5 ms·

And this "effect" has to be fought because? Explain to me that wringing the last bit of productivity out of the team is required when the team as a whole still

And this "effect" has to be fought because? Explain to me that wringing the last bit of productivity out of the team is required when the team as a whole still is much faster than a smaller one. Explain where the cutoff is for optimum team size to not actually lose productivity. Explain what is the actual science behind those team interventions. Do they work, or do you just induce people to leave or burn out particular team members as the team becomes split between superloafers and superworkers? The article also conflates bystander effect with (alleged) productivity loss. They are not unrelated, but interventions to either may be different.

roenxi 4y ago
Literally nobody benifits from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time. There is almost no philosophical argument that somebody should be doing nothing purposelesslessly. The only question is should you be actively working to better yourself/your community/something under your own judgement or someone else's. During work hours as an employee, the agreement is that you are prioritising tasks based on someone else's judgement. But once that decision is made, it is still best if everyone is as productive as they can be. Although I personally assume this effect it is probably not an issue of laziness but of organisational overhead in large groups - if it were easy to avoid people would do so. There are some unreasonably motivated people out there.
- Bakary 4y ago
  There are plenty of professions and occupations that are harmful to the rest of the world, and not always in an obvious way. We are facing unprecedented existential risks due to our production and consumption patterns. We don't even need philosophical arguments, there are enough practical examples that doing nothing is sometimes a good idea!
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  "Literally nobody benifits (sic) from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time." Humans aren't robots. So... no 15 minute breaks? Just handcuff everyone to cubes with no ability to get up? Hall monitors and shitter stall monitors? Cubesitting syndrome for all! Nah, keep that work "culture" ALLLLL to yourself. Now, repeat this phrase to yourself: NET NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTOR. There very much can be work someone does that is couterproductive.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > Literally nobody benifits from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time. There is almost no philosophical argument that somebody should be doing nothing purposelesslessly. Breaks aside, thinking on a problem is indistinguishable from doing nothing purposelessly, and if you want me to report what I am thinking about then I'm out.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  You make a fine argument for paying the same for fewer hours of quality work rather than more hours of mediocre or non-work. There is also some efficiency cutoff involved here to be investigated. Not sure if you realized it, but if the overall efficiency is not affected by you being in the office, there's really no reason for you to be there. Besides a poorly written contract, that is. Unfortunately people are hired as pawns in corporate politics all the time, likewise cut. Of course, in some cases reducing hours would require hiring an actually adequate number of workers rather than overloading a few. And actually paying people.
- stefantalpalaru 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

Literally nobody benifits from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time. There is almost no philosophical argument that somebody should be doing nothing purposelesslessly. The only question is should you be actively working to better yourself/your community/something under your own judgement or someone else's. During work hours as an employee, the agreement is that you are prioritising tasks based on someone else's judgement. But once that decision is made, it is still best if everyone is as productive as they can be. Although I personally assume this effect it is probably not an issue of laziness but of organisational overhead in large groups - if it were easy to avoid people would do so. There are some unreasonably motivated people out there.

Bakary 4y ago
There are plenty of professions and occupations that are harmful to the rest of the world, and not always in an obvious way. We are facing unprecedented existential risks due to our production and consumption patterns. We don't even need philosophical arguments, there are enough practical examples that doing nothing is sometimes a good idea!
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
"Literally nobody benifits (sic) from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time." Humans aren't robots. So... no 15 minute breaks? Just handcuff everyone to cubes with no ability to get up? Hall monitors and shitter stall monitors? Cubesitting syndrome for all! Nah, keep that work "culture" ALLLLL to yourself. Now, repeat this phrase to yourself: NET NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTOR. There very much can be work someone does that is couterproductive.
throwaway290 4y ago
> Literally nobody benifits from someone sitting there doing nothing in work time. There is almost no philosophical argument that somebody should be doing nothing purposelesslessly. Breaks aside, thinking on a problem is indistinguishable from doing nothing purposelessly, and if you want me to report what I am thinking about then I'm out.
AstralStorm 4y ago
You make a fine argument for paying the same for fewer hours of quality work rather than more hours of mediocre or non-work. There is also some efficiency cutoff involved here to be investigated. Not sure if you realized it, but if the overall efficiency is not affected by you being in the office, there's really no reason for you to be there. Besides a poorly written contract, that is. Unfortunately people are hired as pawns in corporate politics all the time, likewise cut. Of course, in some cases reducing hours would require hiring an actually adequate number of workers rather than overloading a few. And actually paying people.
stefantalpalaru 4y ago