CASE INCIDENT 1 Warning: Collaboration Overload spent collaborating with others (rather than working on ‘one's work) translates to depleted personal resources. “Regardless of what you're giving us, wo're dying by email,” aan executive told Jamie MeLellan, a CIO at an adverts: ing agency. MeLeilan invested in many different collabor ration tools with the goal of helping the employees work ‘more efficiently: Many organizations have taken this same approach through open-plan offices, suc as those in many knonledgeintensive companies like Facebook, which hat ‘a noverious 430,000squarefoot open office space. Among. these tools, employees can use them to create internal team websites, chat, and share documents. However, almost everyone tended to stick to what they knew and were tsed to-using: emai, with the employees sending and receiving between 3,000 05,000 emails rr month, This influx of various collaboration mechanis has led to a real problem for organizations: collaboration over: load. According to data spanning two decades, employees spend about 50 percent or more of their time collaborate ugh the surface, this pattern has many drawbacks that area’t readily apparent. For one, neatly 20 to 35 percent of cok. laborations that actually add value come from only 3 10 percent of employees Unfortunately, people become known for their capabilites and willingness to help, ad thus the scape of their positions increases in a phenome non known as escalating etizenship. Another major prob lem with collaboration overload is that time and energy ing communication complexity, the number of people lnvolved in decision making increases exponentially, requiting more meetings, eanails, and instant messages. Although there is mucl evidence that suggests we may reed to tone down the richness, varity, and depth of our communication due to how litle “deep” work can get done, there seems to he an escalation of commitment to the chlt of collaboration, with not many offices agreeing vo become at least partially unphigged, questions © ‘14. In what ways do you think collaboration avertoad can have an impact on decision making? {15, What biases do you think play into managers com tinued use of collaboration tools and modes? 5:16. How does collaboration overload (e.g, requiring employees to use multiple collaboration mechi« nisms or become employed in opemolfice env ronments) compare to the three ethical decision criteria (Le., utitarianism, iberties/rights, and eonance) discussed in this chapter? CASE INCIDENT 2 How Do Employees Justify Cyberloafing? Tes. quiet, normal day in the office, your manager is off site, and you have just finished all dies for the day—but there are $ hours left before you go home for the day. You decide 19 browse for some holiday packages that you Ihave been looking for. You have just engaged in the act of qberloating. ‘Cyhertoafing is the usage of ‘network platforms while at work, dus engaging in noo work online activities while on the clock. But are you really stealing company time? Many companies consider ‘berloafing to be unethical and even illegal. They say that the consequences of cyberloafing can range from brief employee distraction (leading to inefficiency) to a ‘more serious drain on company resources (for example, Internet and social on the clock feelings of guilt are intensified. Research conducted by Vivien Lim om 188 adults with acces t the Interact atthe workplace found that employees “neutral ‘ae" their subsequent engagement in the act of cyberloat: ing when they perceive that the organtzation in which they ‘works somehow unjust, Neutralization is the idea that indie viduals are entitled to deviant behavior—incliding cyber loating if they have accrued good credits in the past that ‘can be “cashed in” later to excise that behavior. Organizational and managerial research suggest that trcating employees fairly and reciprocating cmployces! investment of tine and effort while ensuring 2 produc: tive workplace can make i difficult far employees to legitimize inappropriate behavior such as yberloating. decreased profi) and even compromised sec to, for example, slower network performance oF com puter viruses). On the other hand, some research suggests ‘at eyberloaTing isan opportunity to be more prod as it results in employees feeling less bored and mentally exhausted, being more engaged, and even allowing a mex soe of tres release while at work. rom the employees’ end, de act of eyberloafing might be rationalized as personal time eamed on the basis of having accrued sufficient credits previously through the fort and tine dhey put into completing dheir ask, or it ‘muy revult in feclings of guilt. In organizational contexts thar contractually est, ter (for example, WebTitan or firewall seuings), or prohibit the use of dhe Internet while In addition, some studies suggest that the terminology should evolve, as employees now seek “workelife Mex ibiliy,” where an employee controls the amount of time they dedicate to work and hfe, integrating the two a6 necessary. ‘Questions 5-17. How do you think the act of eyberlosting can affect your individual performance in the workplace? 518. Do you think Internet browsing at the workplace is, ‘an acceptable behavior? Why, of why not? {519. How do you think innovation and creativity can sist companies with eyberloaling?