I used to work with someone who would openly read books and sleep on the job. What performance plan would you implement other than simply telling them this is unacceptable?

No, it actually IS his fault. He's been doing nothing for the last 2 days, hiding out here and there. We caught him attempting to download 50 Gigabytes of porn using Bittorrent, in violation of the Terms of Use for Information Technology he signed. We have the evidence preserved of what he was downloading.

Terminated with prejudice and turned over to local law enforcement, for possession of child pornography.

For work-related issues, have people considered the intergenerational thing that may be happening? In my limited experience, many of the more recent college graduates are already extremeley multi-functional, meaning, yes, they will always be IM'ing, Skyping, Facebooking, and using Google to do random searches ---> and that study-related behavior carries over directly to their work environment.

They don't see a difference between doing "work" and incorporating all that online behavior. That *is* work, to them. They already *do* two or three things at once.

@Katenonymous - That SUCKS. That's all there is too it. She either just doesn't have the chops or wasn't as motivated to improve as she thought she was. Either way, I commend you for giving her more than a fair shot. Absolutely her own fault.

@Monica - I question whether or not anyone can actually do more than one thing at once effectively, but... in regards to what

@JRandom42 noted - what if they ARE meeting their deadlines? Who cares? Are you paying them to occupy a seat for 8 to 9 hours or to produce meaningful work? Getting stuff done for the business and adding value to the business are two very different things.

Attending a meeting that's a waste of everyone's time is something for the business, but it doesn't actually help the business in any way. Being in a chair from 9 to 5 when you might work more effectively from 10 to 7, or from 9 to 12 and then again from 3 to 8, or whatever combination of time you can think of, is not adding value to the business. Work is something you do. It's results. That's what matters.

If a company is hiring people who consistently engage in the behaviors that you've described here, they may want to take a look at their recruiting and performance management practices.

If you believe you're paying people for time and not work, sure. That's a personal/business call. I don't think that's always the best way though.

@JRandom42 - In thinking more about your last response ("If they are meeting their deadlines, there's more work for them to be doing. End of discussion."), I really fail to see the strategic thinking involved in that comment.

So if you have a rockstar employee who meets or beats all of his or her deadlines, the way you reward them is by saying, "Oh, you must not have enough to do. Here's more work."??? What incentive is there for anyone to do more?

You either need to do a better job identifying how much work people should be doing in a set period of time, or you have someone who's clearly misplaced in their role, or (my vote), you should focus less on time and more on results.

Chris,

It's simple. I'm not paying them to do Facebook, personal Skype calls, IM's to boy/girlfriends or Twitter. I'm paying them to do work for the company.

If they can find the time to do all this personal social networking, they obviously can find the time to do more work, of which there is plenty to be accomplished. I'll gladly assign more projects to them that need to be done.

If they are THAT efficient, let them do classes on work efficiency for everyone else, and let's all get more accomplished in less time and boost the company's productivity.

As an added thought, I've heard so much on how younger workers want more responsibility, more chances to learn, and more opportunities to shine.

Great, if they are the rockstar employees you say they are, more work and more projects are the platforms from they can do it from. How better to have that record of accomplishment that give the rockstar his/her cred with senior management, than taking on other work and projects and accomplishing them?

You either want the responsibility, learning, and opportunities to shine or you don't. Indulging in social networking during the time you're here and being paid to work to me shows you don't.

@Chris Ferdinandi - "So if you have a rockstar employee who meets or beats all of his or her deadlines, the way you reward them is by saying, "Oh, you must not have enough to do. Here's more work."??? What incentive is there for anyone to do more? You either need to do a better job identifying how much work people should be doing in a set period of time, or you have someone who's clearly misplaced in their role, or (my vote), you should focus less on time and more on results"

That’s the problem with companies today; they just want warm bodies to perform "admin like" functions around the clock and beyond. In the past that type of star employee might get rewarded by being exposed to other departments or getting special training opportunities (maybe even getting to go home early). Today the company says: "Great we are getting more out of that person than we pay them to do" They shouldn't be too surprised when an employee is not good, they did hire them after all. Companies today have a major disconnect between what’s on the job market, what they need to fill a position and what they want. They are to blame for this problem because they created it.

What companies don't realized is that treating employees poorly over the last couple of decades is breeding an employee that will only give just enough keep their job; sure there are stars that do more than usual. However they eventually learn that it’s not worth the effort if the corporate culture is bad or the reward is too little (not all of the stars go this route, some become a part of the management teams). I am of the opinion that people who perform like girl in the story posted by KateNonymous should not be fired; they should just have their pay cut, hours slashed and their tasks reduced. Eventually they would adapt having less money or just leave the organization. Plus there are so few jobs available anyway, she probably had to take the job even though it was wrong for her.

I am of the belief that few people are cut out for white collar corporate life anyway. But where else are they going to work? Especially if they just "gutted it out" and finished college even if it was the wrong place for them to be. The jobs being created today are a bad fit for a large portion of the population, but people have to work somewhere. They put on a good show for the interview and for the first few weeks in the office, then they revert to their true self. I don't think it’s about being lazy because I believe it’s about being a good fit for the corporate culture. Companies do a poor job of finding the right personalities and skills for most jobs.

@chris and jrandom42 discussion going on - maybe not more busy work, but more higher-level/fun work and a promotion/raise???

@chris - I was originally thinking of fit as something separate from what you already listed, but after you mention it, I can see it fitting into motivation (Lack of fit --> decreased motivation --> employee sucks at job). The resource part is too much of a stretch because your fix is "give it to them" while you certainly can't amend a corporate culture for one person.

@JRandom42 - If you're talking manufacturing where people truly need to be in a specific place between specific hours, I can understand that. I'm struggling with the Global operation piece. Seems to me that most global orgs run virtually 24/7, so hours of availability should be less of an issue rather than more.

The nature of work is a consideration as well: In an assembly line, work from anywhere doesn't matter. But if Employee A needs something from Employee B to finish a project, Employee B's deadline should accommodate that. In which case I still say, "why can't he work wherever/whenever he wants?"

@Eva - Fair point. I will admit that companies can't always give employees the resources they need though. If a particular culture is a resource an employee needs and your company doesn't have it, well, is the culture inherently bad, or just a bad fit for the employee. If its the former, why not try to change it. If its the latter, as you noted, maybe you should "refer them elsewhere."

Why, mainly because:

1) If it has to do with production (including some aspects of engineering), there's no way anyone is going to have a $450,000 CNC lathe or milling machine at home.

2) If it's engineering, just sharing the data isn't enough. If an engineer just submits a document, there's always going to be questions and need for clarifications, and more often than not, most of the discussions take place in the lab or machine shop as concepts are demonstrated, modified and tested.

3) If it's IT, they may be able to remote in for some stuff, but if the network and infrastructure are having problems, there's absolutely no substitite for being on site, with direct hands-on access to the servers and the back up tapes.

4) I honestly have no clue about Finance, HR, Sales or Marketing. Those areas are outside what I supervise. I trust them to do what is needed for the company, as they trust me to design, test and manufacture the product.

@Kate - and that system worked for you, right? But who's to say it's best for someone else? You created a work system that helped you GET THE JOB DONE. Was your thesis graded on when you wrote it, how and where you did research and such? Nope. Your end product was graded, and you dictated how, when and where you created it.

Of course there will be deadlines and priorities in the business world. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that if you're meeting those, why do you have to be in a specific spot between specific hours to get that work done?

@Chris, you asked the question in a way that suggested you were looking for a negative answer. That isn't the answer I have to give.

If you don't want to be in a specific spot between specific hours to get that work done, be a freelancer.

But it's worth considering that you still may not entirely set your own schedule. What I found when I was freelancing was that it was easiest to get my questions answered quickly if I kept to the general work hours of the companies that contracted with me--because that's when people were available to answer them. Those hours weren't at all convenient for me, because the people I needed to contact were in separate time zones. If I wanted to catch them before their days got too busy, I had to be up and lucid much earlier than is my preference.

@Chris Ferdinandi - I wouldn't worry about KateNonymous or JRandom42 because its obvious that they don't buy into what many organizational theorist have been saying for decades. Which is essentially: that the standard corporate environment most workers must engage in is bad for productivity, bad for health and bad for worker happines? KateNonymous is giving a straw man argument because she has "bought into" that type of idea, which was likely given to her by a superior at one time or another in her career. Its not real and freelancing certainly isn't the only option. She has likely been "fast tracked" in that type of environment, so she thinks everybody else should just get on board with that program.

JRandom42 argument has far more validity than KateNonymous. I am not sure what business he is in but engineering and manufacturing do have a necessity for holding certain hours. For example: Civil engineers can probably do 60% of their work at non-traditional hours or telecommuting. The problem is that the architect, owner group and city plan checker they are working with are in the office between 9-5, so they have to work within that schedule for RFI's change orders etc. Also, if he is in manufacturing then the standard 9-5 schedule we have today is ideally suited to that environment, that’s what it was invented for in the first place.

The only thing I disagree with JRandom42 is about just piling on more work. A minority of worker will take that work and thrive with it or just take the punishment. The rest will just slow down their productivity to a level that is acceptable to management and themselves. Employers lose money when employees make that decision, but once that happens there isn't much they can do about it (but they think they can, they story KateNonymous told is a perfect example of how this can play out). Sure they can fire them or discipline then, but once they leave the company ends up having to bring on and train a new employee to do the same job. Corporations waste money like water on this type of situation. It’s hard for many of them to grasp that "superstars" are rare. Most employees are not going to be superstars, but companies keep looking for superstars like they are a dime a dozen. Here’s a novel idea, pick someone who is a good fit for the job and the organizations; spend money to really train them; then expect them to do consistent average work; or that they “may“ possibly get inspired and try to become a superstar. Asking or expecting more is a pipedream. Corporate life isn't like the NBA or NFL it’s like high school sports, you make do with what you've got.

It costs more money to look for superstars and fire people because they are not. It’s better to have loyal people who are reliable and consistent, even if they are just average.

Actually, I think you're both missing my point. There are all kinds of different environments, and they may suit different people. But I've never heard of one that was totally self-sufficient and independent--somehow, they seem to require regular interaction with other schedules.

@boohoo, you may feel that jrandom42's argument has more validity than mine. But your comments about civil engineers actually support my point about freelancing.

@Chris, you're right--I wasn't graded for that. But that wasn't your original question. Your original question was "Do people study that way." And my answer is "Sure." Maybe you meant to ask the grading question originally. But you didn't, and I was responding to the question you did ask.

I would agree that the answer to a productive employee is not "Great! You can do more work." The better answer, at least to start with, is to find out why they are more productive than others. Do they have techniques that could help others? Also, if they're more productive, they should be rewarded for that in some way. Just piling on more work is not a reward.

@Kate - I think you're actually the one who's missing the point. I've never said that people don't need to interact, or that they work entirely independently. My vision is a lot like being in college: You had group work. You scheduled time to meet with your group and get some stuff done. Then you split off and did some solo stuff, then got back together. You got the work done. Your grade was based on the work, not the process.

Why can't that exist in a post-college work environment? Why is that "not ideal"? Do we not trust people to act like grown-ups and get work done? And if not, why did we hire them in the first place?

My original question was never "Do people study that way?". It was, "Is that the best way for everyone to study?" You cited your own experience being successful that way seemingly as proof that such a method should be best for everyone.

@Chris Ferdinandi - Why can't that exist in a post-college work environment? Why is that "not ideal"? Do we not trust people to act like grown-ups and get work done? And if not, why did we hire them in the first place?

I think you may have answered your own question. This really is what it all boils down to. Some companies have figured this stuff out and hire people who are a good fit and want to do the job. But, most employers forget that to a large degree they are creating and offering jobs that people can't get excited about and will not do well without supervision. Companies like Google on the other hand, have gone out of thier way to create and offer jobs that get people excited. In this situation employees at Google end up being super productive and do quite a bit a work for FREE. But they set the company up that way on purpose and its been paying off greatly for thier organization.

The reality that people gloss over is that most companies create and have openings for very bad jobs, which are very "un-Google like". Second they don't want to take the time or spend the money to find the best fit and really train them. So what ends up happening is that since the employer knows the job is bad, they have to fill it with a warm body that can reasonably do the task and has potential to be brainwashed to "do a double plus good job" sorting paperclips and getting yelled at all while keeping a smile on thier face. In that type of job and environment, supervision is the ONLY way to ensure employees are doing thier jobs because if better options were available no one would take that job in the first place. Companies are basically riding on the asumption that "not everyone can be a rockstar, actor or basketball player, so they will take this crappy job and work hard for whatever I pay them"

@Chris Ferdinandi - Well everybody knows Goole, but I guess I could have said Coporate Microsoft, Best Buy, Apple or MIT as employer examples (not their retail locations). They all have thier subtle differences, but its safe to say these companies are among the best employers in the U.S. and have successfully implemented some form of the schedule flexability we have been discussing.

@boohoo, to get back to the topic of bad employees, your suggestion for the situation I was in was that the employee should have had her hours, pay, and duties reduced.

I think that might work, if the employee is paid on an hourly basis. It's more complicated to pull that off if the employee is salaried--which nearly all of us, including her, were.

I also wonder: how many employees find themselves on reduced schedules and respond by turning around their performance? Is that a common reaction, or is it more common for them to grumble about that situation and either leave on their own or find that the company has now made a case for downsizing them because their position is unnecessary? And since the end result is that the original employee is gone, and a new employee has to be recruited, hired, and trained, what's the difference to the company? I would suspect that the major difference to the former employee is that he or she does not have to answer "yes" to the "have you been fired" question--but they still have to find a new job.

And in the case of this particular employee, I don't know why she took the job--it was originally offered because she had done good work as a freelancer--but this all took place in boom times. I'm sure that she could have found something else if she'd wanted to. Hopefully she did.

JRandom, I get where you're coming from - I really do. But I can't help but it find it ironic that you're writing about how employees shouldn't be spending their day engaged in social media... ON A BLOG - during the workday, no less!

@JRandom42 - "That's my call to set the priority of what needs to be accomplished. But I mean work, not personal social media or non business affairs. If that's unacceptable, no problem. We'll shake hands and go our separate ways. It's not any different with any of our competitors, vendors or customers"

You keep saying this as if every one of your employees is pushing out as much work as possible to keep you happy. They can "drag ass" and still get their work done, just not as much as you would like. There is no way you know if they aren't working their hardest or at thier fullest potential. I doubt you just: "shake hands and go our separate ways" with every person who doesn't "fully meet" your standards. That would mean your turnover is high and you’re costing the company money in other areas. Ever company has to keep some people who are perceived as "dogs" on staff because they "adequately meet" their duties day in and day out. It’s not that cut and dry even if you believe it is. Just getting rid of them doesn’t solve the problem as you have described or count as a solution in your specific case. That why made my points about rewarding good employees differently than piling on more work because you are taking chances of costing the company money in areas that you didn’t account for.

Without going into details, something like this happened with a low level executive at my company. He kept demanding more and more, so employees either quit or snowballed their work. His overall productivity dropped because nobody would do “good work” for him. Some even finagled unemployment or disability. Eventually despite his “star status” he was costing the company money because he wasn’t a “real leader” and no one would follow him once they got to know him. You can build a “career” that way, but you can’t build a healthy company around that kind of thinking.

I may be wrong about you, but you should reflect on your ability to truly "lead" people and see if you are more like your own description of the situation or more like my description of this type of situation.

@jrandom42 - Hey, if you want to slack, that's your call. Around here, you'll instantly garner all sorts of resentment from the people you work with.

The company I work at sounds a lot like yours and we have an official 3% turnover too (actually 2.5% but it doesn't make my story any less relevant and I am sorry about what I left out, thanks for addressing it).

People who "slack" generally don't care what others think of them, otherwise they wouldn't be slacking in the first place. I know you worked hard to get into management and is a feat to be proud of. But don't think you can probe into the minds of determined, snowballers, slacker, etc or whatever else you want to call them. I took issue with the statement:

"That's my call to set the priority of what needs to be accomplished. But I mean work, not personal social media or non business affairs. If that's unacceptable, no problem. We'll shake hands and go our separate ways. It's not any different with any of our competitors, vendors or customers"

People will do this stuff behind your back if they are determined enough, so its like better to just focus on their output rather than "what you think" is affecting their output. You can't stop someone who knows what they are doing and still wants to hide goofing off using social networks or whatever.

Here another example: A lot of the old guys (55+) love to read the newspaper and talk about old work stories, sports etc. Is that any more productive than going on social network sites during business hours? Well at my work you can read the newspaper on and off all day and chat, but you can't look at facebook or read a magazine. I am not doing any of this stuff, but how is it different?

@JRandom42 - I don't know how old you are, but your response makes you sound quite old. Yes, we have a simlar stance on onld employee behavior, but that doesn't make it any less of a double standard. If you think IT is enough to keep someone from surfing the web and browsing social networks, I certainly wouldn't want you making any policy or recomendations on IT infrastrcuture or policy in any organization. I understand your points, we just disagree.

I figured you were older. I am not stating that your position is incorrect. I am stating that we don't agree. I think you will find as time goes on few, if any employees (those currently under 30) will agree with you position. Right now you can manage, but if 8 out of 10 applicants feels the way I have described, you will have trouble recruiting and retaining younger employees in the age range I stated. Our company (before the economy tanked) was a having a recruting crisis over many of the ideas you have noted. Young people would come in for 3 months and walk. All from top tier engineering schools (2 from MIT left within days). We can recruit old guys till the cows come home, but young blood who will need to carry the compnay in les than a decade "hate" the environment. If management doesn't wok with them on a compromise of some kind these policies will leave "traditionaly managed" firms with few young recruits when the economy picks up again.