I have an employee that listens to talk radio (HayHouseradio.com)using earbuds while she works. I know that many people like to have some backgroup music in their office when they work and I don't have a problem with that at all -- if fact, I like to listen to the radio when I am doing "no brainer" stuff. I'm concerned about whether or not this employee is always totally focused on her work. She audits loan files and is responsible for our CRA and HMDA data input.

Would you allow an employee under your supervision to do this?

Are you monitoring her work for errors? No errors, no problems. Errors, lose the buds. She can't argue with that.

If you arbitrarily demand she remove the buds when others are allowed to use them, you have an HR equal treatment issue.

just my opinion, which is not expert on the matter.

My team is all sitting here with earbuds in. I don't know what they are listening to. They are all productive, so I don't care. Is her performance slipping?

Earbuds are only allowed for work-related online things here. Music is piped in. Stations rotate so everyone gets to listen to their fav at some point in the month.

I share an office which is not on the radio network so we have a radio/cd player. Thankfully, our tastes run the same towards intrumentals except on crazy Fridays when we may break out some stuff with lyrics.

Personally, I find earbuds too much input and therefore distracting. But unless it's against your policy, as long as she's productive AND error free, I wouldn't risk alienating her by making her stop using them.

I'm not finding errors in her work, but I think she could be working faster. The topics discussed are of great interest to her. To me, it's not the same as just listening to music.

I would tend to agree with you...music is one thing, discussion shows tend to "draw one in" more.

I would ignore the content of what she is listening to and focus on production. If the amount of work she is producing is not acceptable (I'm assuming it's less than her coworkers and that you have documentation to back that up) then address it with her - set goals and hold her to them.

Just to be an antagonist - some people work better with music - it fills in a void, and is a controlled distraction from overhearing other's conversations, phones, etc.

IMHO - if the accuracy and production are at par with the others, and she is not distracting others it may not be an issue other than she's a bit different than the herd.

I will say that I used to (years ago) work in a cube that was distant from everyone else and very quiet. I was two stories underground in what used to be a qualified atomic bomb shelter. The only radio signal I could get was CNN Radio. I listened to it all day. I am a news junkie, so it was perfect for me. I don't think it caused any quality or production problems for me, in fact it may have helped me keep up with my workflow better because I was more conscious of time passing.

I can't work listening to music because as a drummer I start tapping out beats and not working.

If her work quality and production are acceptable, leave it alone. If there is a problem, first discuss the problem without criticizing the use of the buds. If there is no improvement, then discuss the buds, but be prepared to eliminate buds for everyone to be fair.

Life is difficult.,stop looking for reasons to make it harder. Keep your eyes on your own page .

Anon, and the purpose of the comment to a subject that has not been an issue in 15.5 years is what?

It's your opinion that the employee could be working faster, but then you could turn out to be wrong. They could end up working slower because without the distraction, they find the job tedious and unmotivating. Unless someone is grossly not doing their job or you document a high amount of errors, I don't think I'd make an issue out of it.

Another anon here: I had an employee like this, who listened to spoken word things like podcasts, etc. while doing CRA and HMDA work that was highly technical in nature. The work was free of errors.

We became friendly over time and eventually they were comfortable enough to disclose to me that they were neurodivergent. They explained that the kind of work they did was mind-numbingly boring and easy for them; sure, it was very tedious and required a high level of rare skill, but in order to be able to do it all day every day, for years on end, all they needed was something else to occupy the unused part of their brain. They were one of the best and most talented employees I've ever had, at any job.

They said they could just as easily have ended up working a menial job (like, using their hands, doing unskilled work) somewhere - they just wanted something easy (easy for THEM) that did not involve interacting with other people and wouldn't overwhelm them or stress them out with noise, distractions, chatter from co-workers, etc. They would have been best suited for a private office with a closing door and solid walls (not cubicle or glass walls), which eventually they did get, and their work got better and faster.

I'd encourage you to let your employees choose what goes through their own earbuds.

I guess we are really going to re-litigate a 15 and half year-old thread because someone anonymously posted a nonsensical statement to it?

09/24/24 04:25 PM: Yes, although that does read as hostile and argumentative without being constructive, I just want to mention that in a great many topics this approach can be helpful to the readers here including myself, because:

a) Others may be seeking answers here, many years after the question was posed and answered. For instance, it's often frustrating find that the perfectly-phrased question was asked on BOL over a decade ago, but the answers end way back then and so thread is not reflective of the subsequent rule changes, causing the reader to have to keep searching.

b) For more subjective matters like the one in this thread, over time, opinions and standards shift and change (hopefully for the better, but not always) and a year 2024 answer might be better for a year 2024 (or future) reader than the year 2009 answer.

c) Like most other Sep 2024 responders, I didn't notice this one started in 2009 (we don't always have time to read every word and check the dates) but I still would have commented if others had already started the discussion rolling. Well, at least until a BOL guru showed up at the digital water cooler and commanded: "Back to work!"

I wonder if BOL moderators might consider using a "lock thread" mechanism to finalize old threads and prevent updates, but then the drawbacks would include readers experiencing even more instances of "a" and "b" above.

Personally,

I have no problem with people reviving an old thread and I will even reference some of the oldie but goodies myself as part of an answer. But here is the post that revived this thread:

" Life is difficult., stop looking for reasons to make it harder. Keep your eyes on your own page ".

It is non-sensical when it comes to this subject as it has nothing to do with how you would manage this issue in your institution, it offers no new insight, nor does it pose an additional question. Also, considering it was just some random web surfer posting anonymously, it makes little sense to me to revive such a thread. But that is just me and everyone else is free to knock themselves out over it.

I have and always have had little patience for the anonymous thread outside of those posts that the poster feels that posting anonymously would be prudent concerning their identify or subject matter. But then again, we do also have the private forums.