Edit: I still believe this is true.
A system administrator’s take on getting the most from the work day.
Originally posted November 2006 by IBM Systems Magazine
Last month I looked at reasons why a VPN is a great idea for accessing your network when you are not in the office. This article examines issues I’ve encountered when working in a cube farm, and different methods I like to use when trying to get continuing education while training budgets continue to get squeezed.
When your cell phone goes off in the middle of the night and you find that a system is down and requires your attention, does your employer require you to get dressed and drive to your workplace to take care of the situation? In some environments, that answer is yes. For whatever reason, a VPN may not be allowed into the network and you must drive on site to resolve the issue. In other cases, you may have a hardware failure and no tools are available to remotely power machines on and off. Maybe you are having issues bringing up a console session remotely, and you have to drive on site. Generally, however, in most situations we are able to log in and resolve the issue without leaving the comfort of our homes.
Many companies encourage their employees to resolve issues from home as the response time is much quicker, and they hope the employee can quickly resolve the issue, get some sleep, and still be able to make it into the office for their regular hours during the day. However, the flexibility that these companies show during off hours often is not extended during daylight hours; the belief apparently being that an employee who they can’t see in the office must not actually be working.
I have worked in environments where you needed to be on site to mount tapes and to go to the users’ workstations to help them resolve computing issues they might be experiencing. There are also times that you need to be on a raised floor to actually access hardware, or you might be asked to attend a meeting in person. For the most part, much of the day-to-day work of a system administrator can be handled remotely.
When tasks are assigned to team members via a work queue, and when you are able to communicate with coworkers via e-mail and instant messaging (and a quick phone call to clarify things once in a while) there is no reason, in my opinion, to come on site every day. Some shops, however, want everyone to work in cubicles, and have everyone available during the same hours. They feel this will lead to more teaming and quicker responses from co-workers. What I’ve found in these situations is the opposite.
The Cacophony of the Cube Farm
It gets very noisy in a cube farm, and there is a great deal of socializing that takes place throughout the day. Some people try to solve the issue by isolating themselves with noise canceling headphones and hope that they can get some “heads down” time to work on issues. Instead of being part of the environment, they’re isolated and can’t hear what’s happening around them. People can still interrupt them by tapping them on the shoulder, but I find that it’s more efficient to contact them electronically instead of in person.
Cube farms easily lend themselves to walk-up requests from other employees who sit in the same building. Most organizations do their best to have change control and problem reporting tools to manage their environments. When coworkers try to short circuit the process and walk up to ask for a quick password reset or a failed login count reset, or to quickly take a look at something, it can cause problems.
Some people follow the process and open a ticket in the system, or they call the helpdesk. The helpdesk opens a ticket and assigns it to a work queue. The people who walk up to the cube bypass that whole process for a quick favor. It may not take very long to help them out, but it does cause issues. The person who granted the favor was interrupted and lost their concentration, and possibly stopped work on a high severity or mission critical situation.
The person who walked up also stopped what they were doing, walked over, waited to get your attention, and then waited while you worked on their problem. This prevented you from working on the problem you had already committed to getting done. There was no record in the system that this issue came up, which in some environments can lead to an under reporting of trouble tickets, which can cause management to believe that there are less requests being fulfilled than are actually occurring. When you ask them to go back and fill out a form or call the helpdesk, they can get upset that you did not immediately help them out. If you ask them to open a ticket after the fact, that becomes a hassle for them to take care of, and they have no real motivation to go back and take care of the paperwork, as their request has already been handled for them.
What I’ve found works better for me is to work remotely during the day. The interrupts still come in via instant messaging or e-mail, but I can control when I respond to them. During an event that requires immediate assistance, I can easily be paged or called on my cell phone. Just because an e-mail or an instant message comes in, that doesn’t mean I have to immediately stop what I’m working on in order to handle it. I can finish the task I’m working on, and when I reach a good stopping point, I can find out what the new request is. Depending on the severity of the request, and how long it will take, I can then prioritize when it will need my attention.
I also find that since my coworkers are not standing there waiting for me to respond, there is less time wasted by both parties. They send me an e-mail or instant message, and go on doing other things while waiting for me to respond. If it’s appropriate, I have them open a ticket and get it assigned to the correct team to work on it. For some reason, the request to have them open a ticket has been met with less hostility when I have done it over instant messaging versus a face-to-face discussion.
Offices Versus Cubicles
My next favorite place to work, if I must be onsite, is an actual office with a door that I can shut. Many companies have gravitated away from this arrangement due to the costs involved, but I think it bears some reconsideration. The noise levels in a shared office environment end up irritating a good portion of the employees. Office mates that use the phone can be heard up and down the row. Some employees want less light, some want more. Some want less noise, some want to listen to the radio and shout over the cubicle partitions to get their neighbor’s attention. All the background noise and the phone conversations make it very difficult to concentrate when working on problems.
There can be advantages to a shared work environment. When you overhear an issue that a coworker is working on, for example, you may be able to offer some help. Other times, it can be conducive to a quick off the cuff meeting with people. You can quickly look around and determine if someone is in the office that day. Some people thrive in a noisy environment, and it often all comes down to personal style and how people work best. I think many companies would be well served to offer options to their employees.
In discussing this topic with co workers, there are some who would refuse to work from home, since they may not feel disciplined enough to get work done in that environment and they would miss the interpersonal interaction that they currently enjoy. I’ve heard some say they would feel cooped up in an office and need the stimulation that comes from having their coworkers around. But, for some, the ability to work remote or to work in an actual office makes for a happier and far more productive employee.
Setting up work environments has gotten so bad at times, I have seen companies set up folding tables with a power outlet and a network switch and asked people to work in that space. I suppose for a quick ad hoc project, or a disaster recovery event, this may make some sense, but to ask people to work this way day in and day out seems almost inhumane. At least with a cubicle you have some semblance of walls, but in this arrangement employees are sitting shoulder to shoulder, and I honestly have no idea how they can even begin to think about getting things done.
Flexible Hours
Along with the ability to work remotely, I also enjoy the ability to work flexible hours. If you are working on projects, does it really matter what time of the day you work on them? I have enjoyed the flexibility of working in the morning, taking my kids to school, working more after that, taking a break around lunch time and going to the gym or out for a bike ride, then working more after that. I’ve found that I actually worked longer hours, but I didn’t mind since I was setting my own schedule and determining what time of day was most appropriate to work on the tasks at hand. Some people work better later in the evening, so why not let them work then?
Why be expected to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. when 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. may work better for workers, with some breaks during the day to attend to personal matters? Some managers insist they can’t effectively supervise their employees if they don’t constantly have them around to monitor. I say this is nonsense; you can very easily tell if your employees are doing their job based on the feedback you get from people who are asking them to do work. Are they closing problem tickets? Are they finishing up the projects assigned to them? Are they attending their meetings and conference calls? Are they responsive to e-mail? If so, who cares what time of day or location the employee happened to be working from?
Training Time
Another difficult thing to do in a noisy environment is simply read and concentrate. With training budgets getting cut, many employees find that, to keep their skills current, they must constantly read and try things on their own in test environments. IBM Redbooks and other online documentation may be all the exposure that people get with topics like virtualization or HACMP or VIO servers. Having a quiet place to study, while having access to a test machine, can do wonders as far as training goes, although it doesn’t offer the same depth you can get when you are able to go to a weeklong instructor-led class. But, it’s usually better than computer-based training (CBT), in my opinion.
Hands-on lab-based training should be built into the job. The opportunities should be made available to those who want to keep their skills current, even if the training budget isn’t there. Companies should make sure employees are given the time to study these materials, even if the funding isn’t available to allow them to go to formal classes.
Many companies have told me they have given me an unlimited license to use all of the CBT courses I could take, at a huge cost savings to the company. When I looked at the course catalog, it was definitely a case of them getting what they paid for. Many times, the classes contained older material, and it was usually at an inappropriate skill level. At least with Redbooks and a test machine, you can quickly find out if you are able to get the machine to do what you think it should.
Employee Retention is Key
They say the cost of employee turnover can be significant. Instead of spending all the money to recruit and train someone new, I am always amazed that a company is not more interested in retaining the talent that they already have. The environment where people spend many of their waking hours will have an impact on whether companies are able to recruit new talent, and retain the talent they already have.
By taking steps to make the work environment less distracting, companies will likely realize a more productive workforce. If this means providing employees with their own office, then it will be money well spent. If this means letting them work remotely, that will also be a good solution. Be sure to encourage them to schedule the time in their day to read and study and try things out in a lab setting. As they gain more skill and have a quiet environment to work in, the company will find an energized and motivated pool of talent to call upon to implement their next project.