Does your e-mail reveal how productive you are?
slate.com
slate.com
when you're really busy it may in the form of things that go out, like sending e-mails, especially if you're not a programmer -- and sometimes when you're really busy, you have sent no e-mails in a while....because you're busy working on something. today i plan to send one e-mail: prototype complete, and published at this url.
For programming, it's an utter disaster. Not because of technical or privacy issues (which are quite real), but because for certain jobs, there is absolutely no correlation between apparent activity and achievement.
This has been a serious issue in almost every shop I've ever worked in. Whenever a phb got concerned because he observed what he thought was a lack of activity by me or any of my people, I have always responded the same way, with a copy of the project plan and one question, "Exactly where are we behind and what makes you think so?" No good answer? Then STFU.
"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." - Abraham Lincoln.
I guess if you examined Lincoln's emails and logs, he would have looked like quite the slacker.
I mean, a good, benevolent boss could use information like that to figure out when a worker was having trouble and attempt to assist, but the more likely scenario is that a malevolent boss would just abuse such a system.
Perhaps I didn't state my case well enough. Let me try this...
The correlation between activity and achievement is not only irrelevant, it could be worse; it could be negative.
If you have lots of commits, why? Didn't you code it right in the first place?
If you're doing lots of testing, why? Didn't you write it well enough in the first place?
Why are you emailing and going to meetings so much? Aren't you able to conduct analysis more efficiently?
There questions are all, obviously, ridiculous. Activity is an indicator of nothing. So why collect it? The number of flies landing of flowers in Peru is just as good an indicator of your achievement as the number of commits, emails, etc.
This is a idea that must be resisted so that maybe, just maybe, managers might learn how to manage and forget the gimmicks.
But labeling people as more or less productive based on their habits with certain types of applications sounds a little nonsensical to me. Where's the focus on meaningful results?
(My concerns here are relative to the mismeasurement of employee productivity that arises from having humans doing the evaluations.)
For example, spending four hours on non results-producing activities like paperwork instead of sales.