Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.