Persuasive Essay

“As Long as the Job Gets Done”: Managers Talk about Time Theft

ABSTRACT

Previous research suggests that workers often engage in “time theft” at work (e.g., using work computers for personal use, taking extra breaks, daydreaming, etc.) but the consequences of these activities for organizations are debated. Most researchers suggest that time theft activities are unproductive, costly, and detrimental to organizational functioning and highlight ways employers and managers can minimize or eliminate them. Others suggest they can benefit both workers and organizations through decreased levels of stress and fatigue. Regardless of the effects, researchers often assume that management is avidly against allowing time theft; however, past research rarely questions this assumption. In this paper I examine the extent to which managers problematize time theft. Using interviews with managers across a variety of workplaces, I show that the beliefs of managers regarding time theft are not monolithic. Findings suggest that while some managers may prohibit workers from engaging in time theft, others express ambivalence or actively encourage workers to engage in these activities within limits.

“As Long as the Job Gets Done”: Managers Talk about Time Theft

Work is temporally structured, and time serves as a central organizing component

of the working day for employees and employers (Fine 1990; Heyes 1997). Both seek to

manipulate time to their advantage: employers to maximize labor power by focusing on

efficient production (Taylor 1911), workers to increase their autonomy and freedom (Fine

1996; Hodson 2001). Though not inherently at odds, attempts to control the ratio of labor

power to unit of time (i.e. the effort-bargain) have often created employer-employee

conflict (Marx 1967; Thompson 1967), especially in relation to the time spent at work

(i.e. the length of the day) and the rate of tasks completed in a given time period (i.e.

work intensification).

Time theft, or unauthorized moments when employees are not working while on

the job (e.g., taking longer than allowed on official breaks, taking extra breaks,

daydreaming, or using work computers for personal use), represent a potential site of

conflict between employers and employees. On one hand, employers have an interest in

minimizing time employees spend away from productive activities (Marx 1967); on the

other hand, workers may be interested in taking breaks from production, for example, to

handle personal affairs, smoke, rest, or avoid work (Dababneh, Swanson, and Shell 2001;

Fine 1990). While some researchers believe taking breaks from work helps maintain

overall production levels (e.g., Coker 2011), employers and employees may have varied

expectations about how many breaks per day are necessary. Indeed, some literature

suggests that employees are costing companies millions of dollars every year in

unproductive activity (Atkinson 2006; Ketchen, Craighead, and Buckley 2008). This

literature tends to concentrate on explaining the overall costs of time theft to companies

and what managers can do to correct or counteract it (e.g., Ketchen et al. 2008), or how

employees justify or rationalize their time theft behaviors (e.g., Lim 2002). However,

researchers rarely investigate the extent to which managers actually problematize

workers’ unproductive activities. To address this gap, I analyze 21 interviews with

managers across a variety of workplaces about their feelings and opinions on time theft,

specifically how they feel about informal work breaks.1 First, I briefly outline past

research on the importance of maximizing labor time for employers, the benefits of work

breaks, and time theft. I then discuss my data and methods before analyzing how

managers make sense of informal breaks. Overall, my findings suggest that while some

managers may attempt to prohibit workers from engaging in informal breaks, others

express ambivalence or actively encourage workers to engage in these activities within

limits. I close by discussing the implications of my findings for future research on time

theft in the workplace.

Literature Review

Control Over Unproductive Labor Time

Prior to the implementation of wage labor under industrial capitalism, the working

day was often structured around particular tasks or the natural cycles of day and night.

With the advent of industrial capitalism, however, a new form of time management, or

clock time, arose. As employers increasingly paid workers for their labor time (rather

than for a completed task), employers subjected workers to a rigorous clock discipline by

1 The definition of time theft in the literature is broad, encompassing such activities as “buddy punching” (coworkers clocking each other in and out), calling out sick, and coming into work late or leaving early. However, in this paper I concentrate on a subset of time theft activities more aptly termed “informal breaks”. This includes daydreaming, using a work computer for personal use, surfing the internet, personal conversations with coworkers, playing games, and taking extra breaks outside of formal offerings (e.g., an official lunch break).

setting predetermined starting and quitting times, and increasingly holding workers

accountable for the hours, minutes, and seconds of the day (Thompson 1967).

This was intensified by new factory organization which allowed employers a level

of supervision and discipline previously unattainable when workers worked out of their

homes (Clawson 1980). Indeed, the time spent on unproductive activities (e.g., lunch

breaks) could now be heavily regulated and even encroached upon. In the early British

factory systems, for example, evidence suggests many employers blatantly disregarded

the Factory Act of 1850 (requiring two meal breaks) by attempting to “nibble” and

“cribble” away minutes of meal times (Marx 1967: 242). Thompson (1967) also

describes factory employers barring employees from wearing watches at work. This gave

workers little recourse to challenge employers when the bell for the start of break rang

late and the bell for the end of break rang early. Ultimately, this made sense from an

employer’s standpoint because breaks in production often conflicted with short-term

profit generation (Narayanan 1985; Jackall 1988). As Elger (1990: 69) argues, quoting

Marx (1967), we saw changes to the “‘porosity’ of work routines, through the paring

down of pauses, resting and waiting time and thus [a] ‘closer filling up of the pores of the

working day’.”

Positive Benefits of Unproductive Labor Time

Though the organization and experience of work has changed profoundly since

the advent of industrial capitalism, labor time remains a central concern for employers

(Heyes 1997). Clock time continues to dominate managerial thought (Crossan et al.

2005), and labor time remains a scarce resource to be manipulated and controlled

(Rubery et al. 2005). In other words, efficiency and the elimination of unproductive

activities remain major concerns for employers.

Research suggests, however, that breaks in productive activities need not concern

management at all times. For example, the ergonomics, management, and occupational

psychology literatures often encourage employers to provide workers with breaks

(Kirkcaldy, Trimpop, and Levine 2002; Mayo 1924; Tucker 2003). These researchers

suggest that breaks are vital for worker health and productivity and studies generally find

that breaks help employees reduce muscular discomfort, fatigue, accident risk, and stress

(Schleifer and Amick 1989; Tucker, Folkard, and Macdonald 2003) without

compromising overall productivity (Dabeneh et al. 2001; McLean et al. 2001).

Sociologists also occasionally describe the benefits of breaks for workers, suggesting that

breaks allow workers to reduce boredom (Roy 1959) and keep their spirits up through

games and humor (Homans 1950; Perry 1978). Health experts, popular management

consultants, and advertising campaigns echo these academic findings (Gioia 2011;

Goodman 2011). McDonald’s has even recently attempted to profit from these

campaigns, inviting workers to “Put an end to the working lunch and work on eating

lunch” (Vega 2012).

Employers also have an extra incentive to provide workers with official down

time (e.g., lunch breaks) when states or companies create formal break policies.2 When

breaks are mandated by law or through company rules, the government may fine, or

employees may sue, employers for not providing breaks (Sanburn 2012). Indeed, recent

2 Currently no federal law in the United States mandates break periods (except for minors, nursing mothers, and certain workers who may endanger others—e.g., bus drivers) and less than half of US states require breaks after a certain period of labor time (Department of Labor 2012; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2012). Employers, especially large and national chains, may have their own break policies; however, the extent to which employers follow them is an empirical question.

news reports document cases where employers have fired workers who “chose” to work

during their designated breaks to avoid potentially paying fines (Sanburn 2012;

Schmadeke 2012).3 Thus, formal breaks may be in the best interest of not only workers

but also employers.

Unproductive Labor Time as Time Theft

While many (though not all) states and workplaces have adopted formal break

policies, the literature suggests that informal breaks have become a major concern for

employers. Indeed, a sizable literature on “time theft” has grown across the management

and organizational behavior disciplines over the last 30 years (Lim 2002). Time theft falls

under the umbrella of “production deviance” in management literature and encompasses

such acts as taking personal phone calls at work, unauthorized break use, “cyberloafing”

(browsing the internet or playing games), personal conversations with coworkers, and

daydreaming (Atkinson 2006; Henle, Reeve, and Pitts 2010; Lim 2002).

While these types of activities are not new to workplaces (Hodson 1995),

researchers have increasingly suggested that these activities cost companies billions of

dollars every year in lost productivity (De Lara 2007; Lim 2002). Indeed, this research

often suggests that the level of time theft in organizations is “alarming,” claiming that

workers frequently and consistently engage in these behaviors (De Lara 2007: 464; Henle

et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2010).4 For example, Malachowski and Simonini (2006) suggest

that the average employee wastes 1.86 hours per day outside of regular scheduled work

3 While some workers may freely choose to work during lunch in order to, for example, leave work early (Garey 1999; Perry 1978), research shows that many workers have no choice but to work during lunch due to heavy workloads and/or normative pressures (Fraser 2001; Kuna 2006). 4 The causes of time theft have been amply investigated and researchers have suggested both individual and organizational antecedents to these behaviors; however, discussing the causes of time theft is beyond the scope of this paper (see Atkinson 2006; Henle et al. 2010; Ketchen et al. 2008; Martin et al. 2010).

breaks on unproductive activities. Most of this research, however, concentrates on white-

collar workers and the consequences of “internet deviance” in the workplace (also known

as “cyberloafing,” non-work-related internet activity, personal web use, etc.—see Kim

and Byrne 2011 for a discussion of different conceptualizations). Similar to other aspects

of time theft, internet deviance is said to be highly problematic for organizations. For

example, researchers suggest that the vast majority of (white-collar) workers spend some

time during the workday and that surfing the internet can decrease worker productivity by

as much as 40% on a daily basis (Lim and Teo 2005; Verton 2000).5

Time Theft and Management

Overall, the literature is consistent in its portrayal of workers’ and managers’

interests. Workers are often described as both willing and unknowing time thieves while

employers and management are painted as completely against time theft. Management in

particular is said to bemoan the loss of productivity from time theft (Lim and Teo 2005),

and managers are often tasked with the responsibility for figuring out ways to eliminate

these activities (Ketchen et al. 2008; Martin et al. 2010). As Coker (2011: 239) writes, in

reference to workplace internet leisure browsing (WILB), “The incongruence between

employers’ and employees’ views on the acceptance of WILB creates a conflict of

interest in the workplace. While workers believe they should be allowed to WILB,

management believes they should not be allowed.”

Despite the consensus, the assumption that managers are completely against time

theft is rarely tested. Indeed, it is unclear to what extent actual managers problematize

5 In contrast, a growing body of research also suggests that, like formal breaks, informal breaks can benefit workers and organizations, especially cyberloafing activities (Coker 2011; Oravec 2002). As Oravec (2002: 63) argues, “Allowing for reasonable and humane amounts of online recreation (during work hours) can indeed have considerable advantages,” including decreased levels of stress and increased problem-solving ability.

time theft activities. Most research simply highlights the extent to which time theft exists

and discusses ways of eliminating it; however, researchers have yet to actually

investigate empirically how managers feel about, and make sense of, time theft. The few

researchers that do mention managers feelings speculate that managers may not police

time theft because they want to avoid conflict with employees or do not want to be seen

as hypocrites because they also participate in these activities (Ketchen et al. 2008), and

rarely do researchers suggest that managers may actively tolerate, or even encourage,

time theft (for an exception, see Verton 2000).

This is surprising given literature suggesting that management may actively trade

“compliance or obedience in certain areas at the cost of tolerating disobedience

elsewhere” in order to ensure the organization runs smoothly (Sykes 1958: 56—see also,

Anteby 2008; Burawoy 1979). For example, Morgan (1975) describes workers often

returning from break late or “preparing” for break by slowing their pace and inching

closer to the door. Morgan argues that management tolerated these practices because they

kept worker morale high and gave management leverage to ensure that workers

completed their tasks efficiently. Thus, rather than police time theft, it is possible that

managers may actively tolerate and encourage it to ensure that overall production levels

remain at a satisfactory level.

To address this gap, I consider how managers think about their employees’ time

theft activities and how their own experiences and positions shape their understandings.

Ultimately, my analyses reveal that managers are not monolithic in their feelings about

time theft. While some managers actively seek to thwart time theft, others are more

ambivalent about it and/or actively encourage their workers to take a little time to

themselves in moderation.

Data and Method

The data and analyses offered here are based on 21 interviews with managers (i.e.

both mid- and upper-level workers with supervisory power) across a variety of industrial,

service, and professional workplaces. I recruited and conducted these interviews between

January and December of 2012 as part of a larger, ongoing project investigating the

experience, use, and negotiation of time among workers and managers. All managers

who supervised at least one subordinate worker as part of their job description qualified

to be included in the study and I recruited study participants mainly through network

referrals since attempts at on-street solicitation were most often met with refusals. Indeed,

the managers I attempted to recruit in-person worried that their participation would

somehow get them in trouble with their company, despite my assurance that their

participation was confidential. In contrast, my relationship with my network contacts

helped establish a sense of security and legitimacy that helped respondents feel more at

ease about participating.

The interviews lasted on average an hour and a half. All of the managers

participated voluntarily without promise of incentive, and I assured everyone that their

identities and responses would remain confidential. I digitally recorded the interviews

with participants’ permission and transcribed them, assigning all managers pseudonyms.

Of the managers interviewed, seventeen identified as white, while three identified as

Black or African-American and one identified as Latino. The average age of the

respondents was 37 (ranging from 21 to 54) and eight interviews were with women while

thirteen were with men. A little over half of the respondents reported receiving a

bachelor’s degree or higher while the remaining managers all reported some college

experience. Twelve worked in low-level service industries like retail or food-service,

three worked in industrial or factory settings, and six worked in professional or white-

collar workplaces. For more detailed information on the managers, including their rank in

the organizational hierarchy, see Table 1.

I began this project with a general interest in managers’ and workers’ experiences

of, and conflict over, break time. Initially, I told the managers that I wanted to hear about

their daily work experiences and challenges, broadly defined, both as a worker (i.e. with

their own set of tasks) and as a supervisor of employees. I provided more details in

follow-up correspondence, informing managers that the interview would also focus

specifically on how they deal with time-related issues (e.g., whether they have break or

down time; how they manage their employees’ time). Each semi-structured interview

began with descriptive questions about the interview respondent’s workplace and position

in an effort to understand a typical day in the life of each manager. From there, topics

ranged from what they liked and disliked about their current position and what they saw

as the most challenging aspects of their job, to questions about how they managed their

own and their employees’ time throughout the day. During the latter set of questions,

respondents often spontaneously brought up their feelings about the use and abuse of

informal breaks at work. If respondents were not forthcoming, I typically asked a

question like, “How easy or difficult is it for you to keep workers on task throughout the

day and why?”

Overall, I approached these interviews with a broad interest in how managers

manage their own time and the labor time of their employees, but I relied on inductive

coding methods associated with grounded theory to identify themes and patterns in the

interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I conducted several

readings of the transcripts and field notes I wrote immediately following each interview. I

then coded the interview data using Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software, writing memos

to define and elaborate initial coding categories. As the analysis developed, I focused my

coding by discussing, comparing, and combining coding categories (Strauss & Corbin,

1998). For this analysis, I identified passages where participants described their views on

break time at work, and passages where they described monitoring the time use of their

employees. I paid close attention to passages where participants described whether they

took time away from productive activities at work and how they felt about and dealt with

employees who may also participate in nonproductive workplace activities. While I make

no claims of generalizability due to my non-random sample, I believe the study provides

important insights into the study of time theft and the functions and dysfunctions of

nonproductive time at work.

Managers Talk About Time Theft

Most of the managers and workers I interviewed worked in companies that had

some degree of formal policy written down about lunch time or break periods and all but

one of the managers I interviewed reported allowing their workers to take these breaks.

This was especially true for managers and workers in blue-collar and service industries

who often lived in states or worked for companies where violating break policy could get

the company in trouble. As Bella, a shift supervisor in a retail clothing store, reported, “A

minor has to take a break. We will get fined if they don't take the half hour break after

four hours. So that definitely has to be done.” Similarly, when asked a question about

informal break opportunities, Hilda, a pharmacy manager, frantically backtracked:

Well, you mean as far as other breaks besides lunch? (Yeah). Yeah, that'll be kind

of determined based on the work flow. Um, but I don't want you to think we ever

tell people that they don't get lunch because, oh my God. We'd have to deal with

the union and all kinds of craziness. That doesn't happen. Everybody is entitled to

that and gets it no matter how busy it is.

Overall, most of the managers, regardless of setting, thought formal break time

was beneficial to their workers and the company. Edith, a compliance manager in the

real-estate industry, reported: “My own management philosophy is that you need to take

a lunch and I kind of push that down to my associates, at least a half hour. I think it's a

performance issue. I think you can't sit at a computer for nine hours a day without taking

a lunch.” Similarly, Lou, a retail store manager, echoed Nelson’s comments: “Good

workers are happy workers when they get their breaks. So it's important to give them to

them.” In contrast to formal breaks, however, the managers I interviewed had varying

opinions about allowing informal breaks at work. I turn to this discussion below.

Eliminating and Allowing Time Theft

Consistent with the time theft literature, my interviews with managers revealed a

regular pattern of time theft at work.6 When asked why this occurred, managers,

especially ones from retail and service settings, often attributed the behavior to immature

6 The few interviewees that reported not taking informal breaks were usually either too busy or locked into their positions. As Kristina, a former cashier turned shift supervisor discussed the possibility of taking an informal break: “I could duck behind the counter but it wouldn’t be very effective. So no, there’s no getting out of work.”

workers. Nelson, a retail store manager, explains: “It's almost like babysitting, I have to

babysit some days. Because people just don't want to do anything.” Similarly, Gwen, a

retail manager, joked:

It’s probably a weekly thing where…a couple of people decide that they're not

going to do what they're supposed to do…[And] there are some moments where

I'm like, aren't we all adults? [laughs]…I'm like—you're twenty years older than I

am, aren't you way more of an adult than I am? What's going on here? [laughs].

Edgar, the owner/manager of a catering establishment and restaurant, was the most

candid:

Productivity wise…I think that hourly employees aren't motivated employees.

Need and want—well maybe not want—need to be told what to do because they

are unmotivated, uneducated, um, a lower part of the workforce I guess, you

know what I mean?...They're going to sit down if you don't tell them any better.

However, not all managers blamed an immature workforce for time theft. Lou, a retail

store manager, put the onus on managers themselves: “[Some workers] just get

complacent with…just walking around and straightening things when really there's a lot

of things that can be done…And one way I avoid that with my people is I give them

constant list of things to get done throughout the course of the day.” Gwen also

acknowledged how the company’s scheduling practices could influence workers’

penchant for time theft:

If you staff the store appropriately, it doesn't matter if you have a thousand

customers walk in at the same time, if you've got the right people there, it's not

going to feel like it…When the schedule's right, all that other stuff kind of falls

into place and people don't feel like they need to run off some place to hide and

breathe for a moment.

Whatever the cause of time theft behavior, I expected the managers I interviewed to be

avidly against the practice—especially given the time theft literature’s emphasis on

losing millions of dollars due to unproductive time (Lim 2002). While this was the case

for a few managers, others were largely ambivalent towards time theft and some

managers seemed to encourage it in moderation.

“I Keep Them Hustling…”. Contrary to the assumptions of the time theft

literature, only a small minority of the managers I interviewed thought informal breaks

were detrimental to the organization. These managers were determined to ensure that

workers made the most of their time at work. For retail and service managers, this

seemed largely the result of payroll pressures that often forced them to run a tight ship.

Indeed, almost every retail and food-service manager reported that “payroll” was one of

their biggest problems. As a fast-food store manager, Andrew’s response was typical,

“It’s hard to run the labor they want and still provide the service they want.” Jordan, a

retail store manager, echoed: “The company’s payroll expectations really make my life

difficult.”

Yet, at the same time, as Jessica, a retail store manager, reported: “Payroll is our

number one most controllable expense.” As such, these managers explained that if they

were diligent enough in keeping workers on task, they could reduce labor costs. As

Andrew brags, “I keep them hustling on my day shifts. I keep everybody moving [so]

when there's not much to do I can start cutting people.” In Jessica’s words:

As a manager, that is my number one priority….My job, my biggest job of the

day is walking around my store and just saying ‘Hey what are you working on?

Hey what are you doing? How much longer till you finish this?’ Because then that

puts to them, really the sense of urgency, and when I assign them a task I do give

them a time expectation…And then that's going to save me money at the end of

the day because I didn't have to call in someone extra to do all that work.

In their minds, these managers had a large incentive to eliminate workers’ informal

breaks to maximize payroll and save money. By eliminating time theft, managers

potentially made their payroll issues less problematic.

Outside of service and retail, the managers I interviewed seemed much less likely

to keep a watchful eye out for employees taking informal breaks. However, some

exceptions existed. Nikoli, a shop manager in an engineering firm, described himself as

laid back with the employees he supervised but recounted a story of his previous boss:

We used to call it the hairy eye ball when my boss would creep out of his office…

He pretended to…look at a computer or something but at the same time he was

just keeping a secret eye on everyone on the floor. Making sure they weren't

slacking off or anything…If I took a quick lap with my engineer…he would come

rushing over and say ‘Hey hey hey what are you doing? Why aren't you getting

this done? What's this project doing?’…He would just attack you like a wild

wolverine.

Edith, a compliance manager in the real-estate industry, recounted a story about workers

clocking out early at the end of the day:

The one area that I think people tend to abuse, which drives me a little bit crazy,

is the time clock…It used to be that we actually had a clock that they would

punch and for some reason…you can punch out seven minutes before the hour

and it will bring you up to the hour. So people were punching out seven minutes

early and so what I did one day is I put on a Hawaiian shirt and sunglasses and sat

in a beach chair by the clock. And, did that for two days, and then nobody was

punching out early. Because they didn't realize—I mean when you do the math,

and you see how much time that is, it translates into dollars that we're not getting

a service for. You know?

The company ultimately fixed the issue by implementing a new time keeping system so

Edith rarely worries about unproductive workers now. However, Edith, along with

Nikoli’s old manager, believed that unproductive time could add up and cost the

company dearly.

“As Long as the Job Gets Done…”. Surprisingly, however, the majority of

managers I interviewed did not view informal breaks as a major issue. Most often, the

managers I interviewed displayed a high level of ambivalence or indifference towards

time theft. For example, Edgar, the owner of his own catering service and restaurant,

exclaimed:

I mean there's a lot of goldbricking going on you know, for instance I [recently

had an] inspection, [and the inspector asked] ‘Do these employees get breaks?’

And I bust out laughing. And I said well look around right now, while we're

sitting back here talking, two of them are sitting up there watching television

[laughs], one's outside smoking [laughs]—I said ‘Get breaks? It's more like, do

they do any work? [Edgar laughs, pauses, and then shrugs his shoulders]

Whatever.

While Edgar may see his workers’ break habits as more comical than detrimental, when

asked if his business was being hurt by the goldbricking, Edgar admitted that he could

probably be more profitable if he was stricter with his employees. However, he

continued: “Well you know, I got people in place that I think will at least half-ass do the

job you know what I mean? So, you know, most of them are good. Pretty good.”

Ultimately, Edgar displays a high level of ambivalence towards time theft

(“Whatever”) even if correcting the issue might lead to greater profit. Perhaps this may

be because of the “type” of workers he describes employing (e.g., “a lower part of the

workforce”), workers who he says will inevitability steal time. However, it may stem

more from how Edgar imagines an ideal boss should be: “I’m not a whip cracker or a guy

that's always pushing pushing pushing…I know I don't want somebody breathing down

my neck all the time and so I feel that my employees probably feel the same way.” Other

managers were lenient about informal breaks for the same reason:

I don’t want to be a [the interviewee growls/barks] in your face kind of manager. I

had that past experience and I didn’t like it. I’m more laid back. (Kristina, shift

supervisor, entertainment)

A lot of senior managers come from outside the company…but they don’t have a

true understanding of what it takes to produce something or to complete

something as well as an employee does. Me coming up through those ranks, I’ve

seen it, I’ve lived it, I’ve felt it. So as a manager I have a better understanding that

these things do occur. (Alvin, inventory and compliance manager, production)

Yet, there is also a sense of “satisficing” implied by Edgar’s comments (Perrow

1986)—an acceptance of sub-optimal performance, as long as a satisfactory level of work

is completed (as he said, the work is at least “half-assed”). Even Edith, who recounted the

story about sitting in front of the time clock, explained: “If I don't notice it, if you're

taking a little bit extra time but the work is still getting done, it's probably not a big deal.”

Indeed, most of the managers echoed this refrain:

As long as my time expectations get done, or whatever job that needs to be done

or can get done faster, I don't see any problem with anyone you know just taking a

minute, taking five minutes, just to have a quick conversation on a personal level.

(Nikoki, shop supervisor, engineering)

As long as you get your job done, you know, I don't mind the breaks. You playing

a game on your computer, surfing the internet or whatever, I don't complain about

that. (Charlie, sales and rate manager, shipping)

Managers in retail and service settings also seemed to think the occasional theft of time

was acceptable. Lou, a retail store manager, explained:

I kind of put up with it, I think it's just depending on who it is and how often it

happens…if someone's been here for six or seven hours already and they just

want to, a quick, clear their mind for a second…chat with an associate for two

minutes…then I don't have a problem with that.

Ultimately, while workers may not be working to their fullest extent, they are completing

an acceptable amount of work in the managers’ eyes. Indeed, it may not be worth the

aggravation or potential conflict to eliminate workers’ time theft completely. As Alvin, a

compliance manager in manufacturing, remarked, “[If you allow it to happen], you’ll get

a better response from your employees.” In other words, Alvin believed that the workers

would become more committed to the organization overall if some leeway was granted

regarding time theft activities.

The managers’ projected nonchalance over informal breaks could also stem from

the fact that most of the managers believed abuse was rare and anecdotal. Bella’s

response was typical: “I mean it's not a lot of employees that waste time.” Similarly,

Edith reported: “I think it's something that actually just happens once in a while. Once it's

addressed it seems to go away…Occasionally someone just needs a reminder…[and] you

just deal with it and you move on.” While these interviewees may be playing down the

extent of the problem, the managers were quick to point out that abuse, if it did occur,

was easily remedied. Indeed, some managers reported that they never allowed time theft

to get out of hand because, at the end of the day, they had the power to dismiss the

workers. As Lou, a retail store manager, explained: “You simply just address it and if it

continues to happen then you no longer need the services of that person.” Similarly,

Nelson, a retail store manager, stated:

If you're abusing your breaks…you're abusing lunches, stuff like that—eventually

it catches up to you. When we build the schedule…we can go in and change the

schedule and adjust this and that…[so] if you're…for lack of a better way to put

it, a waste of my payroll, you're not going to get that much of my payroll.

Thus, the managers had the power to address the issue if it ever got out of hand by either

limiting that person’s hours or removing them altogether. While this may create costs for

the organization in other areas (e.g., the cost of a new hire), the managers’ control over

who stays and who goes may contribute to thinking about time theft as a non-issue.

Finally, beyond ambivalence and satisficing, some managers actually believed

time theft was beneficial to workers and the company (in moderation). Informal breaks

acted much in the same way formal breaks did—to allow workers an opportunity to

energize and refocus, or even create a better working environment through camaraderie

building. As Vicki, the Vice-President of a non-profit, suggests:

Throughout the day, at any point and time I might just stop and start chatting with

someone for five or ten minutes and that's pretty common for just about

everybody in the office. (So that’s allowed?) Yeah. And nobody takes advantage

of it. You know, five or ten minutes and that's it. We know, ok, everybody's got

stuff to do so let's move on…[It helps to create] a social aspect to the relationship

you have with your colleagues...It's not just straight business that you know, we

realize people are people, everybody's got personal things going on.

Similarly, Alvin, an inventory and compliance manager, explained: “Yeah, that’s

perfectly okay, because…it enhances your work environment if you can just open up and

talk to someone about common interests…It builds a family environment.” Thus, in sum,

contrary to the assumptions in time theft literature, the managers I interviewed expressed

a range of opinions about employee time theft suggesting that the issue is far more

complex than a dichotomy between deviant employees and frustrated managers.

Discussion and Conclusion

Time theft, or unauthorized moments when employees are not working while on

the job, may cause conflict between employers and workers. On one hand, employers

have an incentive to keep this unproductive time to a minimum and may seek to limit the

number of breaks workers take per day. On the other hand, research and popular media

often tout the benefits of breaks for workers and ultimately the organization.

The question thus becomes, how much do employers problematize workers’ time

theft? If the time theft literature is to be believed, time theft (in the form of extra breaks,

personal computer use, or personal conversations with coworkers) costs companies

billions of dollars annually and is a serious problem that management seeks to eliminate.

However, my analysis highlights how concerns with time theft in the literature may be

overstated. While some managers may be concerned with maximizing productivity and

eliminating time theft, other managers are ambivalent or actively encourage their workers

to be unproductive in moderation. Indeed, the managers had a variety of reasons for

policing or allowing time theft. For some, payroll pressures often encouraged managers

to ensure that their employees made the most of their work time. In contrast, other

managers expressed a nonchalance or ambivalence regarding time theft because the

workers still completed their work in a satisfactory fashion or because the managers had

the ultimate power to remove any workers that they thought were abusing their time

privileges. Finally, some managers actively encouraged workers to take some time to

themselves in order to create an overall better working environment.

This study is not without its limitations. First, while I have attempted to interview

managers from a variety of workplaces, my sample does not systematically represent

variation in managing experiences. Thus, I cannot generalize my results to the entire

population of managers; my findings suggest patterns that may be found in the wider

population. Second, my definition of time theft does not encompass the full range of time

theft activities. It could be that managers are consistently concerned with more serious

activities like buddy punching or taking excessive amount of sick days and future

research should investigate managers’ feelings about these activities as well. Third, my

data represent the perceptions and opinions of one high ranking member within a given

organization, which may limit my ability to understand the nuances and dynamics at play

in these workplaces. Observations at each workplace or interviews with other managers

and employees may have provided me with a more complex picture than the one my

respondents reported from their unitary vantage point. For example, employees may

reveal that time theft occurs with more regularity than the managers know exists.

However, it is plausible that workers may actually help managers detect and police time

theft activities, especially if a coworker’s time theft affects another worker’s ability to get

their job done. This is an empirical question for future researchers to answer.

Additionally, while I did interview a few highly-ranked managers (e.g., a vice-

president of a non-profit, an owner of a restaurant), interviews with other high-ranking

officials in these organizations may also reveal patterned bias against time theft activities.

Indeed, more interviews may suggest that owners and managers have distinct opinions

about time theft activities. On one hand, owners may better understand the overall

organizational costs of time theft and thus desire to eliminate time theft completely. At

the same time, however, higher-ranking officials may not understand the potential effort-

bargain negotiations that are necessary on a daily basis in order to keep the businesses

running smoothly (Sykes 1958). In this sense, allowing time theft in moderation may

minimize conflict with employees and allow managers to secure a satisfactory level of

productivity. In other words, allowing time theft in moderation may simply be a cost of

doing business.

Overall, my study adds to the literature on time theft and breaks by investigating a

commonly held assumption about management’s feelings toward time theft. The analyses

offered here can help inform debates about the pros and cons of time theft activities and

provide a sense of perspective to researchers who claim time theft has reached epidemic

proportions. Indeed, it is not enough to show that time theft occurs and estimate how

much it costs as past researchers have done, future researchers must seek to understand

whether actual employers and managers problematize the issue. By continuing to

investigate the actual opinions and feelings of managers and employers (and workers),

we can further understand the potential costs and benefits of time theft.

REFERENCES

Anteby, Michel. 2008. "Identity Incentives as an Engaging Form of Control: Revisiting

Leniencies in an Aeronautic Plant." Organization Science 19: 202-220.

Atkinson, William. 2006. “Stealing Time.” Risk Management.

Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under

Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clawson, Dan. 1980. Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S.

Industry, 1860-1920. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Coker, Brent L. S. 2011. "Freedom to Surf: The Positive Effects of Workplace Internet

Leisure Browsing." New Technology, Work and Employment 26:238-247.

Crossan, Mary, Miguel Pina Cunha, Dusya Vera, and Joao Cunha. 2005. “Time and

Organizational Improvisation.” Academy of Management Review 30: 129-145.

Dababneh, Awwad, Naomi Swanson, and Richard Shell. 2001. "Impact of Added Rest

Breaks on the Productivity and Well-Being of Workers." Ergonomics 44: 164-

174.

Department of Labor. 2012. Accessed at: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/

workhours/breaks.htm.

De Lara, Pablo Zoghbi Manrique. 2007. "Relationship Between Organizational Justice

and Cyberloafing in the Workplace: Has 'Anomia' a Say in the Matter?"

CyberPsychology & Behavior 10:464-470.

Elger, Tony. 1990. “Technical Innovation and Work Reorganisation in British

Manufacturing in the 1980s: Continuity, Intensification or Transformation?”

Work, Employment & Society 4: 67-101.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2012. Accessed at: http://www.fmcsa.

dot.gov.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1990. "Organizational Time: Temporal Demands and the Experience of

Work in Restaurant Kitchens." Social Forces 69: 95-114.

________. 1996. Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Fraser, Jill. 2001. White-Collar Sweatshop. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co.

Garey, Anita. 1999. Weaving Work & Motherhood. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press.

Gioia, Carol. 2011. “The Importance of Making Time for Lunch at Work.” Accessed at:

http://www.helium.com/items/2205122-the-importance-of-making-time-for-

lunch-at-work.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Henle, Christine A., Charlie L. Reeve, and Virginia E. Pitts. 2010. "Stealing Time at

Work: Attitudes, Social Pressure, and Perceived Control as Predictors of Time

Theft." Journal of Business Ethics 94: 53-67.

Heyes, Jason. 1997. "Annualised Hours and the 'Knock': The Organization of Working

Time in a Chemicals Plant." Work, Employment, & Society 11: 65-81.

Hodson, Randy. 1995. "Worker Resistance: An Underdeveloped Concept in the

Sociology of Work." Economic and Industrial Democracy 16:79-110.

Hodson, Randy. 2001. Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Homans, George. 1950. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Jackall, Robert. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Ketchen Jr., David J., Christopher W. Craighead, and M. Ronald Buckley. 2008. "Time

Bandits: How They are Created, Why They are Tolerated, and What Can Be Done

About Them." Business Horizons 51:141-149.

Kim, Sunny Jung and Sahara Byrne. 2011. "Conceptualizing Personal Web Usage in

Work Contexts: A Preliminary Framework." Computers in Human Behavior

27:2271-2283.

Kirkcaldy, Bruce, Rudiger Trimpop, and Robert Levine. 2002. "The Impact of Work

Hours and Schedules on the Physical and Psychological Well-Being in Medical

Practices." European Psychologist 7: 116-124.

Kunda, Gideon. 2006. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech

Coporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lim, Vivien K. G. 2002. "The IT Way of Loafing on the Job: Cyberloafing, Neutralizing

and Organizational Justice." Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 675-694.

Lim, Vivien K. G. and Don J. Q. Chen. 2012. "Cyberloafing at the Workplace: Gain or

Drain?" Behavior & Information Technology 31:343-353.

Lim, Vivien K. G. and Thompson S. H. Teo. 2005. "Prevalence, Perceived Seriousness,

Justification and Regulation of Cyberloafing in Singapore: An Exploratory

Study." Information & Management 42:1081-1093.

Loukidou, Lia, John Loan-Clarke, and Kevin Daniels. 2009. "Boredom in the Workplace:

More than Monotonous Tasks." International Journal of Management Reviews

11: 381-405.

Malachowski, Dan and Jon Simonini. 2006. "Wasted Time at Work Still Costing

Companies Billions in 2006." Salary.com.

Martin, Laura E., Meagan E. Brock, M. Ronald Buckley, and David J. Ketchen Jr. 2010.

"Time Banditry: Examining the Purloining of Time in Organizations." Human

Resource Management Review 20: 26-34.

Marx, Karl. 1967. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume 1 – The Production

Process of Capital. New York: International Publishers.

Mayo, Elton. 1924. “Revery and Industrial Fatigue” Journal of Personnel Research 3:

273-281.

McLean, L., M. Tingley, R. N. Scott, and J. Richards. 2001. "Computer Terminal Work

and the Benefit of Microbreaks." Applied Ergonomics 32: 225-237.

Morgan, D.H.J. 1975. "Autonomy and Negotiation in an Industrial Setting." Work and

Occupations 2: 203-226.

Narayanan, M.P. 1985. "Managerial Incentives for Short-term Results." The Journal of

Finance 40: 1469-1484.

Oravec, J.A. (2002), ‘Constructive Approaches to Internet Recreation in the Workplace’,

Communications of the ACM 45, 60–63.

Perry, Stewart. 1978. San Francisco Scavengers: Dirty Work and the Pride of

Ownership. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Columbus, OH:

McGraw-Hill.

Roy, Donald. 1959. "Banana Time Job-Satisfaction and Informal Interaction." Human

Organization 18: 158-168.

Rubery, Jill, Kevin Ward, Damian Grimshaw, and Huw Beynon. 2005. "Working Time,

Industrial Relations and the Employment Relationship." Time & Society 14: 89-

111.

Sanburn, Josh. 2012. "Why You Can Get Fired for Working Too Much." In Time

Magazine. Accessed at: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/19/why-you-can-get-

fired-for-working-too-much.

Schleifer, Lawrence and Benjamin Amick III. 1989. "System Response Time and Method

of Pay: Stress Effects in Computer-Based Tasks." International Journal of

Human-Computer Interaction 1: 23-39.

Schmadeke, Jim. 2012. “Women Fired for Working during Lunch Wins Court Battle.” In

The Chicago Tribune. Accessed at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-

18/business/ct-met-lunch-break-fired-20120116_1_unemployment-benefits-hard-

work-extra-work.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Sykes, Gresham M. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security

Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Taylor, Frederick. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper

Brothers.

Taylor, Wendell C. 2005. "Transforming Work Breaks to Promote Health." American

Journal of Preventive Medicine 29: 461-465.

Thompson, E.P. 1967. “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” Past and

Present 38: 57-97.

Trougakos, John and Ivona Hideg. 2009. “Momentary Work Recovery: The Role of

Within-Day Work Breaks.” Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being 7:

37-84.

Tucker, Philip. 2003. “The Impact of Rest Breaks Upon Accident Risk, Fatigue, and

Performance: A Review.” Work & Stress 17: 123-137.

Tucker, Philip, Simon Folkard, and Ian Macdonald. 2003. "Rest Breaks and Accident

Risk." The Lancet 361: 680.

Vega, Tanzina. 2012. “In Ads, the Workers Rise Up…and Go to Lunch.” in The New

York Times. Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/

media/ads-for-mcdonalds-and- las-vegas-aimed-at-harried-workers.html.

Verton, D. (2000). Employers OK with e-surfing. Computerworld 34: 16.

Pseudonym Age Self-Reported Race Self-Reported Job Title (Industry)

Kristina 24 White Shift supervisor (entertainment) Bella 21 White Shift supervisor (retail) Charlie 42 White Rate and sales manager (manufacturing/shipping) Hilda 27 White Head pharmacist (health) Vicki 51 White Vice president of finance (non-profits) Lou 50 White Store manager (retail) Nelson 31 White Assistant store manager (retail) Edith 54 White Director of compliance (real estate) Nikoli 26 White Shop manager (engineering) Gabriel 54 White President (computer support) Jordan 27 White Sales manager (retail) Marco 22 Latino Shift supervisor (fast-food) Brandon 45 Black General manager (fast-food) Gwen 27 White Manager (electronics) Andrew 33 White General manager (fast-food) Colin 44 White General manager (fast-food) Sarah 38 White Sales manager (food-service) Edgar 54 White Owner/manager (food-service) Jessica 28 White Manager (retail) Danny 46 African-American Manager (manufacturing/retail) Alvin 40 African-American Inventory and compliance manager (manufacturing)

TABLE 1: Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Copyright of Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association is the property of American Sociological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.