CareerBuilder.com Survey Reveals How Many Workers Commit Office Taboos

So where do you fall, or might you care to note something interesting about your coworkers?...

via creativepro.com: "Ever wonder why you can't seem to get anything done in the office? It may be because your co-workers are preoccupied with something other than work. 'Workplace Taboos' is a new CareerBuilder.com survey, conducted by Harris Interactive of more than 5,700 workers. The most common workplace taboos that workers admitted to taking part in include:

• Falling asleep at work (45 percent)
• Kissing a co-worker (39 percent)
• Consuming alcoholic beverages while on the job (21 percent)
• Stealing from the office (22 percent)
• Spreading a rumor about a co-worker (22 percent)
• Snooping after hours (18 percent)
• Lying about an academic background (4 percent)
• Taking credit for someone else's work (2 percent)"

Montreal Gazette - Business Coverage of Coworkers.com

Site allows you to post anonymous evaluations of co-workers: "Be nice to co-workers. It's no secret that forward-thinking employers are looking at social networking sites to get a handle on prospective employees. It's one thing for them to see a bunch of glowing recommendations about someone from their friends, but what about honest opinions from actual colleagues? Coworkers.com is a site that lets anyone, not just friends, write reviews about people they work with..."

Read the rest of the article here...

Social Networking in Plain English

The work of Common Craft, a NC Video Production Company, has been making the rounds on the web - and for good reason. Their simple demos are very well done - and the sparse, hands-on (put intended) art direction is extremely refreshing! Here's their explanation of social networking. Our only nit, is that they are missing a link at the end of the presentation ;-)

Bad bosses get promoted, not punished

Here's "proof" of something that many of have long suspected - bad behavior toward subordinates is often rewarded. The problem is that this reeks of sketchy science. First of all, the sample group consisted of "240 participants in an online survey." Were the respondents vetted at all to ensure a reasonable cross section of age, sex, job level, etc.? Is there any filtering out of people who have an axe to grind? Also, it's not clear what is meant by "bad bosses." This is obviously very subjective. I can think of bosses I've come across who can be very demanding, perhaps making people miserable at times, but who are incredibly effective and also reward their employees generously when they produce. Reports like this can provide interesting snapshots into some workplaces, but they should not be used as a basis to generalize about the typical workplace, and they should not be taken seriously without fully understanding the methodology behind them.