Too often, employers buy systems and software first and discover their compatibility and utility later. This results in a terrible lack of standardization that affects both the employer and the employee.
A hardware failure in an individual computer can cost between two and 16 hours of productivity. A server failure can affect the entire workforce, stifling productivity and raising stress to unbearable levels, especially if deadlines are looming (Johnston 2002). Slow operating systems and machines reduce productive time, frustrating the employee, who feels out of control and as if the computer rather than the human being is setting the pace of work.
The effects of system failures on worker stress and productivity have been a topic of research, and "some studies have shown that characteristics of computer technology can add to the stress experienced by office workers. Johansson and Aronsson (1984) showed that computer breakdown yielded an increase in adrenaline excretion and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in self-rated irritation, fatigue, rush, and boredom. Schleifer (1987) showed that slow computer response time generated higher ratings of mood disturbance" (Carayon-Sainfort 1992, 246).
The loss of valuable data and related productivity can lead workers to express their frustration as "PC rage." Research conducted by Symantec in the UK in conjunction with the National Opinion Poll revealed that nearly half of all Britons have reacted to system crashes by "abusing colleagues, hitting the computer, screaming, shouting or hurling parts of the PC" ("PC Rage" 2000). More than half of the Symantec research subjects admitted to experiencing losses of productivity because of PC problems, and 30% had witnessed physical attacks on computers.
Poor computer-system performance increases both workloads and work pressure since deadlines for work completion are generally not relaxed; when the system becomes available, the employee has to redouble his or her efforts to make up for lost time and work. Sometimes the threat of breakdown itself can affect work pace because workers have to modify their work schedules to prevent problems due to potential breakdowns (Carayon-Sainfort 1992).
The undeniable impact of poor system performance upon productivity and worker stress compels the employer to seek better hardware and software, discarding the old, which again plunges the company into productivity loss against the backdrop of rapid technological development in the IT market.
Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. —Lewis Carroll
Computer technology rises and becomes obsolete at an amazing pace, which affects both employers and employees. Rapid changes in IT technology cause the company's net investment in technology to drop lower than its gross investment. This, in turn, negatively affects productivity, since productive capital is founded on net investment.
While better systems definitely decrease employee frustration, they do not guarantee greater production. It is illogical to think that doubling computer efficiency will automatically result in doubly efficient industrial input.
However, after making heavy investments in new systems and software and bearing the losses associated with discarding old systems, the employer feels justified in expecting greater productivity and frustrated when he or she does not perceive miraculous changes. Assumptions that employees are cheating on the job begin to emerge in such situations, and the scapegoating instincts of management place the worker at the bottom rung of the office hierarchy in a tight position, thereby further decreasing productivity.
In order to ensure that employees are not cheating the organization, an employer with inadequate resources will increase work pressure and workload beyond the workers' capacities and will attempt to substantiate their demands with threats, incentives, or both. This, of course, also leads to productivity loss in terms of quality rather than quantity.
When technology advances faster than the worker's capacity to master it, productivity loss is bound to follow.
Works Cited
Carayon-Sainfort, Pascale. "The Use of Computers in Offices: Impact on Task Characteristics and Worker Stress." International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 4, no. 3 (1992): 245-261.
Johnston, Randolph P. "Time to Upgrade: Focus on Computers, Software, Phone Systems and Staff Training." Journal of Accountancy 194, no. 6 (2002): 30+.
"PC Rage Hits the Office; Workers Lash out at Computer Problems." Birmingham Post. February 8, 2000: 21.
