Is being busy a status symbol in your organization or culture?
Some people in almost all cultures put more emphasis on demonstrating their engagement in the process (teaching, office work, research) than outcomes. Others care about outcomes, regardless of process. What is your observation?
I don't think so as being busy may also because not prioriting the task
Being busy is never a status symbol. However sometimes it is a fact that you need to take prior appointment to meet a responsible person of the organization as it may save your time of waiting
Being busy and the related hectic, in terms of being fully occupied by a task or to-do-list, is not a healthy and professional behavior; it only adds to a Sisyphean circuit and triggers pathologies. The business of getting things done is principally related to a strong methodical life-style, which focuses on quality results and not primarily on status or honors.
Status symbol either in organization also so to say in our social fabrics depend on the development & culture of respective person . It is in this line some years back I have expressed my opinion in a similar line which I submit herewith for your kind perusal
Every organisation has its own culture & if the organisation is professional one with the touch of human relation as a part of culture of organisation ,such organisation always run for betterment of development,progress & welfare for the employees.
As indicated such organisation always works for the development of the company as also for the employees. With this said about organisation can not afford to over look M3 namely 1 MAN POWER -2 MONEY 3 MATERIAL this are three basic essence for any organisation for periodic view ,Change,in the various manual for the organisation if any change in the review or the development in such cases the change is in manual is the must.
This should be certainly help the organisation & also the management & as such for organisation ,it can be likely said that '' Managers are born & not made''.
Thank you for sharing this discussion! Following! Best regards: Julia Doncheva
It is supposed to focus on the first aspect (teaching, work, research) so that we collect the satisfactory and convincing results
Emphasis should be placed on teaching and research work in order to reach useful and good results ...
This may happen when there are no specific goals, action plans, or clear responsibilities in the organization
A well-organized and planned process leads to effective outcomes.
I do not think so , but working hard and the achievement of preceptive goals would be a high accomplishment
In most cases, a middle of the road approach works best. Integrating organizational process with the the product or outcome provides a more holistic realization of cost effectiveness criteria in an organization. As Idowu Koyenikan rightly states, " If you quit on the process, you are quitting on the result.”
Our effort can only be valued and appreciated by the successful output.
I think the results sooner or later are visible, are they?! If there are results, are they visible?! We make statements of operations?!
Many people are very busy, but accomplish very little due to lack of organization.
For example to draw your monthly pension one needs to line up for 2-3 hours to get some identification document before you can actually draw it. What waste of time for an otherwise very busy office.
People make judgements on the basis of outcome only regardless of efforts INVOLVED.
It depends on the type of work and kinds of thoughts the people have about you.
Oh my God, that's the question. Yes, I noticed an article in New York Times, I think, about "being busy". However, I have my personal opinion about such phenomenon. Look, I think there are three kinds of people who are always “being busy”. The first type of people are those who want to emphasize their importance are using the mask of “being busy” even most of institutions all around the world. They want to show their so called “importance” and “seriousness” and even “thoughtfulness” - because they’re always busy. On the other hand they try sometimes, or in most of the cases, whatever, to cover their incompetence or laziness with the musk of “being busy”. The truth is that most of them or all of them are quite good in their roleplay of “being busy”. They’re able to invent the unnecessary job for themselves and for the others, by “inventing” some new administrative form(s), procedure(s), whatever, in order of their self-promotion to be elected in some decision bodies, boards, committees, advisory bodies, etc., etc., etc. They’re always ready to “coordinate” by giving extra assignments, or giving the “homework” about some “urgently and extraordinary necessary” tables, reports, etc., etc. or they’re able to organize a “brain storming meeting” about how to solve some trivial issue - by the way, which is not an issue at all. But this is in their earlier phase of their career development. Later, i.e. when they grow up, they’re using the same techniques to steal ideas of the younger colleagues, because the older colleagues already “read” them, or they’re quite ready to impose themselves as saviours of the whole institution because they “are so busy and everybody respect them inside or outside the institution”. Everything is just perfect on them, their clothes, briefcases, and their pose when they’re working on computer, or talking or listening something. Even their gestures when they talk about something, and when somebody suggest something, they just use their usual sentence “Yes, I agree and I suggest you to do that. You my dear colleague, you surely know that I am "being busy.” Some of them, in good research organizations can be revealed after some time. Particularly if their results such, based on pure meritocracy, such as number of projects on which they are engaged, number of published papers and indexation of them, number of published papers in different quartile, citation of the papers, etc., …, so these “actors of being busy” could be “readable” in a very short time. But, if they are very intelligent, and highly skilled in communication (read: manipulation) they’re ready to disturb the creativity working atmosphere and also to divide the whole organization into different “clans”, if you want a soft term into different interest groups, and suddenly they arise into an new chiefs of department(s), deans, whatever. After sometime, the human relationships within organization are falling down, and consequently the academic reputation of the institution is falling down. The problem is that this type of intelligent manipulators of "being busy" is hard to “read” and usually when the other working bees read them, it is too late, because the damage is made. The second group is very simple to the first one, but their IQ is much lower in the comparison with the first one. The people easily “read” them and particularly if the strict meritocratic criteria exist within institution. Finally, there is a third group of “being busy” people, who are really busy, and everybody need them for real advice, or to help them in something. Usually, the people who are grouped in this third group of “being busy” people are continue with their “being busy” role as long as their wife or husband are able tolerate such chronical “being busy” status, or until they get ill (usually hearth attack or predictable state before infarct, or high blood pressure, etc.), and if after that his/hers wife or husband say “If you will not stop with this auto destructive behaviour, believe me or not, I will pick up our kids and I will leave you”. If they are clever enough, they press the brakes to slow down.
Being busy is not the subject of any change instead of simply plan and focus on the outcomes.
Your question is pretty interesting.
This question of yours reminds me of the classical question often asked to management students and it is " What is the difference between efficiency and effectiveness ? "
Another similar example from dynamics could be the difference between speed (displacement in any direction per unit time) and velocity (displacement in a certain direction per unit time ).
Now coming to the actual question. There are people who would be keeping themselves busy in any work, irrespective of its relevance to the set target or goal. The purpose of such activities is to make themselves appear to be busy.
Such people may be termed as efficient but they are certainly not effective as their work is not oriented towards the set goals of the organisation.
Being busy has indeed become a status symbol and rightly said by Lewis, its a tactic used to get noticed by higher authorities
Fish smells from the head. It the management of the organization makes people busy with unrelated to main business goals - they will listen the music. People ought to get focused on main things. All the rest is just a distraction.
The only successful status in an organization should be an excellent business performance. It is a derivative of people being busy with key business issues only. Just people being busy with a second priority issues is a big management mistake.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Business Economics
- Business