Pfsense instead SonicWall ?
-
@wrx7m said:
The only level of control I want is for people not to be able to browse notoriously potentially infected sites and those that can potentially create legal issues.
Yes, there IS a value, and I totally agree, that if you are simply blocking "known very bad" sites, you can use a proxy to good effect. But you want to avoid the problems caused by collecting data that this allows or else it might undermine the value of having that. You can do this with DNS systems and don't need a proxy to eliminate the bottleneck problems and the data collection ones. OpenDNS provides these services.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
Give a raise to would be more apt. When I think of promote I think of moving to a new position with different responsibilities. Although that may a non-standard definition.
YOu are correct, that is what people normally mean by promotion. I just didn't want to skip paying for their productivity or you risk someone else paying them for it.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
That sounds like a social problem. Really depends on the person. If that happened to me it would motivate me to work smarter instead of harder. Not everyone would react that way though.
Exactly my thoughts. These are not good people that you want in your environment. If they are upset because they don't get to take advantage of those other people to do their work for them you don't want them around.
Simple rule of business: never punish the good workers to appease bad ones.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
Give a raise to would be more apt. When I think of promote I think of moving to a new position with different responsibilities. Although that may a non-standard definition.
YOu are correct, that is what people normally mean by promotion. I just didn't want to skip paying for their productivity or you risk someone else paying them for it.
Although there are some benefits to organizations of letting highly skilled people move on. Getting a mediocre worker for less money may end up being a benefit to the company then having a highly skilled worker for more money.
-
@Dashrender said:
. the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
No doubt. However, punishing good ones and rewarding bad ones makes it much, much harder.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
I learned about the Dilbert Principle in my MS program. The Peter Principle sounds like, as my management professor put it, "peak competence". Oddly enough he generally used education as a means of demonstrating when people had reached their peak competence.
-
@coliver said:
Oddly enough he generally used education as a means of demonstrating when people had reached their peak competence.
that's where most people that he worked with peaked.... just a bit before getting a normal job
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
Give a raise to would be more apt. When I think of promote I think of moving to a new position with different responsibilities. Although that may be a non-standard definition.
I would say it depends on each employee and each company. To my point, I have always worked as if I were on the next level so that I could get to the next level. To me, a promotion, in most cases, would be what I am after. Usually, a promotion is more money and yes, a different job description.
Some people that perform really well and like where they are/their job role, so giving them more money would be a better fit if you want to keep them.
-
If you are working doing a different job than what you are doing.... then you are already doing the job for which you hope to get the promotion. It would be back to just more money
-
@scottalanmiller Ha! I meant to say working at the level asking for more responsibilities, in addition to what your current role requires.
