How to Approach This Situation at Work?

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 

  Quantumcat on 04/12/2018 - 07:56

  +5

  If they are playing with their phones it is because they are bored. Make sure they have enough work to do and that there are time deadlines for it. If necessary have a meeting with them and ask if they're happy with their job, what could be improved about the work they're given, etc. since you see them doing non-work activities very often. Either they'll have some ideas or they'll be scared out of playing with their phone in future.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:05

    There is enough work, and I did have a informal meeting, and I was very subtle about they doing the non-work activities; but I will wait for a bit and then be more direct this time.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 08:05

  +12

  Came here for a comment like…

  only let them surf on ozbargain

  Left disappointed.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:07

    Sure, Ozbargain surfing should be excused and should be mentioned under employment agreement, NOT. Haha.

• 

  pegaxs on 04/12/2018 - 08:13

  +4

  Simple. At our work, it’s phones at smoko and lunch time. Outside that, it’s a sackable offence.

  And the people here who are saying, “they are bored/need to be more engaged”. No, sometimes work is tedious and boring, that’s the nature of having a job. The best part is, if you want a challenge or are bored, then find another job that is more exciting.

  And as for suggestions of “recognition”, Christ, this isn’t primary school, where every special flower gets a participation medal. Your reward is, do your job and get money for it and you may still have your job come Monday morning.

  The reason these kids are on their phones is because this isn’t their dream job, and they just want a job the same as their favourite social media influencer and management is letting them play on their phones is taking the path of least resistance. What is lacking here is leadership. Have a meeting and just put a stop to it. Give them a few home truths. Don’t single anyone out, just say that the new policy in effect is, no more phones on work time. Break times only.

  Not putting a stop to this and pandering to frail emotions and precious flowers only reinforces their behaviour. This is the future workforce that wants special treatment, and the more special treatment they get, the more they will expect. Then it’s come to work, phone all day, go home, because we don’t want to upset anyone.

  Time for a cup of concrete and a reality check. The good run is over, it’s time to do what you are paid to do. And unless you are a social media engagement team, then it’s phones down while on works time.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 09:30

    -2

    the people here who are saying, “they are bored/need to be more engaged”

    Thank you. People seem to expect adults to be treated like schoolchildren who need prizes and stickers to work competently. Yes - those things can work, but at the end of the day adults should be expected to be self-motivated and disciplined when they're being paid to do a job.

    • 

      pegaxs on 04/12/2018 - 11:13

      Look everyone! I got "Best Speadsheet" sticker! :D

      The problem starts at school. These kids leave school that has treated everyone as special and awesome and in the workplace, they are just a gear in a machine. They dont and cant get their heads around the fact that this is real life. And handing out warm fuzzies to everyone in a workplace is time consuming and devalues everyone's time.

      Do the job you are paid to do. You were hired to do a job, and unless that job is "chat on snapchat all day", then put the phone down. If you run out of work, ask for more, there is always something to be done. If there isnt, asking for more will make you seem proactive, so when cutbacks set in, your phone loving cubicle buddy is out a long time before you are.

      There are no special snowflakes. Unless you volunteer your time for free, then at least do what you are paid to do. Dont do it for the scratch and sniff sticker or the "most besterest improver" award. Do your job because that's what your boss hired you to do.

    • 

      Chris12345 on 04/12/2018 - 13:42

      +5

      Your awfully high and mighty on this topic. Surprises me given how much you post on the OzB forums. Maybe your more of a problem worker then you think…

      • 

        HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 13:43

        -3

        I meet my KPIs. Which, if you see my first comment in this thread, is what I'm suggesting OP do too.

        • 

          Chris12345 on 04/12/2018 - 13:44

          +1

          @HighAndDry: I don't have enough time to read all of your comments. Got work to do.

        • 

          boostpak on 05/12/2018 - 08:47

          @HighAndDry: High and Dry is also a car and bmw specialist as he knows about every car and their reliability. He is a wizard in all areas of life really.

          • 

            HighAndDry on 05/12/2018 - 08:49

            @boostpak: Ha! Looks like I've also got a fan club.

  • 

    one man clan on 04/12/2018 - 10:08

    What industry do your work in?

    • 

      pegaxs on 04/12/2018 - 11:18

      -1

      What difference does it make?

      • 

        Name on 04/12/2018 - 20:04

        +3

        I'll answer for one man clan, I've worked in two different industries and it's very different between both.

        I used to work as a carpenter. No phones, very strict. Clear smoko breaks, clear start and end times.

        I now work in an office environment, colleagues and clients are expected to reach me at any point. I need a mobile phone for work, my industry body is also on Facebook and industry events are advertised through LinkedIn. I need to access all these things in order to do my job. Banning a mobile phone and all social media isn't possible. I also only have fixed core hours 10am-2pm, the rest of the time it doesn't matter when I get in to work or leave unless I have a meeting / workshop / presentation. It is progressively becoming less important to even be at work and a lot of people are now working from home. I work in an organisation with 50,000 employees. As long as we produce results, you do what you want.

        So the above is why industry makes a difference to what is and isn't applicable.

        • 

          boostpak on 05/12/2018 - 08:48

          @Name: banning stuff seems like such highschool tactics… you're an adult, you can have the authority in that area. Glad you got out!!

        • 

          one man clan on 07/12/2018 - 09:19

          @Name: I couldn't be bothered reply to such a toxic idiot so thanks, lol. Obviously works in construction given he talks about smoko

  • 

    U4333439 on 04/12/2018 - 13:29

    +1

    I would follow this up with getting people to only use phones away from their desk to avoid the 'perception of slackness'. Blame upper mgt. Otherwise you find the habits creep back. Mind you, I'm terrible at this side of mgt myself, and know it is something I need to work on.

  • 

    abb on 04/12/2018 - 14:31

    +5

    Christ, this isn’t primary school, where every special flower gets a participation medal.

    Apparently it's rather high school, where you have to keep your phone in your bag, or you get kicked out of class?

    As a semi-desk-bound type of 'professional' employee, I'd never accept a job where I could be fired for receiving a call about a home emergency.

    I can understand the rule in safety-critical or customer-facing roles, of course, but in office roles you generally expect a bit of give and take.

    • 

      pegaxs on 04/12/2018 - 15:20

      -1

      Hold on a min there cowboy. There is a big difference in responding to a home/family emergency and "wasting time on their phones." This post is about social media, web surfing or YouTube type activities, not whether grandma took a tumble in the kitchen.

      If you are at a desk bound job, chances are you have a phone on your desk. If it was a "real" emergency, ie: your dog is choking after chewing off your toddlers leg, I am sure that anyone who was required to let you know could ring your work and be patched through to you. So, even your point here is moot.

      And no one is getting sacked over one emergency call.

      And I believe that this bad, bullshit attitude is cultured in high school. You are there to learn, so learn. You cant do that with a phone in your hand. School is only 6 hours long with 2 hours worth of breaks. Plenty of time to play "catch up" on your social media bullshit during your own time. Same goes for work. Only difference there is, you are paid to be at work, and you're expected to do what you are being paid for.

      • 

        abb on 04/12/2018 - 16:10

        You said

        At our work, it’s phones at smoko and lunch time. Outside that, it’s a sackable offence.

        OK, you get an exception for emergencies, that's good.

        Luckily, I'm specifically allowed a "limited" amount of personal internet/phone use on top of emergencies. We don't have fixed break times.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:17

    +1

    Exactly my thoughts, I has such expectation too. Eventually, if things don't improve then I guess, we can make an example out of someone to start of with. Growing up, we faced some hard times, and I always prayed that I wish to grow up and have a job one day. And I was/am so grateful to have a job every day. I feel that it is relatively easy here (maybe in my limited experience) and the grit/perseverance is lacking sometimes. If tomorrow I am told to clean the place, I will even mop it and make sure I do a better job than anyone else. I might not be happy about it, but job's a job. But I have understood it over time that this is an unreasonable expectation and I am not in that mindset anymore.

    Thanks for taking out time. I am grateful.

• 

  Meho2026 on 04/12/2018 - 08:17

  +11

  Your staff are unmotivated, as a manager it’s your job to address that.
  If you genuinely don’t know how to deal with it you need to educate yourself and ask for help from your superior.
  There is an expectation that managers have studied and undergone training in these kind of issues.
  This situation is a reflection in your competence as a manager.
  Government organisations always have easily accessible education go and do a course on staff motivation.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 10:25

    -5

    Your staff are unmotivated, as a manager it’s your job to address that.

    You bet they'd be motivated to stay off social media if they see someone else getting fired for it.

    • 

      one man clan on 04/12/2018 - 10:53

      +7

      I think they'd be more motivated to find another job without toxic micromanagement

      • 

        HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 10:56

        People also find other jobs if they keep having to pick up the slack of other, lazier, workers.

      • 

        uedamasaki on 04/12/2018 - 11:48

        +6

        Yikes, it's frightening to hear that we've come to an age where firing people for not doing what they were hired to do is considered "toxic micromanagement". Not directed at you specifically, but just the recurring themes of it being the OP's responsibility to make sure the employees are motiviated to do their job. I thought it was the employee's responsiblity to do the work they're paid to do. Pay needs to be earned, it shouldn't be an entitlement.

        I'm sure most people would not be happy if their tradie charged them by the hour while spending a fair portion of that on social media.

        • 

          one man clan on 04/12/2018 - 12:59

          +3

          @uedamasaki: Because the world's moved on from the industrial revolution and realised that there's a balance between performance and job satisfaction that results in the best outcome for the business and staff?

          It's got nothing to do with some kind of "harden up snowflake" attitude.

          People aren't robots and culture is an important part of a workplace.

          I think it also depends on your interpretation of the post and how much time people are on their phones vs working etc. There seems to be two camps in this thread based on two perceptions - one that these lazy millenials are on their phones all day and not doing any work, and another that people may have a break to check their phones after completing a task.

          • 

            uedamasaki on 04/12/2018 - 14:49

            @one man clan: Fair point. Maybe my response was too black and white.

            I agree work place culture is important. I just don't think "good work place culture" equates to allowing employees to engross themselves in their social media during working hours. Infact I would argue in the above scenario the OP's employees may be using social media to escape their work place environment because they don't feel engaged any longer. The OP has made it clear that this use is in excess to what he/she feels is reasonable for the job. I believe work place culture actually has little to do with just being lenient and letting people get away with these things. You can still have enforceable rules and happy employees.

            I understand we've moved on from the industrial revolution, but still I do think this "you made this work place toxic because you told me I did something wrong" mentality is toxic in itself. I'm genuinely curious to know, but do people actually think "minimal non-related work activities outside a designated break" as a rule is unreasonable? That's what breaks are for right? And is "you may lose your job if you repeatedly break the rules" that unreasonable?

            • 

              one man clan on 04/12/2018 - 15:57

              +2

              @uedamasaki: Neither of the the suggestions in your last paragraph are unreasonable, and are probably commonplace policies.

              Again, it comes down to personal perspective on the issue and interpretation of the OP's facts. In my reading of it, the staff were completing their work and occasionally checking their phone and maybe responding to a text, not sitting watching youtube videos at work and doing nothing.

              In reality it's probably somewhere between the two. In my view, if staff are unmotivated and under performing, the solution isn't to fire them and hope to get someone better, but rather work with the person to find out how to best increase productive time.

              • 

                uedamasaki on 04/12/2018 - 16:57

                @one man clan: Makes sense. I'd hate to be in OP's position because I'm actually very conscious about how others perceive me.

                Best of luck to the OP, but I would just simply set a few fair and unambiguous rules and enforce them consistently.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:22

    Yes, doing a crash course in management. Have read some textbooks, and read a lot of reward theory (intrinsic/extrinsic). Thought might pick up some better ideas here and get a wider understanding and approach the situation carefully, considering people's experiences. Wanted to learn from other's mistakes, what worked and what didn't.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 08:19

  +5

  Having myself been a Manager in Thailand i can assure you Thai workers are far far worser than Aussie workers.

  Hav3 you heard of the “ lose face” mentality in Thailand?

  Thais hate to be told especially a farang what to do and they do things halfheartedly with a its a “good enough “ approach,they prefer to have “ sanook” / fun at work rather than work AND Thai workers dont care about being reliable so think how lucky you are to be a Thai working with Aussies

  Having said that , you need to put a “ balance “ into your management, a overactive style and yiu will have them turn against you and a not care style will do opposite

  I suggest you use motivation as a tool,if they are performing then give them some free time obvy,encourage goals,make out your excited by their work, talk highly of customer service, and performance and motivation, but also draw the line and be firm if you think they are overstepping the mark by telling them bluntly but firmly that yiu dont mind there on so ial media as long as they have performed the duties required , otherwise go firm on them rather than be walked on

  Unfortunately this wont work with Thai employees

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:29

    I did not intend to compare the two countries at all, and I totally understand your point of view and agree with it.

    Changing a country's attitude about cutting corners, and "good enough", is a hard task. Such attitude is widely prevalent and yes, standards here are much higher.

    Thanks for your thoughts, I intend to be mindful of the "balance" in management. I am grateful.

  • 

    SpotTheOzzie on 05/12/2018 - 08:59

    -1

    Thank you.

    Its annoying when people come to Australia and nitpick at us for apparent shortcomings, and not usually be called out because the audience doesn't have the perspective of living there.

    • 

      SpotTheOzzie on 05/12/2018 - 12:30

      -1

      I got a neg for that comment?

      Shows a lot about you as a person.

• 

  trustnoone on 04/12/2018 - 08:38

  +5

  Are they doing the amount of work they're supposed to? Usually people tend to jump onto social media when they start getting too much free time, thats not overall a bad thing but it could be that they either don't have much work to go on, or they're no longer engaged in the work anymore. You might want to talk to them about development opportunities, where they want to grow, if they have any career pathways they're looking for?

  Keep in mind though the money part of it, usually public employees get paid well but not amazing, work is slightly more relaxed and so is there pay. If you make there work more hectic but pay doesn't reflect that, you might see them bail.

  Also I know its news.com.au but apparently on average in a work place most people only work around 3 hours a day https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/employees-avera…

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:33

    I think our pay is reasonably good than any other private/government organisations. However, people take it for granted and sometimes don't have much experience working elsewhere.

    Oops, surprised by this 3 hour stat, which is less than 40% of the workday. I would have thought atleast 5 hours would have been reasonable. Thanks for your insightful information.

    • 

      one man clan on 06/12/2018 - 10:32

      I know this is from a few days ago but when my work restructured they factored that people would be productively working for 5 hrs 10 mins in a 7 hour day.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 05/12/2018 - 06:41

    +1

    Also I know its news.com.au but apparently on average in a work place most people only work around 3 hours a day

    Maybe this is a problem and not a standard to aim for.

• 

  Ryanek on 04/12/2018 - 08:54

  +3

  I would raise your initial concern with your staff by sending out a group email so as to not point out any one individual. The email should outline a fair use policy that indicates non-work activities should be kept at a moderate minimum.

  I would then contact your IT department and get a report on their internet usage. This will give you a definite answer on who's doing what. If the problem persists you can use this data to say: "look… you spent two hours yesterday looking at cat videos, what the hell dude".

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:34

    Thanks yes, I intend to do this (group email) to get the ball rolling.

• 

  Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/12/2018 - 08:59

  +16

  I am going to be absolutely ruthless and honest as you requested.

  I've worked in mid, top tier companies and your post reeks of you being the "star" entry/low level employee who got promoted to a low-tier management position to see how you do. From your post it is clear you are not doing well. Sink or swim. Your senior manager and director and are more concerned with YOUR performance. You are far more expendable than the staff you manage. They do the essential grunt work that is required otherwise the organisation ceases to function. If you cannot get your staff to meet their KPIs and targets, your director can (and should) sack YOU and install someone that will motivate, inspire and put the pressure on.

  So, forget about the staff you manage for a second, what have YOU done:

  1. to increase your knowledge and skills in management? TAFE/Uni/online courses/seminars?
  2. to address your "low productivity"? Great managers lead by example. Are your staff overburdened? Take some of the work and pump it out yourself.
  3. to identify the key elements that are causing low productivity? Is the work getting done? Is there enough of it? Or is the issue quality of work? You need to establish this.
  4. to establish clear and distinct KPIs with staff? Do you sit down with each staff member individually on occasion to review and discuss their output? If not why?

  From your post it appears you really have no idea why your team isn't performing as expected. Your only guess is 'laziness'. Honestly, I would start addressing the issues by looking at your own work.

  Also, I completely agree with the posts above, a formal warning, sacking can really set an example - but this needs to come from senior management. This allows OP to play the "good cop" and get the staff back on track (as long as the issue isn't OP). I doubt OP has the authority in his role to fire someone anyways.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:38

    +7

    This has been one of the most helpful answers, as it presented a few things, which I didn't think of earlier. Truly grateful.

• 

  Tightpocket on 04/12/2018 - 09:01

  +1

  I think as a Manager you need to give them enough work and a reasonable deadline…its your opportunity to gauge whether they are being productive or not, if they do complete their work on time and the result is amazing, I don't know if you can complain about their browsing time.

  Give them extra project to take on, online learning, CPI, etc. the last thing you wanna do is to make them work deliberately slow to avoid extra work.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 09:06

  My senior manager and director do want our performance to improve, but not at the cost of anyone's welfare or toxicity in the work environment. This public organisation

  This snippet highlights why we should have a minimum government. The best interest of the primary financier isn't being represented.

  How to approach - the issue isn't the staff. You as a manager want performance to improve. I want a Bugatti. If performance is low, you aren't working either.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 04/12/2018 - 09:24

    +4

    Having "mimimum government" is not the best solution, it is an exercise in the people with the most money getting what they want and stuff the rest. If the Victorian election has proven anything it is people want infrastructure built and maintained for the general good. I've worked in both private industry and public service - it is pretty much same, same.

    I would also be careful about escalating to senior management something like this; not a great way to win friends and influence people. If the OP is unclear about what "productivity gains" your manager wants then sit down and determine the outputs and timelines, this can then be put, in a clear manner, to the employees.

    Clear guildelines is a big problem I have seen with many of the outsourcing models for services. Managers don't want to manage anymore so they outsource to overseas companies with the view to "savings"; then then proceed to fire eveyone in the organistation who knows what they are doing. Prices go up, service levels go down and everyone accepts that crap service is the new normal and, because they have not set clear outcome requirements, the outsource company says everything costs "extra".

    • 

      HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 12:45

      people want infrastructure built and maintained for the general good.

      Yeah but the same people never want to pay for it - they'd rather other people with more money pay for everything.

      • 

        abb on 04/12/2018 - 14:40

        I know many well-off people who vote for such policies. Here's an example, not someone I know though:

        If you look at, you know, public schooling and public health care, public welfare, those are necessary common goods. And that can only happen by lots of people paying tax and a small group of people saying, "Hey, I'm going to take a piece of that tax revenue and put it towards this benefit for everybody."

        Mike Cannon-Brookes, one of the 20 richest people in Aus.

        • 

          HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 15:02

          @abb: Oh no doubt. A lot of rich people engage in philanthropic efforts even in addition to the taxes that they pay. I applaud their generosity.

  • 

    Baghern on 04/12/2018 - 10:49

    yeh then the same people whinge about scammers in their area of interest because there is no Government body to look after it

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 11:38

      And those whingers are still whinging. When a government body catches on to a scamming system, it takes a whole lot of talking, investigating, consulting… Etc. before a protocol gets implemented.

      One the scammer catches on to a new protocol, they switch as and when they have a few new angles lined up.

      If we're measuring efficiency, I'm sure a scam call centre wins hands down.

    • 

      HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 12:04

      Scams are a law enforcement issue. If we spent less tax revenue on other areas, that should mean more resources for law enforcement. I'd support that.

    • 

      D C on 04/12/2018 - 12:15

      because there is no Government body to look after it

      The definition of small government is getting rid of the stuff you personally don't need.

      I've never called the ACA or Fair Trading, so….

      • 

        HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 12:45

        Eh, it's getting rid of stuff you think isn't a government responsibility.

        I've never had to use the armed forces either, but I'm not going to argue to abolish them. Likewise the fire department, or the SES.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 09:31

  +1

  I've worked in both private industry and public service - it is pretty much same, same.

  I agree, just because it is private doesn't make it automatically run better. The difference is the primary financier typically has a say in a private business.

  If the Victorian election has proven anything it is people want infrastructure built and maintained for the general good.

  Voting is exactly that, what people want which isn't to say it's a bad thing but neither does it make it a good thing. It is simply the voice of the majority.

  In the case of the Victorian election, people didn't vote Labour so much as they didn't want Vic Liberal to be in power. It was very evident in safe Lib seats where typical Lib voters turned away.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 04/12/2018 - 09:46

    +2

    The private financier type has limited input as well. I'm a share holder in a number of companies and, individually, my say is almost squat. The public has a say in how the public service is run; it depends on their vote. Unfortunately, too often, this consists of cutting back the public service to save money than ensuring the public service is, efficiently, providing the services we want.

    The Liberal party has drifted too far to the right for the average Australian voter; the joke being they still don't seem to understand this. However, apparently a lot of the polling done showed that the Andrews Government is popular because they are doing something about infrastructure - improving public transport, hospitals, roads, etc. I don't know if it is related but our gas mains, water, etc are also being upgraded at the moment. Getting across Melbourne at the moment is a nightmare due to all the infrastructure works, but it is desperately needed.

    The entire leadership team in the Liberal party at the moment are Backpfeifengesicht (a face "in need of a slap").

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 10:23

      The private financier type has limited input as well. I'm a share holder in a number of companies and, individually, my say is almost squat.

      You can sell your share. You say is almost squat but still proportional to your share.

      In a public organization, I cannot stop funding a specific arm of government.

      Andrews Government is popular because they are doing something about infrastructure - improving public transport, hospitals, roads, etc.

      Of course the typical Labor voter likes this. It requires employment, lots of contracts to be had, and paid for by taxpayers and future money for the equal enjoyment of those who have not equally contributed financially.

• 

  outlander on 04/12/2018 - 09:40

  -2

  whenever I notice anything good as we don't have much budget for financial incentives

  This says it all. Your post is really "how do I get people to do more work for no extra money". That right there cuts you off at the knees and takes away your most effective positive approach.

  Some of the 'geniuses' above have recommended going at it from the negative side, and firing any trouble makers. That can work a little, enough to boost performance in the short term. Long term it won't hold, but by then you'll have been promoted to somewhere else. But with this

  My senior manager and director do want our performance to improve, but not at the cost of anyone's welfare or toxicity in the work environment

  you're so limited in what you can do, that they've basically cut off your arms as well. So you have no legs, no arms.. all your really left with is to say to people "I'll be their best friend if you work harder"

  • 

    HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 10:53

    +2

    Your post is really "how do I get people to do more work for no extra money"

    OP wants people to do work during work hours. Seems hardly unreasonable.

    • 

      pegaxs on 04/12/2018 - 11:23

      +1

      Yeah, it sounds more like OP is asking, "how can I get people to do the amount of work they are actually paid for." And throwing money at people is not the answer. Because they will do the same amount, but now just get more for it.

    • 

      outlander on 04/12/2018 - 11:38

      +2

      Maybe you haven't noticed, but people are generally unreasonable by nature. They're more likely to do the least they can get away with than the most. And it gets worse the bigger the group they're in

      • 

        HighAndDry on 04/12/2018 - 11:47

        +1

        Oh, I completely agree and understand this. Which is why positive incentives to encourage people to do what they already should be doing is something I don't recommend. They're already being paid to work. OP can offer performance bonuses, but that would be for performance over and above the minimum expected amount.

• 

  Fergy1987 on 04/12/2018 - 10:04

  I hope you're not at work on Ozbargain.

  Also management should be able to deal with their employees….hence the title "Manager"

• 

  try2bhelpful on 04/12/2018 - 10:12

  +5

  We seem to have another post where the OP has put up an "issue" and then is not responding to anything being posted. I've said my piece now, I'm off.

  • 

    Baysew on 04/12/2018 - 10:51

    +3

    OP might want be setting an example by not indulging in OzBargain in work hours.

    • 

      Baysew on 04/12/2018 - 13:47

      • to
      • 

        Scrooge McDuck on 04/12/2018 - 16:50

        Comment editing privileges for Power Users!

        • 

          Baysew on 04/12/2018 - 17:22

          @Scrooge McDuck: That will come when the Power Users rise up against the overlord Mod masters.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:41

    I read all your comments. Thank you very much.

• 

  prisonmike on 04/12/2018 - 10:34

  +3

  Another approach is to set their daily/weekly objectives and get them to produce deliverables at the end of the week. Kinda like a weekly (Frequency may vary depending on the work your department/team does) sprints. If they are not meeting their assigned objectives over couple of sprints then discuss with them on the obstacles preventing them from completing it (such as excessive breaks, time wasting, social media usage etc.). After that if they are still not being productive and failing to deliver then the next approach will be to discuss it with HR about disciplinary actions.

  Note all your observations and include in their annual review. Firing or micro-managing is not the solution all the time. Workplace should be flexible as long as the employee delivers deliverable on time. Atleast this is how I manage my teams to get the productivity out. Hope this helps you in your situation as well.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:42

    Thanks Neilson. Helpful post.

  • 

    chuckles89 on 05/12/2018 - 11:27

    +1

    Yes! completely agree with Neilson.

    I am also a mid-level manager in a public organisation. However, a lot of my role itself requires a lot of research which burns me out, so i find using my phone every hour for approximately 10 minutes gives me the break i need to continue.

    I am a lot more motivated when i can do this. So perhaps you need to find out the motivations for them also.
    what sort of work are they doing? strategic? BAU? is every day the same? whilst you may notice they are always on their phone it could also be their equivalent to going for a short walk/break. If the nature of the work is a little difficult this might be something they need.

    Introducing an agile approach (think innovation) may assist. My team do daily stand ups just to talk about our work, challenges and what we aim to achieve and i have found that it encourages collaboration and communication and allows everyone to understand each others roles a little more.

    Perhaps you could reinvent how your team do things, change up the role responsibilities if this is possible to do so.

    I understand how difficult it can be to manage under-performers in the public sector

• 

  Some Human on 04/12/2018 - 10:46

  +2

  Have you tried printing out a stern memo detailing that using a phone during worktime is a sackable offense and then following through with it by sacking the worst offender? Or is that just not possible?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 10:54

  +5

  Go to their cubicle and ask if they read the TPS report memo.

  • 

    djkelly69 on 04/12/2018 - 12:07

    Goddamit, I only scrolled down this far to make a TPS report joke!

• 

  KaTst3R on 04/12/2018 - 11:31

  +2

  I would expect a public organisation to have an IT usage policy. It should over things like restriction on non-work related computer and internet usage. After a verbal warning, provide a written warning and next is firing. Consult HR on course of action.

  • 

    fishball on 05/12/2018 - 13:57

    Everyone just uses their smartphones nowadays though not the PC. When I worked in gov they blocked pretty much everything even stuff like smh/abc etc was on quota of 30 min.

• 

  kickmiass on 04/12/2018 - 11:47

  Personally, i feel the same way. Having occasional breaks and on the phone 20 minutes a day. I wouldn't have an issue with.

  If its more than that, i'd probably be on their ass 24/7.

  I mean another question i'd be asking myself is, do they perform well and meet their deadlines or are they behind and just being lazy? If they work well and perform well but spend time on their phone a bit longer, i don't think i'd harass them too much.

  At the end of the day, you pay someone a certain amount of money to do work so they meet their objectives or try their best to.

  If not, they perform poorly and don't meet objecives because of laziness whats the point of keeping them around.

  If they plan on going further and promotions etc, that is up to them how they want to perceive themselves. Unless they are stupid, they know what they are doing especially if they are behind. If they want a promotion, you can bet your ass the managers are not going to promote someone they know are poor performers when they are under pressure.

  Just remember, Toxicity in work place will exist but what you should look into is how to manage it rather that not have it at all.

  Keep the performance up and demonstrate it. Colleagues influence each other and the more you can control that the better it is.

  If the workers aren't happy in return, then they should move on because this job isn't for them.

  Businesses are a pyramid structure. The higher ups are going to hire people to do work they don't have time for and it keeps going down the structure until you reach the bottom tier workers. Your upper management will look at your to see how your division is performing numbers and everything. They want results not excuses.

  To put it simply, it's either your ass or theirs when they look at your performance. Simple as that.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:44

    Thanks a bunch, much appreciated.

    Following comment, got me in the right frame, I think - "Toxicity in work place will exist but what you should look into is how to manage it rather that not have it at all."

• 

  T1OOO on 04/12/2018 - 12:27

  +1

  if they have time for that then its your fault, they dont have enough work to keep them busy…..

  i prefer to work , let the time fly by and go home happy (quickly by perception) than lazily browse the net - theres not mucht here anyways, so its no done for enjoyment.

  how you tackle it is up to you - but i wouldn't blame the millennials much, get them on side and the are guns worth their weight in gold.

  Ps, sounds like you guys and director are too cumfy in your own jobs, not them! ;-)

  Good Luck.

• 

  askme69 on 04/12/2018 - 12:27

  +2

  You can't change it, it is ingrained now.

  Studies have shown that if you take it away, productivity will decrease as people are thinking about what is happening on social media instead of work.

  When the schools ban mobile phones, that generation will be used to it and it would be able to be implemented then. Not atm though.

  • 

    uedamasaki on 04/12/2018 - 14:52

    It's like an addiction. If you take it away, people withdraw. If you openly allow it to continue, use will escalate and it will be harder to take it away in the future.

    Best to have "safe use" arrangements, ie adequate breaks.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 16:52

    Studies have shown

    Can I get the link to these studies please

• 

  Haha Hihi Hoho on 04/12/2018 - 12:34

  +1

  so what i did was, take them all to a meeting and ask them how long each task should takes and have a discussion about how mnay things should be done within a day. Assuming that you are familiar with the task itself, so you know if they are BS ing you or if your senior manager is being unreasonable. by getting them to agree to all of this you would avoid being seen as a micro managing or a tyrant and your team would feel more appreciated.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:45

    Thanks.

• 

  frostman on 04/12/2018 - 13:11

  +1

  Here is a simple process plan to follow:

  Have a meeting with your staff and assign KPIs and Action Items.
  These tasks must have a due-by, naturally people surfing web or social media will miss the targets.
  When that happens, you call them into the meeting based on the missed KPI, not Twitter/Tinder/Grindr/whatever (dont focus on that).
  This will subtly wake them up on the premise that their extra-curricular habits are impacting their work.
  This could also give you a better firing line via HR.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:48

    Thank you.

• 

  annyfication on 04/12/2018 - 13:19

  +1

  • They see a work culture without consequences. Even if they are caught being on social media, what's the worst that can happen? They see it as a comfortable job with great security.
  • So many hoops to jump through to fire in public sector.
  • Set quantitative performance targets.
  • Does it matter to you if they're on social media for an hour a day if they are the highest performer? Sure, if they're underperforming and effing around, fair enough. Otherwise, if they're so efficient, let them have their mental break.
  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:49

    Thanks.

• 

  aussieolfaction on 04/12/2018 - 14:15

  +7

  Some key information is missing here - are these young employees completing their work assignments on time, or not?

  • 

    greater mimic on 04/12/2018 - 15:11

    +2

    Yeah honestly OP, if they're completing their work on time and to an acceptable level, is there a problem? It could be that they're just more proficient at working with excel etc. and can complete their work faster so they have time to mess around on social media or whatever.

• 

  garetz on 04/12/2018 - 15:21

  How do you have this position when you do not know how to respond to this kind of situation ? Look at your companies guidelines, and implement them, there should be some kind of system in place that you can can take advantage of, at worst you can let your team know that this behavior is not on as a prelude to warnings being provided then firings if the problem persists.

  you are definitely a push over at best, incompetent at worst.

  • 

    pulpfiction on 04/12/2018 - 16:19

    +2

    Most management don't know how to respond effectively to influence desired behaviour, they tend to be horrible at leading people (if you need evidence look at national engagement scores, royal commission findings etc etc). The fact this person is challenging the standard thinking and seeking other ideas is an incredibly positive sign.

    The approach you mention is unlikely to benefit anyone, unless they have an incredibly forward thinking set of guidelines and policies.

• 

  pulpfiction on 04/12/2018 - 16:12

  Others have hinted at this without the same frame: it's exceptionally likely what will be causing this is the work environment, not the people themselves. A stern conversation will only act as a disservice to you and your people.

  There is some brilliant information and research on how to engage your people on productive tasks and understanding why they might be excessively engaging in low productivity activities. A couple of tips:
  1) Ask people why people might be doing this, remembering to include the offenders and others who are not offending, and be careful not to accuse or imply. Just use it as a data point, the insights will be valuable.
  2) Ask the team what they believe could be done to increase performance, ideally focusing on low hanging process improvements.
  2) Look at the environment and consider does it encourage high performance, a simple version of this is Dan Pink's Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose, or a little more advanced is Google's research on high performing teams.
  3) Related to this is focus, ensure your people have a limited amount of work underway to increase pace and increasing the likelihood of success. If you can have them focusing on initiatives as a team, you'll get the most bang for buck.

  • 

    curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:52

    Great resources and thoughts. Much appreciated.

• 

  rehevoli on 04/12/2018 - 16:15

  +4

  It's ironic that I'm at work and reading this post…

  • 

    prisonmike on 04/12/2018 - 16:34

    +2

    maybe you are one of the employees OP is complaining about :D

    • 

      curious101 on 04/12/2018 - 23:47

      Haha, yes rehevoli, people here think you should be fired :P Just kidding.

• 

  Gaz1 on 04/12/2018 - 16:15

  -1

  Get your IT department to block the common social media websites.

• 1
• 2
• 3