Boreout - Elements

Elements

According to Peter Werder and Philippe Rothlin, the absence of meaningful tasks, rather than the presence of stress, is many workers' chief problem. Boreout consists of three elements: boredom, lack of challenge, and lack of interest. These authors disagree with the common perceptions that a demotivated employee is lazy; instead, they claim that the employee has lost interest in work tasks. Those suffering from boreout are "dissatisfied with their professional situation" in that they are frustrated at being prevented, by institutional mechanisms or obstacles as opposed to by their own lack of aptitude, from fulfilling their potential (as by using their skills, knowledge, and abilities to contribute to their company's development) and/or from receiving official recognition for their efforts.

The authors suggest that the reason for researchers' and employers' overlooking the magnitude of boreout-related problems is that they are underreported because revealing them exposes a worker to the risk of social stigma and adverse economic effects. (By the same token, many managers and co-workers consider an employee's level of workplace stress to be indicative of that employee's status in the workplace.)

There are several reasons boreout might occur. The authors note that boreout is unlikely to occur in many non-office jobs where the employee must focus on finishing a specific task (e.g., a surgeon) or helping people in need (e.g., a childcare worker or nanny). In terms of group processes, it may well be that the boss or certain forceful or ambitious individuals with the team take all the interesting work leaving only a little of the most boring tasks for the others. Alternatively, the structure of the organization may simply promote this inefficiency. Of course, few if any employees (even among those who would prefer to leave) want to be fired or laid off, so the vast majority are unwilling and unlikely to call attention to the dispensable nature of their role. As such, even if an employee has very little work to do, s/he gives the appearance of "looking busy" (e.g., ensuring that a work-related document is open on one's computer, covering one's desk with file folders, and carrying briefcases (whether empty or loaded) from work to one's home and vice versa).

Werder and Rothlin cite research into time wasting at work carried out by AOL and salary.com in 2005. The survey of 10,000 employees showed that the average worker frittered away 2.09 hours per eight-hour day outside their break time on non-work related tasks. The reason most often cited for this behavior (by 33% of subjects; see study methodology for whether subjects could cite more than one reason) was management's failure to assign specific tasks to specific employees.

The authors note that the main response of many companies to these problems is to increase their monitoring and surveillance. Internet use may be monitored and a number of websites (e.g., video game websites or social networking sites) may be blocked. However, the authors argue that these monitoring and surveillance methods are neither effective nor conducive to a productive and fulfilling working environment. First of all, tech-savvy employees can get around some of the monitoring and surveillance methods (e.g., by using encrypted proxies that carry no target-specific information in their URLs). Even if employers block both sites used for personal business (e.g., social-networking and web-based email sites) and sites configured as proxies, employees can circumvent the block entirely with devices with data plans such as smartphones. As well, if employers monitor employees' telephone use, whether by tracking numbers dialed and/or by tracking time spent on the phone, employees can simply use their personal phones to make calls, whether at their desk or (if individual offices are "bugged") by slipping into an area not monitored.