A few months ago I was invited to write a commentary on a paper about cyberloafing. Vivien Lim and Thompson Teo wrote a comprehensive review of the academic literature on the topic for the peer-reviewed journal Applied Psychology. My commentary expanded on their discussion of the question is cyberloafing good or bad? There is no simple answer to this question as cyberloafing consists of behaviors that can be used for more than one purpose.
What Is Cyberloafing?
Cyberloafing refers to the use of computer devices for nonwork activities during working time. This can include a variety of activities including
- Emailing or texting with friends
- Making arrangements for a vacation trip
- Playing videogames
- Reading nonwork materials such as a magazine or novel
- Shopping online
- Watching amusing videos
There are many ways that employees can avoid working. What distinguished cyberloafing is that it involves the use of technology. With the widespread ownership of smart phones, in many countries most employees have a cyberloafing device at their fingertips.
What Is Working Time?
For hourly work in which people complete time cards or have to “clock in”, the distinction between working time and nonworking time is straightforward. I once worked in a factory, and we clocked in at 8AM and clocked out at 5PM. Working time was the period from 8AM to noon and 1PM to 5PM. We were expected to be working during those times and if we were not (e.g., if I was away from my station chatting with another employee), it was considered loafing. For many jobs where working time is clearly defined, and under control of management, it is clear when someone is cyberloafing.
As a professor, however, the distinction between working and nonworking time is blurred. Rather than being paid for a set number of hours, we are paid to accomplish particular goals (publish papers) and tasks (teach a particular class). Professors are in control of their working time and can decide when it is time to work and when it is time to take a break. Professor is not the only occupation in which people are given such schedule autonomy and are held accountable for results rather than time. For those occupations loafing would mean a person is spending too little time working, which is reflected in poor performance and productivity–failing to accomplish work goals. Distinguishing cyberloafing from the taking of reasonable breaks can be difficult when people are not required to be working certain hours.
Is Cyberloafing Good or Bad?
As Lim and Teo explain, there are two main functions of cyberloafing from an employee perspective. On the bad side, employees might cyberloaf to avoid working. This could be a form of counterproductive work behavior or CWB in which an employees purposely withhold effort, perhaps to get back at an employer who is treating them unfairly. This is what many people think about when they discuss cyberloafing and claim it is costing companies a lot of money. An employee who is withholding effort is losing productivity that can hurt the company bottom line.
The second type of cyberloafing is when an employee takes a break to recover from the stress of work. Perhaps they are doing a monotonous job and are bored and struggling to maintain attention. Perhaps a nurse just got screamed at by a patient and needs a few minutes to calm themselves down. Cyberloafing can be a way for employees to take a micro-break that helps them regain composure after a stressful experience, or reduce fatigue from doing boring work. Rather than reducing productivity, this kind of cyberloafing can help employees maintain productivity and well-being.
It should be kept in mind that cyberloafing can be good or bad. The best approach for companies to take with cyberloafing is to manage it rather than try to eliminate it. As with many things, a zero-tolerance policy is likely to have unintended negative consequences. In most work settings, employees can be given at least some control over their working time as long as they do not abuse the privilege. They can be allowed to take occasional short breaks that enables them to maintain focus on performance. Letting an employee make a quick personal phone call to check on a sick child can enable them to better focus on work rather than be distracted by worry. A few minutes watching a funny cat video can help a stressed employee calm down and do a better job. Such breaks should be considered investments that can return more in productivity than the time spent in cyberloafing.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov from Pexels
SUBSCRIBE TO PAUL’S BLOG: Enter your e-mail and click SUBSCRIBE
Sensible take on cyber behavior. Nice photo. I like the guilty look on the face of the guy in the picture.
When I saw that picture, I knew I had to use it.
This is being posted for Thomas Pavey:
I think your article is very interesting. I have been doing research in this field myself, yet I have drawn different conclusions. While I agree with you that the generative AI systems are not going to be replacing people any time soon on a large scale. I do think there is a very good chance it will happen eventually. I am studying prompt engineering for generative AI systems. The process of prompt engineering is providing specific training to the AI system to accomplish a certain goal. For example, your test to write a song in the style of BB King would require a very in depth prompt engineering plan. This plan would provide specific instructions with examples of desired outputs. Putting the actual songs into the plan and much more data. Then running tests on the data outputs and providing feedback, refinements, and additional training datasets. I believe after a well-developed and thoroughly tested prompt engineering plan the system could in theory master the development process of a BB King song. Then the same prompt engineering plan could be used to produce song after song in perpetuity. However, can a perfect prompt engineering plan ever be truly realized or will a human counterpart always be needed to revise, refine, and continue to train the system? I guess this will depend on the definition of what encompasses a good BB King song which of course is very speculative.
I view the current state of generative AI systems as an “infant” and when it grows and develops into a fully functional “adult”, the capabilities will be amazing. I am already amazed by the huge leaps between ChatGPT 3.5 (The free version) and ChatGPT 4.0 (The paid $20 per month version).
Another big concern is that generative AI systems might devalue the work of an artist. For example, the capabilities of the system to assist in the creation of songs, poetry, authorship, etc. might dramatically increase supply of creative and artistic work available in the world. Might a boom in supply devalue the marketplace as a whole? Of course, quality would win out, but what if this system allowed high quality developers to produce more efficiently? What if a top level book author could produce 20 books per year instead of 1? Might this increased volume have the same effect on the marketplace?
I have personally used ChatGPT to create programming blocks that I used to outsource to coders online. In fact, ChatGPT 4 has now reduced the amount of outsourcing contracts by almost 70%. That certainly is proof that ChatGPT is already beginning to replace the human counterpart in select areas of the job market.