[1999-09-23]
Let's make it official. I have sort of a problem with authority figures. Actually, I probably don't have a bigger problem than the next guy, I just have a problem with stupid authority figures, which is - I believe - a quite healthy condition. This leads me to the topic of the day, which is something that's been a pet-peeve with me for quite some time now.
Stupid question, right? Actually, if I look over the house rules of some of the workplaces I've been, I can only come to the conclusion that fun is indeed bad. Anything fun seems to need thwarting by some manager / boss / grunt-turned-manager-wannabe-I-can-speak-with-authority. Take the place I'm at now for instance. One of rules is that you cannot use the Internet for anything that isn't work related. However, that I use much of my idle cycles at home solving problems related to this place doesn't seem to bother anyone the least. Besides me, that is. Heck, we must even turn off our computers when we leave for the day!
When I hear rules like "no playing games on the computer", "no reading and writing personal email" etc, I just cringe. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do you really think I will get less done if I take a couple of minutes break playing tetris? Games doesn't kill creativity, stupid people with stupid rules do, and creativity would be a good attribute in the workplace, right?
Of course, the reality is that these rules are broken continually. I'm certainly breaking them just now, and I don't know anyone who does not spend some time doing things that are - or appear to be - unrelated to work. While the proxy-firewall enforce the "no chatting on the internet" rule fairly efficiently, people still check their email from work, and most will read the news on-line in the morning, etc, etc. So basically, everyone acknowledge that the rules are indeed stupid.
So why do the rules exist? This brings us back to authority. You cannot be an authoritive figure without some rules to enforce. Of course, this is not one hundred percent correct, you may for instance be an authority in some subject, such as "law" or "software development", but that is way too much work for any manager. Enforcing stupid rules is a much easier way to act with authority.
Stupid rules are a tool for management.
Since I've never held down a real job, I'm wondering.. what is it they pay you for? Do they pay you for "every hour spent at the workplace" or do they pay you for whatever it is you produce? If my assignment is to spend a weeks doing some basic research for a project I'm about to implement (this is what I'm doing as of writing, in case you were wondering), then why can't I play a round of tetris if I chose to? I'm actually reading some documentation on PHP3 (clearly work related) and reading the news about the newly proposed XHTML standard (probably work related) in parallell with writing this (obviously not work related)... my point being that not only is the line between "work" and "non-work" fairly diffuse to me, but you also need to take short breaks, and if I want to take my breaks in front of the old box, playing a game or answering personal mail, then why can't I? Because it's fun? No one seems to mind if I take a break by bringing a magazine to the toilet, and apart from being boring, that is a break in work too. Ergo, breaks are okay as long as they are not fun.
Obviously, I'm missing something. Either that, or these rules are stupid, and the next time I solve a problem while in the morning shower, I'll have to do my best to repress it. After all, we wouldn't want to do work in a fun place, now would we?
And oh, you can chalk up the "cost" of me writing this article to the "stupid rules" account.
Poor Eddy is so confused, please enlighten him by commenting on this article
(c)1999 Eddy L O Jansson. All rights reserved. All trademarks acknowledged.