Today's Economy.

[MeDeFe]

Sorry, Player, but you failed to respond to Woodruff's point.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, Player, but you failed to respond to Woodruff's point.

I am saying his whole point is false.

The idea that time - production matters or matters more than production alone is just wrong. Managers focus too much on appearances in such situations and those appearances are way too often deceptive. However, you cannot just do a straight comparison. You have to change the entire workplace environment, specifically the criteria upon which people are judged to see this.

It is an old debate. Older people say younger workers don't do as well. Most often, it is more a matter of style, the way younger people work and the values they place on things. Managers are often way, way too quick to blame subordinates for what are really their own inequities.

[Woodruff]

Sorry, Player, but you failed to respond to Woodruff's point.

I am saying his whole point is false.

No, it definitely is NOT false. In fact, I don't honestly see how you can in any honesty see it as false. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are not interested in discussing the issue with honesty, so I will leave you to your pyrrhic victory and allow you to just look foolish. Have fun with that.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, Player, but you failed to respond to Woodruff's point.

I am saying his whole point is false.

No, it definitely is NOT false. In fact, I don't honestly see how you can in any honesty see it as false. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are not interested in discussing the issue with honesty, so I will leave you to your pyrrhic victory and allow you to just look foolish. Have fun with that.

Your question is the wrong question, because you are starting with the premise that this is about lazy people versus people who are not lazy.

I am saying it is about managers so entrenched in old practices that they refuse to see hours put in on a clock are not important.. at all.

Why you keep insisting that is irrelevant, when it is the central point, is beyond me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, Player, but you failed to respond to Woodruff's point.

I am saying his whole point is false.

No, it definitely is NOT false. In fact, I don't honestly see how you can in any honesty see it as false. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are not interested in discussing the issue with honesty, so I will leave you to your pyrrhic victory and allow you to just look foolish. Have fun with that.

Your question is the wrong question, because you are starting with the premise that this is about lazy people versus people who are not lazy.

I am saying it is about managers so entrenched in old practices that they refuse to see hours put in on a clock are not important.. at all.

Why you keep insisting that is irrelevant, when it is the central point, is beyond me.

That's part of the point, but it doesn't discount Woodruff's whole point.

(That really doesn't make sense, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at).

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that anytime you use the time-production versus output model, focus inevitably falls more on the "time" aspect.

In some, very limited capacities, it is a valid measure. But only in a limited fashion. When working a production factory line, for example. However, even then, if you ignore quality (and there IS a "quality" factor to even the simplest of operations!), you lose out. Again, focusing on time rather and step-by-step production, rather than final outcome is one reason so many factories and such are failing.

Again, this misunderstanding is a far bigger issue than the generational one.

ADDED to that is the whole societal question of how much people ought to value work over family. That is a separate question, also. However, it, too gets tied up with the others.

Bottom line is that if you, as a manager are making people choose between family and work, other than for very limited times (something broke, several people got sick/injured at once and you cannot get temp help, etc.), then you are not being an effective manager. This absolutely is counter to what many people have been taught, what many business schools still teach, but if you look at the research instead of what "everybody knows" to be correct, it turns out to be true.

[Woodruff]

The problem is that anytime you use the time-production versus output model, focus inevitably falls more on the "time" aspect.

In some, very limited capacities, it is a valid measure. But only in a limited fashion. When working a production factory line, for example. However, even then, if you ignore quality (and there IS a "quality" factor to even the simplest of operations!), you lose out. Again, focusing on time rather and step-by-step production, rather than final outcome is one reason so many factories and such are failing.

Again, this misunderstanding is a far bigger issue than the generational one.

ADDED to that is the whole societal question of how much people ought to value work over family. That is a separate question, also. However, it, too gets tied up with the others.

Bottom line is that if you, as a manager are making people choose between family and work, other than for very limited times (something broke, several people got sick/injured at once and you cannot get temp help, etc.), then you are not being an effective manager. This absolutely is counter to what many people have been taught, what many business schools still teach, but if you look at the research instead of what "everybody knows" to be correct, it turns out to be true.

No. I posed a question. A simple, logical AND VERY RELEVANT question. You want to CHANGE THAT QUESTION BEFORE ANSWERING IT. That's not how it works. And you're not even honest enough to admit it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyone here read In Praise of Slowness by Carl Honore?

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that anytime you use the time-production versus output model, focus inevitably falls more on the "time" aspect.

In some, very limited capacities, it is a valid measure. But only in a limited fashion. When working a production factory line, for example. However, even then, if you ignore quality (and there IS a "quality" factor to even the simplest of operations!), you lose out. Again, focusing on time rather and step-by-step production, rather than final outcome is one reason so many factories and such are failing.

Again, this misunderstanding is a far bigger issue than the generational one.

ADDED to that is the whole societal question of how much people ought to value work over family. That is a separate question, also. However, it, too gets tied up with the others.

Bottom line is that if you, as a manager are making people choose between family and work, other than for very limited times (something broke, several people got sick/injured at once and you cannot get temp help, etc.), then you are not being an effective manager. This absolutely is counter to what many people have been taught, what many business schools still teach, but if you look at the research instead of what "everybody knows" to be correct, it turns out to be true.

No. I posed a question. A simple, logical AND VERY RELEVANT question. You want to CHANGE THAT QUESTION BEFORE ANSWERING IT. That's not how it works. And you're not even honest enough to admit it.

I have not been feeling all that great, so if I did not answer logically or missed a point, I apologize.

I understood you to be asking if 2 people who work the same ours with different output should be treated the same in regards to promotions, etc. My response was that the question itself shows you are approaching this from the wrong "set point", the wrong direction. The answer you want is "of course, if one person works harder, they deserve to be paid more". BUT, I am saying that its almost always the wrong criteria. When you look at hours, you immediately are putting focus where it doesn't belong. If you are a traffic attendant, sitting in a booth, the sure, hours matter. However, you also don't have a lot of option for productivity. In jobs where production matters, the time it takes is irrelevant.

I wasn't trying to avoid your question. I was saying you are operating from the wrong perdium, and that is exactly a big reason for the divide between generations.

The second point was one I think you more or less tried to skirt.. regarding family. The "old school" says "job comes first.. period!". The results of that to productivity are poor. The old idea is "if the boss says 'work", I say 'how long' ". The new school is for hte boss to first define work in advance whenever possible (and its almost always possible) and then to give the employees the freedom to decide when and how to best get the work done.

Again, there absolutely are times when you cannot do this. An emergency room physician cannot very well say "sorry, not showing up today" without serious consequences. BUT, even then, the fact that they do have such demands means they need to have some time firmly set out for themselves or they will wind up "crashing". New thinking on residencies, for example, go around those ideas. Its no longer OK to have residents work 60 hour shifts without sleep, because it just means too many errors. In the event of an emergency, they might have to, but doing the old type residency is not really good training even for that eventuality.

[Snorri1234]

I understood you to be asking if 2 people who work the same ours with different output should be treated the same in regards to promotions, etc. My response was that the question itself shows you are approaching this from the wrong "set point", the wrong direction. The answer you want is "of course, if one person works harder, they deserve to be paid more". BUT, I am saying that its almost always the wrong criteria. When you look at hours, you immediately are putting focus where it doesn't belong. If you are a traffic attendant, sitting in a booth, the sure, hours matter. However, you also don't have a lot of option for productivity. In jobs where production matters, the time it takes is irrelevant.

I think an important thing to note is that looking at hours worked is not merely about productivity. It's about dedication and willingness to work at times others might not want to. In a job where productivity matters over the time it takes availability is still important. If you're not willing or unable to come in at the weekend to finish a project but someone else is the boss might not care that that person is not as fast as you because he/she is at least available to finish it.

[Woodruff]

The problem is that anytime you use the time-production versus output model, focus inevitably falls more on the "time" aspect.

In some, very limited capacities, it is a valid measure. But only in a limited fashion. When working a production factory line, for example. However, even then, if you ignore quality (and there IS a "quality" factor to even the simplest of operations!), you lose out. Again, focusing on time rather and step-by-step production, rather than final outcome is one reason so many factories and such are failing.

Again, this misunderstanding is a far bigger issue than the generational one.

ADDED to that is the whole societal question of how much people ought to value work over family. That is a separate question, also. However, it, too gets tied up with the others.

Bottom line is that if you, as a manager are making people choose between family and work, other than for very limited times (something broke, several people got sick/injured at once and you cannot get temp help, etc.), then you are not being an effective manager. This absolutely is counter to what many people have been taught, what many business schools still teach, but if you look at the research instead of what "everybody knows" to be correct, it turns out to be true.

No. I posed a question. A simple, logical AND VERY RELEVANT question. You want to CHANGE THAT QUESTION BEFORE ANSWERING IT. That's not how it works. And you're not even honest enough to admit it.

I have not been feeling all that great, so if I did not answer logically or missed a point, I apologize.

I understood you to be asking if 2 people who work the same ours with different output should be treated the same in regards to promotions, etc. My response was that the question itself shows you are approaching this from the wrong "set point", the wrong direction. The answer you want is "of course, if one person works harder, they deserve to be paid more". BUT, I am saying that its almost always the wrong criteria. When you look at hours, you immediately are putting focus where it doesn't belong. If you are a traffic attendant, sitting in a booth, the sure, hours matter. However, you also don't have a lot of option for productivity. In jobs where production matters, the time it takes is irrelevant.

Jesus Christ, you STILL don't get it. How fucking hard is it to READ THE FUCKING SENTENCE? SERIOUSLY? My God.

I wasn't trying to avoid your question.

The f*ck you're not. You're either fucking avoiding the question or you're the stupidest fucker on this site.

The second point was one I think you more or less tried to skirt.

What fucking second point? There was ONE POINT. THAT'S ALL...ONE. You've come in and TRIED TO CHANGE THE FUCKING SITUATION, creating other points THAT DO NOT EXIST WITHIN NOR HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO THE FRAMEWORK OF MY STATEMENT.

f*ck me to fucking tears. Learn how to fucking read.

[thegreekdog]

Is someone sitting for Woodruff?

I mean, I understand dave's point. However, that being said, I'm not a member of the baby boomer generation. I'm a member of the shitty, no work, lots of play generation. But I see the work ethic of the majority of the people of my generation and the younger generation and it makes me angry. And not just the work ethic, the sense that the person is entitled to a raise and/or bonus despite not working any more than he or she has to work. That's my issue. If you want to work less, fine, but you're going to get paid less (at least in my profession).

[Woodruff]

Is someone sitting for Woodruff?

Nope. I've never had a sitter, nor will I. Just extraordinarily frustrated with PLAYER's complete unwillingness to READ THE FUCKING SENTENCE.

I mean, I understand dave's point. However, that being said, I'm not a member of the baby boomer generation. I'm a member of the shitty, no work, lots of play generation. But I see the work ethic of the majority of the people of my generation and the younger generation and it makes me angry. And not just the work ethic, the sense that the person is entitled to a raise and/or bonus despite not working any more than he or she has to work. That's my issue. If you want to work less, fine, but you're going to get paid less (at least in my profession).

Clearly, you know nothing. NOTHING, I SAY!

[tdans]

LOL... humorous read..

[thegreekdog]

Is someone sitting for Woodruff?

Nope. I've never had a sitter, nor will I. Just extraordinarily frustrated with PLAYER's complete unwillingness to READ THE FUCKING SENTENCE.

I mean, I understand dave's point. However, that being said, I'm not a member of the baby boomer generation. I'm a member of the shitty, no work, lots of play generation. But I see the work ethic of the majority of the people of my generation and the younger generation and it makes me angry. And not just the work ethic, the sense that the person is entitled to a raise and/or bonus despite not working any more than he or she has to work. That's my issue. If you want to work less, fine, but you're going to get paid less (at least in my profession).

Clearly, you know nothing. NOTHING, I SAY!

You have to get used to Player. She tends to change the subject out of nowhere and almost never addresses the point. I also get frustrated, but it's hard to get angry at Player (of all people). I mean, the feuds with Jay and Colton and Sultan, I can understand... but Player?