The survey was conducted by Lewis PR in partnership with HCL Technologies. “It is quite remarkable that in this day and age, many employers are still putting their employees' interests as a low priority by not allowing them to use sites like Facebook,” said Vineet Nayar, CEO of HCL. “While we always advocate responsible use of social networks in the office, banning them outright will impact employees' approach to work in a negative way, having a detrimental effect on the business as a whole.

”Facebook is such a popular application that is so widely used for personal and business uses, it makes no business sense to ban it, if companies do not address this they could be at the mercy of corporate suicide. Social networking is like food and drink to Generation Y workers, they are so used to communicating in a more open and collaborative way. Therefore, forward looking companies should be aiming to encourage social media activity amongst their employees rather than stifling it.

Hmmm. A survey conducted by that well-known paragon of objectivity and independence, a PR company.

I may be a cynic, but that raises a couple of suspicions in my mind. First, who are their clients? Second, what are those client's interests? Third, as this is a PR company survey, who paid for it to be done?

It strikes me as not dissimilar to a PR company concluding Christmas should be banned as a result of a survey conducted in association with WUT (Worldwide Union of Turkeys).

Its blocked from use at my place of work by me. Only employees with a valid business reason to use facebook/twitter have access to the site. While we did once allow it, the amount of abuse and bandwidth used in non business web browsing meant that we had to take effect to reduce it.

Not just bandwidth, 1stRaven, but time spent facebooking instead of actually working. Most bosses would raise eyebrows if their staff were sat, in working hours, reading a novel, so why not raise eyebrows at most facebook uses too. Sounds like you have a sensible policy - access where it's needed, and otherwise, no access. But never mind facebook, the same ought to apply to any web access.

It's hardly remarkable that Facebook is commonly banned. Makes sense - ban something that will (really very little doubt about it) decrease productivity. A better policy though, perhaps, might be to ban it informally (i.e. it's not allowed but not blocked) - enabling employees to use it during breaks if they wish.

Pretty old news, its just the same policies as video sites and other adult natured sites. Social sites are no different, forums are banned a lot as well.

Bandwidth is usually the reason unless you have a HR department, then its on grounds of topic.

miniyazz
It's hardly remarkable that Facebook is commonly banned. Makes sense - ban something that will (really very little doubt about it) decrease productivity. A better policy though, perhaps, might be to ban it informally (i.e. it's not allowed but not blocked) - enabling employees to use it during breaks if they wish.

I agree.

At least one of my family members works in an environment where they are occasionally told “We have nothing for you to do”.

However, on the basis that something could potentially spring up, they can't leave, so they have to sit in the office all day.

In that situation, it's fairly ridiculous that browsing ebay/facebook/forums is not permitted.

Odd thing is with our company being owned by the French who just happen to be big on the whole social media aspect and have unfetted access there but here in the UK we carn't get near it.

What made this embarrisng is that some of our french counterparts posted some stuff to twitter / youtube / faceback ect ect and ask us for comments, can you imagine their reaction when we turned round and said sorry but we carn't view the content due to it being blocked in the UK. red faces al round…..

Easyest way round this has I have found out is FB ect ect access via my mobile :)

1stRaven
Its blocked from use at my place of work by me. Only employees with a valid business reason to use facebook/twitter have access to the site. While we did once allow it, the amount of abuse and bandwidth used in non business web browsing meant that we had to take effect to reduce it.

Thing is in my mind taking what i posted above you should either allow it or banned it out-right, no one in my mind can make a ‘valid business’ reason for it to be allowed to just ‘them’.

I work from home and spend very little time on social networking sites regardless. Furthermore, through things like Tweetdeck, what little time I do spend checking Twitter and Facebook is very efficiently spent. Lastly, time spent not working isn't necessarily counter-productive - everyone needs down time.

I've found the shine has worn off for me, i use to check it quite a lot but these days i've cut back to 2 to 3 times during the day and thats it.

If I was a boss I'd ban facebook from the office PCs…

It's not work, it's not for work so why should anyone access it on their work supplied equipment?

I'd not give a monkey's if people used their own phone or did it at home though, so long as they got their job done!

snootyjim
I agree.

At least one of my family members works in an environment where they are occasionally told “We have nothing for you to do”.

However, on the basis that something could potentially spring up, they can't leave, so they have to sit in the office all day.

In that situation, it's fairly ridiculous that browsing ebay/facebook/forums is not permitted.

It's more complex than that.

What an individual does, in work hours and from a work PC, is generally regarded, legally, as being done on behalf of the company, as it's agent. So …. if they say something, for instance, that's defamatory about a competitor, it may well not be the employee that gets sued, but the company.

It is therefore quite common, and often recommended by lawyers, that companies put procedures, and especially staff policies, in place to eliminate that risk. That includes restricting email access to staff with a business need for it, for example, and by extrapolation to more modern times, social media access.

This is not idle theory either. There have been a couple of high-profile lawsuits over exactly this situation. It's why a lot of companies are pro-active - prevent the problem rather than defend yourself in court after the event.

Saracen
It's more complex than that.

What an individual does, in work hours and from a work PC, is generally regarded, legally, as being done on behalf of the company, as it's agent. So …. if they say something, for instance, that's defamatory about a competitor, it may well not be the employee that gets sued, but the company.

It is therefore quite common, and often recommended by lawyers, that companies put procedures, and especially staff policies, in place to eliminate that risk. That includes restricting email access to staff with a business need for it, for example, and by extrapolation to more modern times, social media access.

This is not idle theory either. There have been a couple of high-profile lawsuits over exactly this situation. It's why a lot of companies are pro-active - prevent the problem rather than defend yourself in court after the event.

Interesting point there.

I have worked for firms before where there has been no restriction on web access, and I suppose on the basis of your argument, that comes down to trust.

Coming back to our discussion regarding productivity then, you would have to say that it comes down to much the same issue - trust.

Evidently there isn't a lot of that floating around :)

snootyjim
Interesting point there.

I have worked for firms before where there has been no restriction on web access, and I suppose on the basis of your argument, that comes down to trust.

Or ignorance of the risks. ;)

snootyjim
….

Coming back to our discussion regarding productivity then, you would have to say that it comes down to much the same issue - trust.

Evidently there isn't a lot of that floating around :)

Or, over time, awareness of the risks, or even action to address them, has increased.

Some sites get flagged up at work, but none of the facebooks / youtubes / twitter etc.

We all have work laptops - I don't really have a personal laptop in use at the moment, so I use the one work has given me to do whatever else I want on it too. Obviously not actively during work hours, but yea a facebook page may be open in a tab etc, I will look while I'm on break or If someone sends me a message.

I also have the smart phone so it would not be a biggie.

But I often view and make suggestions for the facebook pages, of our brands - but majority of people at work wouldn't involve it directly with their work role!

MSN doesnt connect though. Skype is ok.

I browse hexus more than my facebook. Im going to get in big trouble for all of this.

miniyazz
It's hardly remarkable that Facebook is commonly banned. Makes sense - ban something that will (really very little doubt about it) decrease productivity. A better policy though, perhaps, might be to ban it informally (i.e. it's not allowed but not blocked) - enabling employees to use it during breaks if they wish.

The problem with that is give someone so much as half an inch and there will be someone who extends that by a mile. It only takes one person to abuse it before everyone else does it.

I'm amazed at how relaxed where I work are in relation to mobile phones. Mine always in my pocket apart from when I'm on break/lunch I've had it out on my desk next to my work PC because I've been expecting an important call and I will always seek permission to take it if my operations manager doesn't mind. Normally not a problem.

My colleague who sits next to me, is always on his phone on Facebook which I think to be honest really extracts the pith. I'm certainly not going to grass him in but give him enough rope and he will hang himself.

Its far better to just blanket ban it, then people know where they stand rather than some half baked not during works time but fine in your own break time situation, someone will defiantly abuse that privilege if given the chance.

Saracen
Or ignorance of the risks. ;)

Or, over time, awareness of the risks, or even action to address them, has increased.

Maybe, but one of them was an IT multinational that focussed on B2B sales of phenomenally expensive business integration packages so I'd be surprised if they were behind on technology issues.

Either way, it's a real pain in the neck. As ever, those who would use the system reasonable stuffed by the few who would exploit it. Not that it's a particularly new trend :D

Behemoth
The problem with that is give someone so much as half an inch and there will be someone who extends that by a mile. It only takes one person to abuse it before everyone else does it.

I'm amazed at how relaxed where I work are in relation to mobile phones. Mine always in my pocket apart from when I'm on break/lunch I've had it out on my desk next to my work PC because I've been expecting an important call and I will always seek permission to take it if my operations manager doesn't mind. Normally not a problem.

My colleague who sits next to me, is always on his phone on Facebook which I think to be honest really extracts the pith. I'm certainly not going to grass him in but give him enough rope and he will hang himself.

Its far better to just blanket ban it, then people know where they stand rather than some half baked not during works time but fine in your own break time situation, someone will defiantly abuse that privilege if given the chance.

Block anything and people find a way round it :) :vacant:

Why not make people wear blinkers and ban them from talking to colleagues unless they can demonstrate ROI?

Apex
Block anything and people find a way round it :) :vacant:

Most IT policies I've seen make circumventing restrictions or other parts of the policy gross misconduct and a sacking offense. I know if I'm asked to write an IT policy the first rule is do not attempt to work around any other rules, i.e. using proxies/VPNs to circumvent blocking software.

Is it really worth your job to use your work PC to check FB? I've heard of people sending saucy emails on their work account and getting hauled in for it, sometimes I can't believe people are so stupid.

Work equipment should = for work purposes, as a tool.

Personal equipment = do whatever you like on it, and up to businesses whether they allow these on the desk or not, that's more a grey area. I don't see the harm if employees still do everything asked of them in an acceptable timeframe, after all people usually respond better when treated like adults not children or prisoners. If people are not productive enough then fire them for it, if thats cos they were on FB then they are fools.

The blocking of social media sites seems very close to the clock-watching, bums-on-seats attitude that I've seen in many places. I despise this way of thinking! I'm lucky enough to work in an environment in which we are encouraged to produce results, not to be seen to be present between the hours of X and Y. This kind of target-driven work is far better, in my opinion, than being seen in the office/counting up working hours. Now I realise that there are very big differences between different types of work, but I think that most people recognise, whatever type of work you're in, that happy workers are effective workers. At times, I arrive late and leave early: for example if I've not got a huge amount on that day. This is always more than balanced out by the times I work late because I've got deadlines or have new results I really want to work on, and I don't mind working late under those circumstances, because I enjoy producing good results!

It's my experience that giving employees the responsibility to manage their own working hours and practices helps to empower them and make them feel far more in control of their own work, which in turn helps keep a positive attitude in the workplace where results are the primary goal for everyone. Yes, there will always be people who abuse such trust and responsibility - but it's the job of managers to identify and correct this behaviour, or discipline the person, as necessary. It doesn't matter what system you have, those people will always require some sort of managerial observation in any case, might as well keep the silent majority happy in their work!

Oops, that was a longer post than I was expecting…

Roo

We use a white list and there is no way around as the only way out of the network is via the proxy IPs, all other destinations are blocked on all ports. Remove the proxy software and you get no internet at all!

snootyjim
Maybe, but one of them was an IT multinational that focussed on B2B sales of phenomenally expensive business integration packages so I'd be surprised if they were behind on technology issues.
….

Really?

Know the one about the bank that had a problem with a dead computer in a branch, so they followed the internal procedures to check, and found nothing. So they called their own IT department, who talked them through various things, and couldn't solve the problem. So they called manufacturer support and got an engineer to attend the branch. He quickly diagnosed the fault, plugged the lead back into the mains (where the cleaner had apparently unplugged it to plug in his/her vacuum), and the computer, miscellaneously, started to work again.

You'd think that between :-

1) Common sense,
2) Branch written procedures, and
3) the IT department ….

…. someone would have thought to check it was plugged in. Some big corporates have just barely caught up with electricity, much less social media websites. :D

By the way, I know the engineer this happened to. He was well-amused. About the easiest call he ever had too.:D

I think Saracens post, about the computer problem, highlights a massive deficiency created by these procedures and laws we are bound by. We have a critical lack of thinking developing and I believe it is a result of being told what to do and how to do it, you bypass understanding and people become too busy to think, so they just do… as a result some pretty stupid things get done which people make laws to prevent and we continue the circle of promoting mindless obedience.

“Any fool can know, the point is to understand” - Albert Einstein, we promote knowing(laws, procedures, exams + tests at school) and neglect understanding. Then we wonder why people can't check to see if a computer is plugged in…

We have a very limited knowledge of behaviour and it's influences and, as a result, have created a system which is inadequate and often counter productive. It's about time we stopped for a moment and actually analysed how we do things, what effects they have and what can be done to improve them.

This is a great illustration of how something we've promoted as self evident is proven to be false:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Nayar must have been straining to keep in the mirth when he came up with these quotes. So far separated from the point that his quotes read like a Daily Mash article.

Allowing personal distractions at the computer terminal (emails and alerts from social sites) will decrease efficiency and productivity of regular office workers (not those who have the technical knowhow to get around the restrictions). Say the average worker spends 1 hour per day on facebook/twitter/bebo etc, that an extra 15% loss in productivity… and don't think that this will replace the inefficiencies currently affecting office work, the chats in the canteen and fag-breaks etc will still continue.

So I ask you: If it were your company and you employed 100 standard (non-techie) office staff, would you leave the router open to FB and Twitter?

hermano pequeño;2078448
Allowing personal distractions at the computer terminal (emails and alerts from social sites) will decrease efficiency and productivity of regular office workers (not those who have the technical knowhow to get around the restrictions). Say the average worker spends 1 hour per day on facebook/twitter/bebo etc, that an extra 15% loss in productivity… and don't think that this will replace the inefficiencies currently affecting office work, the chats in the canteen and fag-breaks etc will still continue.

If people are forced to work without breaks for long periods of time the quality and quantity of the work they do will decrease. Reducing one type of break is not going to increase productivity, and allowing it won't reduce productivity.

While this study is about something else(gaming breaks) it shows how taking away breaks and changing the type of breaks does not have the effect you claim:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.cs.wpi.edu%2F~claypool%2Fiqp%2Fgames-prod%2Ffinal.doc

hermano pequeño;2078448
So I ask you: If it were your company and you employed 100 standard (non-techie) office staff, would you leave the router open to FB and Twitter?

Yes

I would also encourage everyone to have a 5-10minute break at least once an hour to stretch and move around.

A couple of years ago, I blocked facebook for all users of my companies network.
Bandwidth usage when down 95% and about 10% of staff had a chat with their managers. Around 5% were on facebook more than half of their working day.
I disagreed with the way it was handled, however I was the one who insisted we start blocking sites rather than trusting all users to be responsible.
The only way I would have done it differently, would have been to get every user to sign our internet usage policy and send out a warning that we will be actively monitoring internet usage before collecting data. Anyone who gets caught after that for massively excessing abuse deserves to get sacked TBH.

I agree that irresponsible use of company assets should be punished, but I don't support group punishment.

Apex
Block anything and people find a way round it :) :vacant:

Oh I agree there, it was the done thing back in school.

However people tend to forget why they are allowed to use in internet in working hours. To assist them in their work, not so that they waste hours on Facebook or twitter. More often than not there is an IT policy in most work places and that states you agree to this policy as soon as you log in for the first time.

Most work places even have a documented IT policy which they get anyone that works for them to sign.

ExHail
I agree that irresponsible use of company assets should be punished, but I don't support group punishment.

How can stopping access to social networking, chat, unsuitable/immoral/illegal sites be classed as punishment?
Unless the job included necessary access to such, it would be a privilege to access the legal ones from the workplace anyway and as such it reflects badly on the half that haven't limited or banned superfluous access already.
People should do their personal calls, emails, facebook et al in their own time on their own connection and equipment!

ExHail
I agree that irresponsible use of company assets should be punished, but I don't support group punishment.

It's not punishment. It's prevention.

rabbid
How can stopping access to social networking, chat, unsuitable/immoral/illegal sites be classed as punishment?
Unless the job included necessary access to such, it would be a privilege to access the legal ones from the workplace anyway and as such it reflects badly on the half that haven't limited or banned superfluous access already.
People should do their personal calls, emails, facebook et al in their own time on their own connection and equipment!

The same way grounding a kid is… We live in a connected world and I don't agree that we should be restricted from the rest of the world while we are at work. There are other, more suitable, ways to discourage excessive use of the internet.

badass
It's not punishment. It's prevention.

What ever floats your boat. It's still unnecessary and negative to approach it with bans.

———————————————————————————————-

It's about time companies treated their employees like people and not like cash cows.

I found it odd when I started my new job, to find that Skype was used by everyone, partially for internal messages, but also people chat with their mates outside of work too, without anyone batting an eyelid.

All our company policy on websites states do not access sites that may be illegal or offensive on company property at any time (including out of hours access), nor may an employee access sites for a non business purpose during business hours.

It's all monitored and logged, so quite frankly I don't use the internet on it bar the odd Google search for help on a particular problem, but in the same vein, I've got my smartphone for checking Facebook at work if I have a spare minute whilst something is installing :)

We use FB for legit reasons (with customers) and I spend more time on the developer section than the main site itself