opportunities for businesses and jobs.  At a basic level, you could just note that call centers were suddenly possible, as was the ability to do customer service (and, annoyingly, telemarketing) on a large scale.  But, it also did much more.  A switched telephone network also paved the way to an eventual <i>internet</i> system, which has led to a huge revolution, millions upon millions of jobs, and the fact that you are reading this today.
<br /><br />
The idea that technology leads to efficiency over growth is preposterous.  Efficiency <i>is</i> growth.  But it's not always obvious how or where that growth occurs.
<br /><br />
And that's why I think there's something of a <i>paradox</i> of job creation.  The job creation we really <i><b>want</b></i> for the economy is the job creation that <i>initially looks bad</i>.  It's the job creation that worries Obama and Jarvis, in that they believe it's somehow "taking away jobs."  And yet, it's not.  It's actively creating more jobs -- it's just not as obvious how or where, but they are being created, without question.  Instead, the focus is put on the exact wrong kinds of jobs.  You hear things about stimulus projects that grant money or protectionism to certain industries.  On the <i>face</i>, that <i>appears</i> to create jobs, because those companies that are recipients of that support "hire" more people.  But it's at the expense of <i>productive</i> and <i>economic</i> growth that would create real long term jobs and real long term opportunity.
<br /><br />
So the best way to create jobs is the politically impossible plan of increasing efficiency, which may <i>appear</i> to replace jobs, even as it's creating many more.  It means allowing real competition to take place, rather than propping up a few big legacy players.  It means supporting true innovation, through encouraging startups and entrepreneurship, rather than rewarding the legacy players who seek to hold back the innovators.  Job creation is a paradox.  Anything politicians do to try to force it almost always does the opposite.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>disruption-and-broken-windows</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110810/02261615462</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:46:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Fun No Longer Fun When It's Corporate Fun?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/02343711076/is-fun-no-longer-fun-when-it-s-corporate-fun.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/02343711076/is-fun-no-longer-fun-when-it-s-corporate-fun.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I remember, years ago, when I was taking an organizational behavior class in college, being surprised to learn of a series of studies that suggested that <i>happy workers were <b>not</b> more productive workers</i>.  The whole area of study seemed a bit questionable to me, as there were so many other variables that could play into such things, such as the type of work and what kind of "happiness" we were talking about.  Also, I could see where, perhaps, in certain jobs, "happy" workers might not be any more productive than unhappy workers, but that the happy workers might be more loyal and have less turnover, which could be quite valuable as well.
<br /><br />
Either way, I still tend to think that a happy workforce is something worth striving for -- but not everyone thinks so.  The Economist recently had an article <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17035923/" target="_blank">mocking companies (mainly tech companies) for trying to keep their workers happy</a>, suggesting that once happiness became "corporate," it no longer really functions to make workers happy:
<blockquote><i>
This cult of fun is driven by three of the most popular management fads of the moment: empowerment, engagement and creativity. Many companies pride themselves on devolving power to front-line workers. But surveys show that only 20% of workers are "fully engaged with their job". Even fewer are creative. Managers hope that "fun" will magically make workers more engaged and creative. <b>But the problem is that as soon as fun becomes part of a corporate strategy it ceases to be fun and becomes its opposite--at best an empty shell and at worst a tiresome imposition.</b>
</i></blockquote>
While I think it's true that in many cases, corporate policies designed to make sure employees "have fun," <i>can</i> be an "empty shell" or "a tiresome imposition," I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases.  I think it really does depend on the company, the culture, the people and the "fun."  The writer of the Economist piece mocks some of Zappos' ideas for fun as being to coercive:
<blockquote><i>
The most unpleasant thing about the fashion for fun is that it is mixed with a large dose of coercion. Companies such as Zappos don't merely celebrate wackiness. They more or less require it. Compulsory fun is nearly always cringe-making.
</i></blockquote>
But is that true?  Again, plenty of weak attempts at forcing fun on people can backfire, but if you look at what Zappos and some other companies do it's not about "coercive" fun, so much as it's about setting up the overall environment such that people <i>just have fun</i>.  This is a key difference, which the Economist piece ignores.  Yes, I think mandated moments of fun can be lame and do the reverse of the desired impact, but setting up an overall culture that embraces fun can absolutely work.  I think it's one of the reasons why Zappos has had success in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080520/1805041183.shtml">paying new employees to quit</a> early on, as it gets rid of those who don't fit with the culture.  And, those who stick around appear to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090606/1204505153.shtml">having legitimate fun</a> as a part of their job, not because they suddenly had to go "do fun now," as the article implies.
<br /><br />
It appears the real confusion by the author is in thinking that <i>fun</i> and <i>work</i> cannot mix -- and it appears that's because whoever it is (which, of course is hidden thanks to the Economists' no bylines policy) seems to think of "fun" solely in a rather antiquated manner.  Fun, according to the author, is smoking, drinking and sex at work -- and if you can't do those things, it's just not fun at all:
<blockquote><i>
While imposing ersatz fun on their employees, companies are battling against the real thing. Many force smokers to huddle outside like furtive criminals. Few allow their employees to drink at lunch time, let alone earlier in the day. A regiment of busybodies--from lawyers to human-resources functionaries--is waging war on office romance, particularly between people of different ranks.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, some of us have no interest in doing any of those things at work, and actually prefer an environment where we get along with our coworkers in ways that actually do seem like modern fun, rather than some stereotypical fun from the 1950s.  Oh, and as for the research about happy employees being good for companies?  It seems those old studies I looked at in college are now being <a href="http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/09/happy-employees-are-good-for-business.html" target="_blank">refuted by new studies</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/02343711076/is-fun-no-longer-fun-when-it-s-corporate-fun.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/02343711076/is-fun-no-longer-fun-when-it-s-corporate-fun.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/02343711076/is-fun-no-longer-fun-when-it-s-corporate-fun.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can-work-be-fun?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100920/02343711076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:54:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should Managers Care That Employees Are On Facebook And YouTube While At Work?</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A recent study <a href="http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/04/report-68-of-business-internet-traffic-goes-to-facebook/">reported that 6.8 percent of URLs accessed by businesses lead to Facebook and 10 percent of bandwidth goes to YouTube</a>.  Of course, as to be expected, along with such a study come the fears that security and worker productivity is harmed by allowing access to such "non-work" sites:

<blockquote><em>
The figures show that IT managers are right to be concerned about the amount of social network use at work. There are two real concerns here: firstly that employees will be downloading applications from social networks and putting security at risk; and secondly the amount of corporate bandwidth that appears to be being used for non-corporate activity.
</em></blockquote>

These fears seem to resurface every once in awhile, especially when some new technology starts to become ubiquitous in the workplace.  First, it's silly to think that social networks would somehow have more security-risking applications to download than the rest of the internet.  As for the productivity concern, if you're worrying about how much time your employees are spending doing "non-work" things, then you're worrying about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml">wrong thing</a>.  From online shopping to social networking, allowing employees to do "non-work" web surfing while they are at the office keeps them <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/000921/0245249.shtml">happier and more productive</a>.  In fact, multiple studies have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml">shown</a> that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook actually make workers more productive by sparking creative ideas.  
<br /><br />
Of course, in order to manage this properly, managers must monitor productivity based on concrete, measurable goals -- rather than focus on the time spent doing the work.  After all, if you're delivering results, why should your manager care if you spend a few minutes a day catching up with friends on Facebook?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>results-based-management</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100419/0217429076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yes, Twitter And Facebook Can Make People More Productive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Every few months or so, there's some press release and flurry of news stories (often instigated by an online filtering company) about how whatever hot new internet service there is (take your pick: Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, etc...) is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml">costing companies billions in productivity</a>.  The studies all work the same way: they get some sort of estimate of how much time employees use such tools, and then multiply that times the average hourly rate -- and, voila, a nice round number.  Of course, this assumes something that's simply not true for many workers: that productivity is a direct function of the amount of time spent on the job.  But, of course, people change their rate of productivity all the time.  If they're tired and likely to make a mistake, letting them take a quick break actually can <i>improve</i> productivity.  Assuming that any time not directly working is lost productivity is simply false.
<br /><br />
Wired now has a short article by Brendan Koerner explaining how the <i>opposite</i> might be true -- and for people who are "knowledge workers," things like Twitter and Facebook may be <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/st_essay_distraction?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired%2Findex %28Wired%3A Index 3 %28Top Stories 2%29%29" target="_blank">improving productivity</a>.  His argument is based on an understanding of how creativity works, in that it's often sparked by random ideas... such as the random ideas you might get while seeing what people are talking about on Twitter.  There are two parts to the argument.  First, studies have shown that if you're working on a hard problem, it's often helpful to <i>stop</i> focusing directly on it and do something else, while your brain actually keeps working on the problem subconsciously.  On top of that, if you're doing something else that might be intellectually stimulating, often something you come across may actually spark a unique and creative solution to the problem:
<blockquote><i>
Incubation is most effective when it involves exposing the mind to entirely novel information rather than just relieving mental pressure. --This encourages creative association, the mashing together of seemingly unrelated concepts -- a key step in the creative process.
<br /><br />
History is full of tales of revelations that were helped along by such conceptual collisions. Alastair Pilkington came up with the idea for float glass, the inexpensive successor to plate glass, while washing dishes; the grease that pooled atop the water inspired him to pour molten glass onto melted tin, resulting in a perfectly smooth pane. And George de Mestral had the initial brainstorm for Velcro during a 1941 hunting trip, when he noticed how difficult it was to pick Alpine burrs off of his clothes.
</i></blockquote>
From this, Koerner notes that Twitter and Facebook actually could work quite well in serving as this accidental conceptual collision machine.  Of course, he's not saying that these sites definitely do increase productivity, but he's explaining how they could for knowledge workers.  It really would be fascinating if someone came up with a way to actually test this and see what the results were.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>understanding-productivity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100224/0340498289</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Webinar On Data Center Productivity For ITInnovation.com</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100208/1528418087.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100208/1528418087.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As part of our <a href="http://www.itinnovation.com/">ITInnovation.com</a> website, we're hosting a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/iti/rcpassthru.php?link=http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/event/Federated/1b318124e3-3489-intro&#038;rsrcname=Future+of+Data+Center+Productivity+Management" target="_blank">webinar on data center productivity</a>, on Wednesday, February 10th, at 9am PT/12pm ET, that should be a good discussion for those of you in the IT world.  I'll be moderating, and we'll have short presentations from Chris Peters of Intel, talking about matching data center productivity to business productivity, and from Michael Rowan of Viridity Software, discussing productivity measurement from an energy management perspective (an increasingly important part of the equation).  Following this we'll have a further discussion on these and related issues, including Q&#038;A from attendees.  You can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/iti/rcpassthru.php?link=http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/event/Federated/1b318124e3-3489-intro&#038;rsrcname=Future+of+Data+Center+Productivity+Management" target="_blank">sign up to attend here</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100208/1528418087.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100208/1528418087.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100208/1528418087.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>be-productive</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100208/1528418087</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should IT Be Run As A Business?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100120/0236307829.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100120/0236307829.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/2029259/Why-Running-IT-As-a-Business-Is-a-Bad-Idea" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> points us to an article trying to <a href="http://infoworld.com/print/108477" target="_blank">debunk the concept that "IT should be run as a business,"</a> with "employees" as customers.  Of course, like many catchy phrases, I don't think that many IT departments <i>really</i> followed this concept to the ridiculous logical conclusions.  It <i>does</i> have some useful concepts -- such as giving IT folks more reason to actually listen to what employees have to say.  But it misses the larger point, that IT is there to serve the business as a whole, and that means making the overall business more efficient, while keeping it secure, and that can sometimes conflict with the views of individual employees.
<br /><br />
The argument made in the article, and it makes sense, is that IT really needs to be much more tightly integrated with the overall business, to really understand how to help.  When it's viewed as a separate silo or even "business," then the solutions that come out of IT really aren't as helpful as can be.  Separately, it also increases the likelihood of outsourcing the IT function, since it can be easily "separated."  But by more closely integrating the IT function into actual business processes, not only does IT make itself more indispensable, it can focus on creating actual process improvements and solutions, rather than just taking a list from someone of what they think they need (perhaps without understanding what the technology enables) and delivering it to spec.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100120/0236307829.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100120/0236307829.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100120/0236307829.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yes-and-no</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/0236307829</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:25:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>No, Twitter Use Is Not Costing Companies Billions</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Not this again.  It happens with <i>every</i> new internet fad.  Some company trying to sell <i>something</i> (filters, consulting, training, etc.) comes out with some study <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050317/124228.shtml">claiming</a> that the new popular internet thingy is "costing x billions of dollars" because workers are using it for some amount of time per day.  All of them work on the same basic principle.  Figure out how much time people spend using the service, and multiply it by how much people make per hour, and then voila.  Of course, this assumes (incorrectly) that every minute not working is "lost productivity."  Of course, if that were true then coffee breaks, lunch breaks, sleep and many other things would also be "lost productivity."  But, we all know that's ridiculous and that the truth is those things make people <i>more productive</i> by giving them a break here and there to recharge.
<br /><br />
So, please, please, please don't believe the latest ridiculous study coming out of the UK claiming that <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/10/26/238286/twittering-staff-cost-uk-business-1.83bn.htm" target="_blank">Twittering employees are costing UK businesses &pound;1.83 billion</a>.  It's the same ridiculousness, calculating that the average worker spends about 40 minutes on Twitter, but making no effort to figure out if that actually negatively impacts productivity -- just assuming that it means 40 minutes of "lost productivity."  How many times do we need to repeat that <b>time does not equal productivity</b> before these companies stop coming out with such bogus studies?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0155536666.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stop.-now.-please.</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/0155536666</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:35:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Those Who Surf Facebook And YouTube At Work Are Often More Productive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0227084349.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0227084349.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back in the late 90s, there was a spate of news stories worried about this awful web thing and how companies were making it available at work -- and how that was obviously going to be a massive drain on productivity.  Of course, this was falsely based on the idea that productivity means <i>always working</i>, rather than getting work done.  All the way back in 2000, a study came out, noting that employees who did some personal surfing at work tended to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/000921/0245249.shtml">happier and more productive</a>.  There were a variety of reasons for this, including that being able to do some personal surfing allowed for useful "mental breaks" that made actual working time more productive.  It also let people spend more time on the job (and, in fact, another study found that most employees who do personal surfing at work <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030204/1349202.shtml">more than make it up</a>) rather than having to leave work to deal with personal things.
<br /><br />
Since all those studies came out in the earlier part of the decade, we had hoped that these issues had been put to rest.  But... no, of course not.  With new online services like Facebook and YouTube, suddenly companies started freaking out again -- with hyped up claims from internet filtering companies (it always comes from internet filtering companies) about just how much <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070820/014210.shtml">productivity is lost</a> via Facebook and YouTube.  And, of course, they have a simple solution: buy our filter and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071108/134605.shtml">block access</a> to these sites.
<br /><br />
And the fear mongering certainly works.  Every time we mention any such story, we're inundated with comments from people insisting that there is simply no reason why anyone should ever access Facebook from work.  Well, yet another study suggests that's incorrect again.  As with the earlier studies, this one found that people who do a little personal surfing of sites like Facebook and YouTube at work, <a href="http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25278257-5003402,00.html" target="_new">tend to be more productive</a>.
<br /><br />
The study found exactly what previous studies had found:
<blockquote><i>
People who do surf the internet for fun at work - within a reasonable limit of less than 20 per cent of their total time in the office - are more productive by about nine per cent than those who don't.... People need to zone out for a bit to get back their concentration. Think back to when you were in class listening to a lecture - after about 20 minutes your concentration probably went right down, yet after a break your concentration was restored.
<br /><br />
It's the same in the workplace.
<br /><br />
Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a day's work, and as a result, increased productivity.
</i></blockquote>
Now, of course, there are some people who will abuse the privilege -- and there's nothing wrong with finding out who's doing that and dealing with them properly.  But a flat-out blanket ban on such things may actually be reducing productivity for most workers, rather than increasing it.  Rather than assuming such personal surfing decreases productivity, why not focus on just those who abuse the privilege.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0227084349.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0227084349.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0227084349.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090402/0227084349</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:21:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You're Measuring Productivity In Hours, You're Doing It Wrong</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Usually we don't see these types of stories until <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070302/101103.shtml">March Madness time</a>, but the NY Times is writing about <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/read-this-and-cost-your-company-dough/#more-2113" target="_new">how much productivity is "lost" due to trying to keep up with the "data stream."</a>  Apparently research firm Basex has come out with a gimmicky calculator to determine how much productivity is likely lost, and put out a silly, borderline ridiculous <a href="http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&#038;STORY=/www/story/12-22-2008/0004945711&#038;EDATE=">press release</a> noting that Intel claims it worked with the research firm to determine that the impact on productivity because of information overload was "up to eight hours a week."  Seriously?  Productivity is measured not in <i>hours</i>, but output.  If productivity were just about hours, we'd be looking for ways to get people to work more hours.  But, most people recognize that there are diminishing returns to making people work too much -- and they have time off to charge their batteries.  
<br /><br />
If you're going to measure productivity this way, we could just as easily say that we're putting out a study showing that <i>sleeping</i> costs a company approximately eight hours a day in <i>lost worker productivity</i>!  Something must be done!  While I have no doubt that information overload can be a cost to productivity, it's not going to be measured in hours.  If I "waste" 20 hours a week dealing with information overload, but I'm able to extract information that makes me three times as productive, the rest of the week, then that's a good trade-off.  Do people actually pay companies for this sort of research?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>output,-output,-output</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081223/1139413206</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:15:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Preventing Your Employees From Watching Videos Won't Prevent Them From Procrastinating</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/191624439.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/191624439.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021101/1016211_F.shtml">saying for years</a> that the notion that employee web surfing at work constitutes "lost profits" is nonsense. There is an infinite number of ways employees can waste time at work, from chatting with coworkers, reading magazines, or even taking a nap. Monitoring and restricting web surfing isn't likely to make employees procrastinate less, it'll just make them procrastinate in ways that are harder to monitor, and annoy them in the process. The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> has the latest example of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120459386857809135.html">surfing-at-work hysteria.</a> Apparently the latest crisis is the time-wasting potential of Internet video sites. The funny thing about the article is that it inadvertently does a pretty good job of illustrating why blocking web-based video isn't a very good plan. One employee actually looked at clients' videos as part of his job, so he had to waste his own and the IT department's time seeking an exception every time he had a video he needed to watch in order to do his job. In an even more ridiculous case, an office had a mass shooting occur in a nearby mall, and all of the employees in the office apparently spent time complaining to the boss for permission to watch the news about it. Here, it was clear that the employees were already sitting around reading stories about the shooting, so they obviously weren't getting much work done. Yet for some reason the boss still seems proud of himself for preventing his employees from watching videos of the event. The article also cites bandwidth limitations as a reason for blocking online videos, but that seems like overkill. If upgrading bandwidth isn't an option (and bandwidth is getting cheaper every year) it seems like a much more straightforward approach would be to simply monitor total bandwidth consumption and warn the heaviest users to keep their consumption down. That would keep the network humming without treating employees like they're children.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/191624439.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/191624439.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/191624439.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it'll-just-annoy-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080304/191624439</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:59:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Being Plugged In 24/7 Doesn't Make It Easier To Get Your Work Done</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/103951.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/103951.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been several stories noting the fact that people have a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061122/103327.shtml">hard time taking a break from work</a> these days.  Those people that are glued to their computers or Blackberries will typically argue that constant attention is a must, given the amount of work that they have to get done.  But as Dan Markovitz astutely points out, people that are always plugged in are often <a href="http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/07/lowering-the-wa.html">no better at keeping up with work levels</a>.  He makes his point by drawing an analogy to manufacturing.  If your factory is producing way more of a given item than you need, it's easy to ignore the occasional product defect.  But if you're producing the exact amount the required by the market, then it's of utmost importance to reduce defects and operate efficiently.  If you keep allocating extra hours to your work, there's no impetus to figure out what's going wrong and why work is taking up so much time.  But by stepping away after an alloted time, you're forced to identify how your actual working hours could be made more productive.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/103951.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/103951.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/103951.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>rocks-on-the-riverbed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070710/103951</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>