@Dashrender said:

What plans are each of you on?

Business vs E1/3, etc?

Just office 365 pro plus. No exchange, client only.

@JaredBusch

Do you need to bring the drive online from disk management?

Must allow 10. I have 6 detected installs and they are all on desktops or laptops.

I will check. I installed it over the weekend on a new desktop and it said I was using 5 of 10.

I noticed that I can have 10 devices for my O365 account. Maybe because I am the Admin?

@wirestyle22 Sure, you have to read the reason they are complaining. Some are really dumb reasons but that is why I always read the 1-2 stars first. The way I see this one, is first it is only 3.5 ish stars. Second, there are only 13 reviews so I can't really get a broad enough sample. Third, the low ratings are complaining of failures. Fourth, the first review I read said that they changed their review to a lower rating because they must have also gotten a lemon.

@wirestyle22 NUC

Those reviews don't look that great.

Interesting. Lent started awhile ago here.

I totally thought this was going to be a thread of yet another group of platforms or software that I had never heard of.

@scottalanmiller Ha! I meant to say working at the level asking for more responsibilities, in addition to what your current role requires.

@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.

@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.

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.

@scottalanmiller said:

@wrx7m said:

@scottalanmiller Also, I am one of the people who does tons of work at all hours of the day and night but sometimes I do have things going on during office hours that aren't necessarily work-related but I get my work done and am constantly coming up with ways to improve and learn (i.e. posting on IT forums). Fortunately, my boss (who does not have any technical background) is very easy to work for in most cases because he lets me do things the way I want.

Right, so you can appreciate how having those metrics out there could be very, very damaging as someone might claim that you don't do any work based on them.

I totally do and that is why I am very specific about letting them know when they request this information that it is very misleading. I would rather not have to deal with any of that stuff. If employees aren't getting stuff done and it isn't a training issue, let them go.

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.

Well, you have two core means that most places use...

• Other people as a baseline. If people are below average, they need to stay close to the baseline. If they are above the baseline, who cares why or if they do it in one hour instead of in ten. Be happy that you have a good performer because it means that they could demand WAY more money from you if they wanted to.
• Negotiate for a rate of work. This is how most places work. You want X output, they want Y money. You meet at a rate of each that makes each other happy.

When I worked for the big bank, they could not afford my seven figure rate, so in exchange I was on call all the time and only worked fifteen hours a week. I was paid at their cap. I could drink (and did) and go home and watch movies and whatever. They got an employee that they couldn't afford otherwise and I got a schedule that worked for me. Firing me would have made no sense, at fifteen hours a week I pulled the weight of several full time people.

You, sir, have arrived.

@scottalanmiller Also, I am one of the people who does tons of work at all hours of the day and night but sometimes I do have things going on during office hours that aren't necessarily work-related but I get my work done and am constantly coming up with ways to improve and learn (i.e. posting on IT forums). Fortunately, my boss (who does not have any technical background) is very easy to work for in most cases because he lets me do things the way I want.

@scottalanmiller I agree but I am not the management I speak of. I work for a family-owned SMB and have to qualify every piece of info that I am asked to provide with, there isn't a hard and fast rule. For example, the browser tab may be open but not necessarily in use the whole day.

@scottalanmiller said:

@wrx7m said:

IT services don't exist in a vacuum and most management would disagree.

Not good, healthy management. I normally see this stuff being pushed from IT in opposition to management as IT people have a tendency to want to "control" things, it's part of the culture. Good management would know instantly that this is horrible info and goes against even the most entry level management training. This calls only into the "really clueless untrained or megalomaniac" management category outside of specific issues (some places have to for regulations.)

If management wants this info, IT should be training them as to how useless this data is and how there is no possible useful outcome to collecting it.

Same boat. I don't need to control everything. I would just want people to do what I ask. I understand that some people work differently than others and I prefer that people use their time wisely. The product of the employee is what should be quantified. Are they getting their work done? Do they ask for more or to help others instead of just sitting there?