Business Horizons (2010) 53, 543—552

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced

opportunities–—and remedies–—for withholding job
effort in the new workplace
Roland E. Kidwell

College of Business, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, U.S.A.

KEYWORDS Abstract The electronic workplace, a greater emphasis on knowledge work and
Withholding effort; teams, and the increased relevance of managing impressions of work performance are
Cyberloafing; among factors that relate to higher levels of withholding effort among problem
Virtual teams; employees in the 21st century. This article considers these three factors in the context
Work ethic; of dominant organizational forms–—low-cost operators, global competitor corpora-
Leisure ethic tions, and high-involvement firms–—and how each can lead to lower on-the-job effort.
Remedies are offered for new forms of withholding effort such as cyberloafing, as well
as hiding lack of effort in virtual teams and through impression management. In
addition, a different way of considering the problem of lower job effort is proposed
through examination of how a work ethic and a leisure ethic can be synthesized to
enhance organizational creativity, innovation, and performance.
# 2010 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

A disinclination to work is as old as work itself, as
far as we can tell, certainly as old as any extant
texts we have on the subject. (Lutz, 2006, p. 14)
1. Work
‘‘ ethic, loafing on the job, and
the new’’ workplace
Cody arrives at the office promptly at 8 a.m., grabs
some coffee, and fires up his computer. As a com-
mercial loan officer at a branch office of a medium-
sized bank, his appointments won’t start for another
half an hour–—not that business has been percolating
E-mail address: rkidwell@uwyo.edu
much lately. After browsing his email and the com-
pany’s internal website, Cody moves to the Internet
and, while checking the local and national news,
remembers that his wife’s birthday is coming up
next week. He goes to the Lands End website,
selects a gift, orders it specially wrapped and deliv-
ered to his home, then pays with his credit card.
Satisfied he has accomplished a significant familial
duty, Cody clicks on the ESPN site and checks out
results from last night’s NBA and NHL games.
Shortly thereafter, it’s time to update his Face-
book page; new photos of the dog need to be
uploaded and the weekend’s activities documented
for his cyberfriends. Between appointments, phone
conversations with clients, and meetings over the
course of the rest of the morning, Cody bounces

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2010 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2010.06.001
544
back and forth between a variety of Internet sites–—
including some related to work activities. By the
time he realizes he has a virtual meeting coming up
with a team of loan officers from other branches to
discuss a regional client, it’s too late to effectively
prepare. Cody downplays participation in the meet-
ing, whereby the team is charged with finding ways
to compete with other banks in handling financing
for the client. He spends the rest of the work day
researching competitors’ loan strategies, actually
using one of the articles he found earlier that day
while surfing the Internet. He eventually prepares
work-related emails rigged to be transmitted to his
colleagues and supervisors at 3 a.m. the next day,
giving them the impression he has worked long
through the night to deliver the goods.
Cody, a composite character concocted for this
article, might be labeled a loafer–—but one whose
activities, or lack thereof, reflect life in the 21st
century workplace. Slacking, idling, and lounging
are among the popular words used to describe
phenomena that have been studied for decades in
academic circles under the terms shirking, social
loafing, free riding, and withholding effort. A volu-
minous literature in various academic disciplines
exists regarding employee decisions not to provide
full effort on job-related tasks, with some of the
latest research focusing on loafing in virtual teams
(Bryant, Albring, & Murthy, 2009; Furumo, 2009) and
cyberloafing in the workplace (Henle & Blanchard,
2008; Henle, Kohut, & Booth, 2009). Considering the
general topic of reduced work effort from a long-
term perspective, it may be useful to place such
behavior in the context of an ongoing struggle
between what was termed the Protestant work
ethic (Weber, 1987/1930), where life’s meaning
is to be found in the duty of hard work; and
the bohemian ethic, in which leisure, pleasure,
and happiness take precedence over a constant
preoccupation with one’s job (Florida, 2002).
Regardless of ongoing tensions between a work
ethic and a leisure ethic, providing or withholding
effort at work, and clearly contributing to or detract-
ing from firm performance, the workplace of the 21st
century has provided new ways and means for prob-
lem employees like Cody to continue the long tradi-
tion of withholding effort on the job. In this article,
potential problems of shirking, loafing, and free
riding in the context of the new workplace are exam-
ined, and structural and managerial solutions to deal
with these problems are suggested. An alternative
perspective, based upon the blending of the work and
leisure ethics, is proposed as a means to address the
issue of withholding effort on job tasks.
An important starting point is to consider how the
changing natures of work and the global economy
R.E. Kidwell
have led to different prototypes of organizations
rapidly replacing traditional bureaucratic structures
that stressed many levels of management and an
emphasis on top-down chain of command and super-
vision. O’Toole and Lawler (2006) distinguish among
three types of organizations that dominate the land-
scape and have different implications for the topic of
withholding effort. Low-cost operators follow a busi-
ness model that focuses on continuously reducing
costs of operations, including minimizing wages
and benefits of their employees. Global competitor
corporations are industry leaders in various domains
and can rapidly move products, services, informa-
tion, and people around the world. High-involvement
firms offer workers challenging and rewarding
jobs, attempt to minimize turnover, and stress a
sense of community at work (O’Toole & Lawler,
2006, pp. 11—13). As demonstrated by these three
types of firms, today’s workplace features an increas-
ing gulf between fulfilling jobs that pay well and
tenuous jobs that merely offer workers a day’s pay
for a day’s work and little chance for development or
advancement. Employees of low-cost operators gen-
erally represent one mode of the bi-modal workforce
(low-skill, low-pay workers) while those employed by
global competitor corporations and high-involve-
ment firms trend toward the other mode (high-skill,
high-pay workers).
Changes in how people work and the way organiza-
tions function have spawned these new archetypes,
and such shifts have implications regarding withhold-
ing effort in each type of organizational form. Such
changes include (1) dominance of an electronic work-
place that modifies jobs and working conditions; (2)
more knowledge-based work that requires develop-
ment and successful functioning of team-based orga-
nizing, including virtual teams, in which individual
behaviors are more problematic to monitor and eval-
uate; and (3) a perceived need for individuals to
manage the impressions others have of them amid
employment relationships that are based on econom-
ic performance and skills rather than long-term fidel-
ity, thus increasing risks to job security and benefit
levels in tenuous economic times. Each of these
changes affects the potential for withholding effort
in the context of low-cost operators, global competi-
tor corporations, and high-involvement firms.
2. How the new work environment
spawns new sets of loafers
 Commence to play when the boss is away
 Continually seek new technologies to reduce your
workloads
Loafing in the 21st century workplace
 Expend most of your energy and thought evading
work and covering your a**
 Become as unnoticed as possible - develop total
anonymity and invisibility - they can’t fire a
specter
 Put off today what you can surreptitiously unload
on another
 Develop an appreciation for delegation
 excerpted from the Slacker Creed (2010)
2.1. The electronic workplace and
cyberloafing
Cyber Monday is unofficially celebrated in work-
places and by marketers nationwide as the day when
employees return to work after the Thanksgiving
holiday and engage in online shopping in preparation
for Christmas. Actually coined by the National Retail
Federation to encourage online shopping, the term
has been considered both a marketing tool and a
marketing myth (Hof, 2005). The bottom line–—so to
speak–—is that employees will slack off from work
and use the employer’s high-speed Internet connec-
tions for personal shopping, whether physically
present in the office or accessing employer Internet
from a remote location.
Online shopping is one of many forms of
cyberloafing, a phenomenon that involves spending
work time on the Internet for non-work related
purposes; activities could include managing an em-
ployee’s online business, surfing the web for person-
al reasons, e-mailing jokes or information to others,
updating social media accounts, twittering, and
downloading music (Henle & Blanchard, 2008). In
addition, computer-savvy employees can use tech-
nologies that enable them to open documents on
their office computer screens while they are not
actually present, giving the impression that they are
working hard when they actually are not. And, as
demonstrated by Cody, software timer features al-
low e-mails to be sent in the middle of the night,
prompting others to perceive performance–—minus
the effort.
The depth of the cyberloafing problem is unclear,
but it sometimes becomes national news. For exam-
ple, federal investigations revealed that high-ranking
employees of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission violated ethics rules by spending many hours
using government computers to surf the web and
access pornographic websites, rather than perform-
ing their jobs of overseeing the nation’s troubled
financial system (Pratt, 2010). Despite the ethical
violations, none of the employees were fired; rather,
545
eight resigned, six were suspended for as many as 14
days, five received formal reprimands, and six got
informal counseling or warnings for their inappropri-
ate activities (O’Keefe, 2010).
On the flip side, changes in technology over the
last three decades have provided employers with
enhanced means to catch those who engage in
cyberloafing–—such as the SEC employees–—as well
as measure and monitor performance at work (e.g.,
Kidwell & Sprague, 2009; Stanton, 2000). Using
electronic monitoring and supervision has other
implications for withholding job effort. Cyber com-
muting, computer monitoring, and other forms of
electronic communication and work activities can
merge effort with performance; available techno-
logical capabilities make the two indistinguishable.
Electronic supervisors cannot gauge efforts of em-
ployees who work from home or other remote lo-
cations; only performance can be monitored by
measuring keystrokes, errors, and completed as-
signments.
Although systematically collected raw measures
of productivity can create an emphasis on quantity
of work rather than quality, measurement of errors
committed is used to protect against quality prob-
lems in engaging electronic means to track and
possibly enhance performance. Again, these types
of performance monitoring do not consider effort in
the same way a‘‘human observer might see an em-
ployee working hard’’ yet failing to perform. In this
aspect, what is said to be an objective measure of
performance may be flawed because it does not
consider factors such as the relative ease or diffi-
culty the employee experienced in completing the
work, which can reflect on effort provided. Progress
toward production goals or performance results can
be obtained, but effort may be missed. Whereas the
electronic supervisor gives the firm a way to rede-
fine jobs and an opportunity to more closely monitor
employee performance, it offers employees the
means to lower effort levels at the same time they
engage in satisfactory performance.
This situation might create the most difficulty in
the context of low-cost operators where firms at-
tempt to cut expenses by increased use of monitor-
ing to measure performance. Working conditions–—
including boredom with the job and low pay–—can
create incentives for workers in these companies to
hide low effort levels and/or subpar performance,
as well as engage in higher levels of cyberloafing
including Internet surfing and passing along email
unrelated to work. Some companies have found
themselves liable for sexual harassment charges
because jokes and attachments that include
obscene material are exchanged among employees
using the firm’s email system. Whereas such
546
problems are not unique to low-cost operators,
workers in those firms may be more likely to engage
in such behaviors because other aspects of the work
environment are unfavorable.
In both global competitor corporations and high-
involvement firms, the problem with cyberloafing
may be exacerbated because employees have lower
levels of supervision and potentially more time on
their hands in which to withhold effort. The lack of
electronic monitoring combined with higher levels
of autonomy in performing the job can enhance an
employee’s temptation to use the firm’s time to
engage in levels of Internet and email use and abuse
that detract from effective job performance. On the
other hand, greater levels of employee commitment
garnered by high-involvement firms may serve to
temper the likelihood that employees would exploit
these opportunities to loaf.
2.2. Knowledge-based work and virtual
teams
Since Ringelmann’s experiments in the early 20th
century on group rope pulling at a strain gauge,
social psychologists have measured performance
losses associated with increasing the size of groups
in cooperative tasks, putting the blame on both
coordination problems and social loafing among
the group members. Yet, the rise of knowledge-
based work–—particularly in the service sector–—
and the decline of traditional manufacturing placed
new focus on the idea that for effective perfor-
mance in some jobs, physical effort is necessary
and sufficient; in others, physical effort is necessary
but not sufficient; and in others, physical effort is
not necessary at all. Designing robotic systems in
manufacturing requires physical and mental efforts,
along with information to organize. But, once up and
running, such systems drastically reduce a need for
human coordination–—and most concerns about
humans loafing.
However, the ability to automate in the service
sector, while growing, is still limited by a need for
human interaction, particularly in work relying on
brain rather than brawn. The increased use of
teams–—including virtual teams that are geographi-
cally dispersed and function by computer interac-
tion rather than face to face–—and the fact that
performance is increasingly dependent on others in
those teams can result in less capability to measure
the performance, and effort, of individual employ-
ees. These factors provide new and improved meth-
ods for some employees to hide in a crowd and not
contribute a fair share to completion of work.
Changing employment relationships have the poten-
tial to encourage cohort cover up of poor effort and
R.E. Kidwell
a return to the systematic soldiering and restricted
productivity that inspired the originators of scien-
tific management more than a century ago.
The difficulty in attempting to control loafing in
knowledge-based work is that, when compared to
activities requiring physical labor, the relationship
between effort levels provided on the job and actual
performance is hard to understand. Mental efforts
are not as easy to perceive as physical ones; thus,
discretion lies with the worker to lower those types
of efforts without attracting undue attention. In
addition, the social nature of the knowledge-based
workplace–—manifested through the use of teams–—
changes conditions so as to make it much easier to
lower efforts without attracting attention of an
external monitor, particularly in the case of virtual
teams. As well as task focus, team members face
challenges in developing internal cooperation, team
identity, cohesion, and dependence on each other.
Team-based approaches face two basic problems
regarding participants’ levels of effort. While effec-
tive teams stress accountability among all team
members, it is challenging to figure out the level
of individual efforts that go into the team’s perfor-
mance results. This difficulty allows for problem
employees to lower effort levels in a way that
management, and even other team members, can-
not observe. In addition, even if team member
effort levels can be tied to individuals, there are
different types of effort to be offered by team
members. For instance, one individual might excel
at getting a task finished; another may be superior in
customer relations; a third might do best at negoti-
ating division of labor and smoothing tensions among
feuding teammates. Judging the value of these
varied contributions is a tough task.
In terms of the social influence process, team-
mates can inspire each other toward positive per-
formance, as well as influence each other to
perform negatively through increased levels of loaf-
ing. In cases of higher team interdependence or
longer term team membership, the negative out-
comes could be worse (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly,
1998), leading to increasingly high levels of conflict
and dysfunctional behavior. When withholding ef-
fort becomes a team norm, the team influences its
new members to engage in such behavior. This
process versus performance question for organiza-
tions is one that is often faced by managers and
coaches of professional and collegiate sports teams:
Does management focus on correcting faulty intra-
team processes that involve effort levels and may or
may not affect performance (for example, the anti-
social/anti-team antics of individual star players),
or should its focus be on the team’s bottom-line
performance (wins versus losses)?
Loafing in the 21st century workplace
The problem of the team approach as it applies to
knowledge-based work is less an issue to the low-
cost operator focused on slashing costs and not
investing in team activities, as well as in knowledge
work beyond providing basic services. Yet, the prob-
lems just raised are key elements to cross-cultural
teams employed by global competitor corporations
and to self-managed teams that largely reside in
high-involvement firms. In the global competitor
corporation, use of virtual teams relies on less-rich
electronic communication channels to function ef-
fectively across a far-flung company. To the extent
new technologies and the global economy have
encouraged transnational teams to become promi-
nent in many firms (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), the
discussion surrounding those teams has focused on
whether effort and subsequent performance among
team members will be adversely affected by the
mechanics and richness level of electronic commu-
nication and differences in values across cultures
(Shapiro, Furst, Spreitzer, & von Glinow, 2002),
particularly relating to the provision of task effort.
2.3. The increasing relevance of job
performance image
Whereas hairstyle, dress, or make-up can relate to
attempts by individuals to manage the impressions of
others, elements of the new workplace focus on types
of behaviors that individuals might employ to en-
hance the image that bosses and co-workers have of
them. As the workplace changes, the concept of
employee performance is becoming more amorphous
and difficult to gauge, despite advanced technologi-
cal tools. In many cases, employees deliver accept-
able–—and even outstanding–—performance with
much less effort than their counterparts. Tradition-
ally, some organizations seek innovative job perfor-
mance that surpasses expectations, whereas others
are satisfied with acceptable levels of performance.
However, in a business environment where organiza-
tions seek to cut costs through reductions in force and
trimming of benefits, many employees have come to
realize what was once considered acceptable perfor-
mance is no longer good enough; thus, managing the
impressions of others regarding their job perfor-
mance takes on greater relevance.
In an increasingly high-risk, insecure work envi-
ronment, effectively managing one’s prospects for
employment and advancement may make it hazard-
ous to reveal low effort to the firm. Many individuals
in these conditions do not trust the organization due
to previous downsizing and benefit reductions. For
example, such employees are less likely to exceed
minimum performance, as they are fearful of being
exploited by the organization and don’t want to
547
reveal the level of effort they are providing due
to a basic distrust of company intentions. Employees
who possess high levels of job-related knowledge,
skills, and abilities can provide needed performance
even when lacking motivation to provide high effort
levels. In contrast, workaholics are likely to create
tasks so as to satisfy their compulsive need to
provide job-related effort, or they may deliberately
work less efficiently or with excessively high stand-
ards to indicate that they are performing valiantly.
A work environment that places increased em-
phasis on individual career management and poten-
tial free agency raises the issue of image–—or,
impression–—management and the behavior an em-
ployee undertakes to change or maintain the way
others perceive them. Employees may attempt to
manage impressions of job performance and related
effort-performance connections to preserve their
current situation and/or to advance themselves.
Another set of employees may use a strategy of
deliberately looking bad or incompetent to avoid
additional work; unpleasant consequences such as
an unwanted transfer or promotion; or to obtain a
valued reward such as a raise, a desired transfer, or
even a desired layoff (Becker & Martin, 1995). For
example, even if immediately available to do so, an
employee may delay performing work for a supervi-
sor or a customer so as to avoid future requests for–—
or expectations regarding–—fast turnaround. How-
ever, the success or failure of such strategies may be
impacted by an evolving employment relationship
that stresses performance over loyalty.
An additional challenge for firms is distinguishing
between employees who engage in unjustified self-
promotional behaviors, versus those who provide
high levels of what are considered to be extra-role
behaviors; for example, organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs). Those who engage in OCBs help
others at work, act selflessly toward others or the
organization, volunteer to perform tasks, and act
conscientiously (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie,
2006). It is possible that some instances of OCB
could be touted by an otherwise low-performing
individual‘‘ as an effective substitute for task-related
efforts: I left work early to give my co-worker‘‘a
ride to pick up her car before the shop closed.’’ I
didn’t get my assignment finished on time because I
was showing Jill how to do hers.’’ Thus, manage-
ment is faced with weighing the effects of the
discretionary action in the context of acceptable
job performance before classifying it as OCB.
Insecurity that leads individuals to manage their
own advancement affects the types of performance
displayed in organizations, and may in fact increase
the emphasis on managing impressions of–—rather
than objective amounts of–—effort and performance.
548
Due to the nature of their organizational model, low-
cost operators may be faced with the highest propor-
tion of employees who find a strong need to manage
impressions of their work by utilizing self-promotion
or other forms of impression management; some of
these employees can be categorized as the classic
problem employee, who possesses an instinct to take
it easy at work, but recognizes that he or she must
justify their utility so as to maintain a source of
income. On the other hand, global competitor cor-
porations and high-involvement firms may face the
problem employee who can exploit higher levels of
autonomy by deliberately looking busy–—or even in-
effective–—to avoid additional duties being thrown
their way. Managers in these organizations must also
guard against employees attempting to substitute
apparent OCBs for work-related efforts and then
justifying themselves via impression management
techniques. The general problems posed by loafing
in the 21st century workplace are summarized in
Table 1, along with potential ways organizations
might address these issues.
3. Remedies to loafing in the new
workplace
Whether low-cost operator, global competitor corpo-
ration, or high-involvement firm, the organization
must focus on solutions to the latest conditions for
Table 1. Opportunities and potential remedies for withholding effort in the 21st century workplace
Problem
Cyberloafing
 Spending work time on the Internet for non-work
activities; this could include shopping, managing
an online business, surfing the web, emailing jokes,
updating social media accounts, Twitter, etc.
Lack of effort in virtual teams/knowledge work
 Lowering effort levels because it is difficult
to observe and identify impact of individual
efforts on team performance
 Substituting potentially less valuable
maintenance activities for task-related effort
 Ambiguity in relationship between
effort and performance
Performance image/impression management
 Engaging in unjustifiable self-promotion or
self-deprecation to mask lack of effort or to
boost others’ perceptions of performance so as
to preserve current employment situation or
to advance in the firm
R.E. Kidwell
withholding effort that are brought about by the
challenges of new technologies, knowledge work,
virtual teams, and the use of impression management
techniques to protect employee interests. In this
section, remedies for each relevant condition are
offered, along with pros and cons associated with
them across different types of organization; this is
followed by discussion of a different perspective on
the withholding effort problem.
3.1. Controlling cyberloafing
As noted earlier, the very technologies that allow
employees to engage in cyberloafing can be har-
nessed to ensure that such behavior does not take
place. For example, software can be obtained to
monitor computer keyboard use regarding number
of keystrokes per minute and the time it takes to
complete tasks. Software can also be utilized to
monitor employee Internet, network, and email
use; this can track, for example, websites visited,
images that appear on employees’ computer screens,
employee participation regarding chat rooms and/or
computer games, and emails both sent and received.
The use of such devices to monitor and control
worker behavior creates potential issues of trust and
justice among some employees, and seems largely
geared toward low-cost operators in terms of how it
is used. Employees in global competitor companies
and high-involvement firms may be less likely to be
Remedies
 Fair and just employee computer monitoring
 Internet, social media, and email usage policies
 Establishing norms of appropriate Internet
use among employees
 Stress individual and mutual accountability
for achieving team goals when establishing
team norms and rewards
 Ensuring mechanisms are in place to surface
and confront team conflict
 Focus on achieving both learning and
performance goals
 Identify employee actions that truly constitute
helping behavior, versus actions that reflect
impression management or political behavior
 Reward relevant extra-role behaviors,
(i.e., OCB) as a surrogate performance measure
when effort cannot be easily observed and
when such OCBs are of value to the firm
Loafing in the 21st century workplace
receptive to the organization’s employment of
these devices and tactics, and their use may have
opposite effects in terms of performance and mo-
rale. Before global competitor corporations use
electronic surveillance systems across borders, var-
iations in laws, regulations, values related to inter-
personal communication and privacy expectations,
and other cultural differences must be evaluated.
Elements of cross-cultural information technology
management should be examined to determine
whether use of electronic monitoring is grounded
in socially negotiated work practices; in the laws,
customs, and cultures of the home and host country;
and in organizational culture and industry culture
(Kidwell & Sprague, 2009).
Alternatives to increased levels of monitoring
include employee-directed policies which outline
company rules and regulations regarding usage of
the Internet during work hours, and the appropriate
use of email. These types of policies can be effective
at controlling cyberloafing in all three types of
organizations, but must be designed and enforced
in a fair manner; furthermore, it is imperative to
acknowledge the fact that the line between compa-
ny and personal use of the Internet may be blurry.
For example, if an employee is to be sent on a
business trip to another city or country, would it
be appropriate for that employee to use the Internet
at work to determine available dining options, as
well as social and leisure events during the trip?
Recent research indicates that establishing norms
among co-workers and employees can limit minor
forms of cyberloafing, such as online shopping and
emailing friends at work; yet, such norms are not as
effective in preventing the more serious cases of
cyberloafing, such as online gambling (Blanchard &
Henle, 2008). Other studies point out the need for an
employer focus on both fairness and justice issues
regarding Internet use policies directed at cyberloaf-
ing, as well as increased clarity of employee job roles,
expectations, and duties; such efforts have an impact
on the levels of cyberloafing in the work place (de
Lara, 2007; Henle & Blanchard, 2008; Henle, Kohut, &
Booth, 2009). It should be noted, however, that the
most rigorous research conducted regarding cyber-
loafing used samples of undergraduate and MBA stu-
dents, and Spanish public school teachers. Thus, the
findings may be more valid to scenarios found in
global competitor corporations and high-involve-
ment firms, than to low-cost operators.
3.2. Handling loafing in knowledge work
and virtual teams
A combination of structural design, conflict man-
agement, and goal setting is suggested to remedy
549
loafing in situations where knowledge work is being
performed–—particularly by geographically dis-
persed virtual teams. Setting a common purpose
for the team, one that is agreed upon in advance
by all team members, is an important first step
toward establishing the ways and means for stress-
ing both individual and mutual accountability for
achieving the team’s goals. A frank discussion and
evaluation of prospective team members’ relative
strengths and weaknesses is an important element
in assigning various duties to teammates. Addition-
ally, establishing positive relationships among team
members has an impact on subsequent loafing be-
haviors. For example, research supports the notion
that individual perceptions of a positive group con-
text are an element of ethical climate that is nega-
tively related to the likelihood an individual
employee would withhold effort on the job (Kidwell
& Valentine, 2009).
To address perceived social loafing among mem-
bers of virtual teams, a mixed incentive reward
structure–—providing for both individual and group
rewards, perhaps in the form of performance bo-
nuses–—is also recommended as a way to reinforce
blending of individual and mutual accountability.
Moreover, a communications medium that provides
immediate feedback, personalization, and variety
of language adds a richness to the virtual team
experience that decreases perceptions of social
loafing (Bryant et al., 2009).
Another potential issue that exacerbates the
loafing problem in virtual teams is the manner in
which conflict is addressed. A recent study indicated
that social loafers reported more conflict and less
trust, cohesiveness, and satisfaction when working
in virtual teams; those who withheld effort tended
to engage in conflict avoidance more so than their
more active team members, who used different
approaches to managing conflict (Furumo, 2009).
This finding suggests that in setting up the virtual
team and the team norms, leaders should strive to
ensure that conflicts are surfaced and confronted,
rather than allowing them to fester and eventually
lead to withdrawal behavior on the part of some
team members.
Finally, in situations of knowledge work–—which
generally is the domain of virtual teams in global
and high-involvement firms–—the performance
of individuals and teams should be regarded as
more a function of imagination and learning than
effort. Thus, in these conditions, team goals
focused on learning are often more appropriate
than performance goals (Seijts & Latham, 2005).
Again, this approach helps to nurture a focus on
both individual and mutual accountability in the
virtual team.
550
3.3. Separating wheat from chaff: False
impressions vs. performance vs. OCBs
In many firms, extra-role OCBs are increasingly
becoming in-role job requirements, and OCBs can
constitute elements of effective performance in
a team-based environment. For example, some
managers now consider their best performing em-
ployees as those who engage in the most OCBs, even
though a direct connection between OCBs and or-
ganizational goal achievement can be difficult to
measure. It may be useful for some firms to reject
the stance that performing tasks should be differ-
entiated from performing OCBs and to reward
relevant extra-role behaviors as a surrogate perfor-
mance measure, particularly when effort levels
cannot be easily observed. In such cases–—especially
when there is an unclear relationship between ef-
fort and performance–—the firm is valuing behavior
that can help the organization reach its goals,
as well as enhance working relationships among
supervisors and co-workers.
Moving OCBs into the task performance model
requires differentiation between employee actions
that truly constitute helping behavior to the orga-
nization, co-workers, and customers, and behaviors
that merely reflect the effective practice of impres-
sion management or political behavior. Managers
and co-workers/teammates must make attempts
to distinguish between employees who practice
OCBs and other discretionary behaviors and actually
exert high levels of job-related effort, and those
who are minimizing effort toward the job and substi-
tuting discretionary behaviors of little value. This is
particularly true in firms attempting to gain advan-
tage through reduced costs, where substituting dis-
cretionary behavior for job-related behavior can
create lack of focus on organizational goals. The
nature of high-involvement firms would suggest that
employees be encouraged to engage in providing
both job-related behaviors and discretionary ac-
tions that benefit the firm and co-workers; thus,
OCB could be integrated more effectively as a mea-
sure of employee performance. The same perspec-
tive would hold for global corporations, but
attention must again be focused on relevant
cross-cultural issues where discretionary behaviors
might be viewed from a different lens, depending on
the varying cultures in which the exchange occurs.
4. A different perspective on loafing in
the new workplace
The bottom line, at least as a first approxima-
tion, is that inputs are largely irrelevant to
R.E. Kidwell
success in business; outputs are pretty much
all that count. (Block, 2001, p. 228)
One key implication of the new workplace is the
increasing difficulty in recognizing a clear connec-
tion between effort and performance across all
three organizational prototypes. In other words,
the loafing problem–—that is, withholding effort–—
may not be as relevant in situations when measur-
able performance outcomes, such as sales and pro-
duction of units, can be clearly connected to
individual employees. For example, low-cost oper-
ators may be able to better connect effort to per-
formance through close supervision and would tend
to value making the connection in their attempts to
lower costs. In cases where workers are highly
interdependent, team members can try to police
co-workers to ensure all make a fair contribution to
the overarching goal. Global competitors and high-
involvement firms would see less of a need to moni-
tor individual efforts and focus on higher levels of
performance across individuals, teams, and organi-
zational units. The seeming disconnection between
effort and performance in these organizations is yet
another example of how knowledge work has
changed the way effort should be considered. It
also offers an opportunity to discuss a more novel
solution to the loafing issue: one that synthesizes
the work ethic and the bohemian, or leisure, ethic.
This synthesis applies what urban studies theorist
Richard Florida (2002) calls the Big Morph–—which,
at the societal level, attempts to resolve the cen-
turies old tension between the two value systems to
produce a new ethic called creative ethos, a com-
bined devotion to work and lifestyle.
Bringing this idea to the workplace requires chal-
lenging the traditional world view of what is gener-
ally considered to be withholding effort. The work
and leisure ethics may be complementary rather
than conflicting, perhaps similar in nature to posi-
tive spillover effects proposed in the study of work/
family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For
example, what has been termed cyberloafing might
actually aid in more productive work when the fruits
of Internet surfing or personal email are used to
increase an employee’s capability to be more crea-
tive and innovative in work-related matters. Allow-
ing for a blending of work and leisure activities can
ostensibly result in an employee discovering a labor-
saving method or a new approach to problem solving
that, if spread throughout the company, will reduce
costs or enhance organizational productivity. A key
issue is whether the employee is encouraged or
discouraged to share what has been discovered.
For example, will the company reward or punish
if a software application, found while Internet
Loafing in the 21st century workplace
surfing at work, can be used to improve organiza-
tional performance? Block’s (2001) economic analy-
sis of cyberloafing suggests that permitting such
behavior could be considered a favorable working
condition that enhances both productivity and job
satisfaction, thus combining the work and leisure
ethics, and possibly improving firm performance.
A similar application might involve finding compa-
rable value in both task and maintenance activities in
team performance, rather than focusing on those
who appear to shirk their job duties. Task activities
concentrate on getting the goal accomplished,
whereas maintenance activities are directed toward
improved team functioning; some employees might
be more suited to engage in completing the task, and
others to ensuring that everyone gets along, celebra-
tes successes, and feels inspired to reach the team
goals. For example, less-skilled‘‘ benchwarmers may
be encouraged by the coach, If you can’t hit, at least
holler.’’ Camaraderie and team growth are two po-
tential outcomes of this suggested blend of work and
leisure ethics.
This synthesis may in some ways reflect a work
hard, play hard culture employed by many high-
involvement firms–—although true practitioners of
the leisure ethic may resist playing, or working, that
hard. The keys to achieving a successful blend of
ethics originate with a targeted employee selection
process and continue with clear socialization into
acceptance and propagation of a work-leisure cul-
ture. It is a challenging task for human resources and
line managers to allow the right people into such an
organization without opening the doors to potential
problem employees who are solely attracted by the
leisure aspects. It would also be very difficult to
think that a firm pursuing a low-cost business model
would find this blending of work and leisure ethics
financially or culturally attractive. Yet, the ambig-
uous relationship between job effort and job per-
formance that it implies would potentially resonate
with global corporations and high-involvement
firms. For example, the Results Only Work Environ-
ment created by electronics retailer Best Buy osten-
sibly gives employees the opportunity to do what
they want, when they want–—as long as their work
gets done (Ressler & Thompson, 2008). In addition,
entrepreneurial firms that seek to operate in office-
free, virtual environments (Chafkin, 2010) may be
venues in which a creative ethos culture would be a
necessary–—rather than an optional–—component.
5. Closing comments
Cody, the aforementioned fictional bank loan offi-
cer, represents an extreme example of bringing the
551
leisure ethic to the office and allowing work to fill in
the gaps around it. Computer monitoring and more
effective supervision and accountability can be put
in place to deal with the issues raised by his exam-
ple. But there are mixed views regarding how new
opportunities to withhold effort brought by the
changing workplace might be handled, and they
come from different sides of the bargaining table
and across generations. Recently, Entrepreneur
magazine offered contrasting views of cell phone
and social media use in the office (Matsuda, 2010).
In one case, management at a Midwestern credit
union–—where social media use during work hours
had already been banned–—was on the verge of
prohibiting cell phones in the office, due to poten-
tially deleterious effects on customer service. In the
second case, employees at a high tech start-up in
California blogged, texted, and tweeted in the of-
fice because of a potential to increase‘‘job focus and
productivity; as one employee put it, In our office,
people Twitter just to get random thoughts off their
minds. But our firm also taps social media to get its
message out to the public.’’
Such a combination of work and leisure ethics to
enhance organizational performance embraces
work-life balance issues that have long been the
topic of research and debate. This fusion accepts
the idea that there is a natural inclination for all
individuals, not just problem employees, to lower
work-related effort levels. From an organizational
perspective, what may matter most in using either
the remedies suggested earlier or a completely
different approach is whether the firm gets the
performance that it is paying the employee to
achieve.
Different types of firms, with varied goals and
business models, create the need to consider–—from
diverse perspectives–—the problems of, as well as
solutions to, withholding effort. A failure to get
beyond the symptoms displayed by a problem em-
ployee and surface the real issues driving the be-
havior creates delays and costs of its own. Remedies
rooted in years of research and investigation into
human behavior at work (design of challenging and
meaningful work, effective supervision and mentor-
ing, creating and implementing valid selection and
training processes, consistent and relevant organi-
zational culture) should be neither dismissed nor
overlooked in dealing with the latest manifestations
of the age-old issue of loafing on the job.
However, recent economic downturns and the
tight job market provide incentives for many orga-
nizations to move toward the perspective taken by
low-cost operators regarding employee effort and
performance, even if a firm might identify more
with a global or a high-involvement culture. Coupled
552
with a shift toward implied or stated employment
contracts that stress employee free agency and shun
the idea of long-term employment, a low-cost per-
spective indicates that the remedies discussed in
this article may be more pertinent to use in address-
ing the loafing issue, rather than accepting the
premise that loafing is the natural order of organi-
zational life.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Nathan Bennett, Mike
Buckley, Joe Cooper, Dave Ketchen, and Linda
Kidwell for helpful comments and suggestions on
earlier versions of this article.
References
Becker, T. E., & Martin, S. (1995). Trying to look bad at
work: Methods and motives for managing poor impressions
in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
174—199.
Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different
forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of
control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067—1084.
Block, W. (2001). Cyberslacking, business ethics, and managerial
economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(3), 225—231.
Bryant, S. M, Albring, S. M., & Murthy, U. (2009). The effects of
reward structure, media richness, and gender on virtual
teams. International Journal of Accounting Information Sys-
tems, 10(4), 190—213.
Chafkin, M. (2010). The office is dead; long live the office. Inc.,
2(3), 62—73.
de Lara, P. Z. M. (2007). Relationship between‘‘organizational
justice and cyberloafing in the workplace: Has anomia’’ a say
in the matter? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(3), 464—470.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team
cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26—49.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic
Books.
Furumo, K. (2009). The impact of conflict and conflict manage-
ment style on deadbeats and deserters in virtual teams.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(4), 66—73.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family
are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of
Management Review, 31(1), 72—92.
R.E. Kidwell
Henle, C. A., & Blanchard, A. L. (2008). The interaction of work
stressors and organizational sanctions on cyberloafing. Jour-
nal of Managerial Issues, 20(3), 383—400.
Henle, C. A., Kohut, G., & Booth, R. (2009). Designing electronic
use policies to enhance employee perceptions of fairness and
to reduce cyberloafing: An empirical test of justice theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 902—910.
Hof, R. D. (2005, November 29). Cyber Monday, marketing
myth. Business Week. Retrieved February 6, 2010, from
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/
nf20051129_9946_db016.htm
Kidwell, R. E., & Sprague, R. (2009). Electronic surveillance in the
global workplace: Laws, ethics, research, and practice. New
Technology, Work, and Employment, 24(2), 194—208.
Kidwell, R. E., & Valentine, S. (2009). Positive group context, work
attitudes, and organizational misbehavior: The case of with-
holding job effort. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(1), 15—28.
Lutz, T. (2006). Doing nothing. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Matsuda, C. (2010). Yes, I blog at the office. Entrepreneur, 38(3),
72—73.
O’Keefe, E. (2010, April 28). SEC says no staffers were fired in
porn investigation. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 4,
2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con-
tent/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042705595.html
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents,
and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Toole, J., & Lawler, E. E., III. (2006). The new American
workplace. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pratt, R. (2010, April 23). Investigation prompted by Grassley
reveals SEC porn surfing. Gazette Online. Retrieved May 4, 2010,
from http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/
2010/04/23/investigation-prompted-by-grassley-reveals-sec-
porn-surfing
Ressler, C., & Thompson, J. (2008). Why work sucks and how to fix
it: No schedules, no meetings, no joke–—The simple change
that can make your job terrific. New York: Portfolio.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey
do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658—672.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus perfor-
mance goals: When should each be used? Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 19(1), 124—131.
Shapiro, D. L., Furst, S. A., Spreitzer, G. M., & von Glinow, M. A.
(2002). Transnational teams in the electronic age: Are team
identity and high performance at risk? Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23(4), 455—467.
Slacker Creed. (2010). Retrieved February 4, 2010, from http://
www.totalslacker.com/slacker-creed
Stanton, J. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitor-
ing: Framework, review, and research directions. Human
Performance, 13(1), 85—113.
Weber, M. (1987/1930). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of
capitalism. London: George Allen & Unwin.