It makes no sense to cheap out on hardware though. It's such a tiny cost compared to the overall cost of the employee, you are wasting money if inadequate hardware is making your employees less productive.
From another perspective, this is a +500$ post in the cost column of that unit (and perhaps n*500 if the whole unit then comes asking for the same thing). The cost of spending time arguing is baked into the cost of salary, meaning it doesn't show since it's the same regardless. It's a form of optimization, but the optimized unit is not productivity.
A friend of mine was working as a recruiter where the whole company was sitting all day long at their laptops. He was denied buying an external screen to be more efficient since he then could have more information on the screen (eg an application next to a browser), "because then everybody wants one", even buying it himself.
edit: nb I'm not arguing for not buying the ssd/screen.
He was denied buying an external screen to be more
efficient since he then could have more information on the
screen (eg an application next to a browser), "because
then everybody wants one", even buying it himself.
I also faced pushback at one job for bringing my own monitor from home. Same reason given. I'm an entitled software developer though, so I basically disregarded my manager on that one and he let it go.
Sometimes people would ask her about it, she would say she bought it herself, and they would say "oh" and move on about their day. It was a complete non-issue.
You could argue people shouldn't be plugging in random components at work and whatnot, but at the end of the day, IT is really powerless to do much about it. Nobody's going to fire you for buying your own productivity enhancers, the situation is just too embarrassing for management if they're reasonable people.
And really, Excel is so focused on visual space that having a larger display for her is a quality of life issue that only costs $120.
I think one mistake my wife made, though, was mentioning it to her boss before she did it.
What she should have done was done it. Then her boss would be more inclined to let her keep it.
I'm not seeing the point here. What is* being optimised for? If there's an easily-worthwhile productivity-boost, what else is there to say?
If the whole department would see a similar increase in productivity from scaling-up the expenditure, isn't it the job of management to ensure it happens?
> He was denied buying an external screen to be more efficient since he then could have more information on the screen (eg an application next to a browser), "because then everybody wants one", even buying it himself.
This is just plain stupidity, isn't it? Is there something I've missed here?