Negative Aspects of Cyberloafing
Generally, when people think of cyberloafing, they think of it as being negative. The term loafing does, in fact, refer to being lazy. It has been proven that cyberloafing does have its positives, but the idea in general still has a negative connotation. While at work, employees should be working and not misusing the internet. They shouldn’t be using it for personal reasons because breaks allow for that. Employee monitoring is also a factor when dealing with the internet in the workplace. Click here to read more about it.
There are two types of cyberloafing: serious and minor. Serious cyberloafing consists of online gambling and surfing adult-oriented websites. Minor cyberloafing would be acts like sending personal email at work. A study done in 2008 by Blanchard and Henle, as cited by Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara (2012), suggests that minor cyberloafing is innocuous. However, a more recent study done by Lim and Chen, challenges the previous findings “by showing that email activities (i.e. minor cyberloafing) have a negative impact on employees’ work, while browsing activities have a positive impact” (Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara, 2012, p. 470). Since there are different findings, it is hard to put a finger on when exactly cyberloafing is counterproductive.
In the article, Reconsidering the Boundaries of the Cyberloafing Activity: The Case of a University, by Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2012), a study was conducted on the effects of a professor's cyberloafing. Whether or not cyberloafing is counterproductive depends on what organization/company the individual is working for. If a professor cyberloafs in class, it hurts the students because they are not getting the appropriate instruction/attention from their professor. Similarly, if a professor cyberloafs at home instead of answering students emails, uploading grades, etc., students may become unsatisfied with their experience with that professor, which would ultimately cause them to reflect negatively upon the university as well. This study found that “cyberloafing is negatively associated with student satisfaction with the teaching service” (Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara, 2012, p. 469).
There are two types of cyberloafing: serious and minor. Serious cyberloafing consists of online gambling and surfing adult-oriented websites. Minor cyberloafing would be acts like sending personal email at work. A study done in 2008 by Blanchard and Henle, as cited by Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara (2012), suggests that minor cyberloafing is innocuous. However, a more recent study done by Lim and Chen, challenges the previous findings “by showing that email activities (i.e. minor cyberloafing) have a negative impact on employees’ work, while browsing activities have a positive impact” (Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara, 2012, p. 470). Since there are different findings, it is hard to put a finger on when exactly cyberloafing is counterproductive.
In the article, Reconsidering the Boundaries of the Cyberloafing Activity: The Case of a University, by Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2012), a study was conducted on the effects of a professor's cyberloafing. Whether or not cyberloafing is counterproductive depends on what organization/company the individual is working for. If a professor cyberloafs in class, it hurts the students because they are not getting the appropriate instruction/attention from their professor. Similarly, if a professor cyberloafs at home instead of answering students emails, uploading grades, etc., students may become unsatisfied with their experience with that professor, which would ultimately cause them to reflect negatively upon the university as well. This study found that “cyberloafing is negatively associated with student satisfaction with the teaching service” (Zoghbi-Manriquw-de-Lara, 2012, p. 469).