I’ve talked about this issue ad nauseum in the past but it’s reared its head again in this article in the News Limited press (Brisbane’s Courier Mail, to be accurate). So, what am I talking about?
Businesses blocking access to social tools in the workplace. In this case, Facebook gets a mention, but it applies to social networks generally.
I’m firmly of the view that this is a foolish approach by business. For several reasons:
- it assumes staff are going to abuse the privilege of Internet access at work rather than treating them like adults
- it disconnects people from the very thing that makes them people — their networks of other people
- it denies people the opportunity to reach out to peers, clients and customers in the places they might be which very well could be Facebook, or MySpace or LinkedIn or a Ning community, etc.
- it abrogates responsibility for managing staff and imposes kindergarten-level, easily bypassed rules
- it fails to recognise that a smart and workable Acceptable Use Policy for social networks might work better than just blocking or banning
- it’s demoralising, demotivating and belittles the maturity inherent in your people when you treat them well and trust them
There’s more than enough research in existence (just two there from McKinsey, but there are many more) to indicate that allowing access to social networks at work, coupled with a functional and well-considered policy on what is and isn’t okay makes for a more engaged, more motivated and potentially more innovative work force.
The example I use frequently when asked this question is Facebook related. I’d suggest that it’s very okay to use Facebook to stay in contact with industry peer groups at work, but demonstrably not okay to use Facebook to play zombie games or Scrabble at work.
Which would your employer prefer? A happy worker, connected tightly into industry best practice and able to reach out for help when needed, or the proverbial mushroom — in the dark and fed on the crap that isolation produces? I know which I’d prefer if you were my employee.
Not to mention, this blocking argument has been seen before. First it was telephones on desks, then long-distance calls, then PCs, then email, then IM, etc., etc. The issue is no different with social networks.
Social networks are just another tool that have incredible potential to help your business if used in the right way. As such, here are the four things I’d suggest you and your business do today to make sure your staff are empowered to use social tools at work but also understand with crystal clarity what is and isn’t acceptable:
- Start with an acceptable use policy — get everyone’s feedback into it, get it drafted and in place on your intranet so everyone can read it. Make sure that your staff know their acces can be monitored and that there are consequences for repeated abuse of the policy (which may range from a warning to dismissal, depending on the abuse).
- Have an internal social network — of some sort. Ensure people can connect to each other within your organisation so that they build familiarity and expertise with the way social tools work.
- Open the firewall — blocking is both unneccessary and a workplace form of the Nanny State. If you trust your people, leading and managing them well, they will be more likely to trust you in return and also be more likely to feel inclined to follow the policies you introduce.
- Encourage use — not only allow it, but actively encourage your people to connect online (as well as more traditional ways) with each other, their peers and your clients and customers. Opening these channels offers fantastic opportunity to increase inputs to the thinking done in your business, offering an attendant potential for increased innovation
There are no perfect answers to this issue, but I think this offers a decent start.









Feb 20, 2009 @ 12:23:11
Spot on! When you treat your staff as adults they act accordingly. Given the space, staff will self regulate and self monitor — peer pressure to get on with the job and minimise use of personal calls/surfing/social networking works far better than overbearing rules and regulations.
Feb 20, 2009 @ 15:55:46
These are the same arguments that were had 25 years ago about putting individual telephones on every desk in the office, the same arguments that were had 10 years ago about giving everyone email access. This too will pass & we’ll have the same debate again about the next innovation.
It is really a management issue. If staff are not working it is not about the technology available to them. Rather it is simply that they don’t understand the rules, don’t care about following the rules, or are stupid. But in any of those cases it’s a management issue not a technology issue!
Feb 20, 2009 @ 15:57:07
@Kate — I think that’s what I said, right?
Feb 21, 2009 @ 01:06:59
For my part as an HRD professional (please don’t hold that against me) I am doing my bit to encourage organisations to use social networking tools to enhance and support their more traditional training courses — but this is an uphill struggle for the same reasons you state.
I also try to encourage my HR students (on a PG HR programme) to use social networking tools to a)communicate better between themselves and b)help the organisation sensibly regulate their use rather than simply produce a ‘no-use’ policy and ram this down everyone’s neck — again an uphill struggle.
Just a plea not to shoot all HR people, some of us find great value from these online tools and continue to try to bring common sense to the working world.
Feb 21, 2009 @ 07:20:15
Jozefa, youll never find me railing against HR folks. I’m married to an extremely smart one.
Feb 21, 2009 @ 01:49:38
Absolutely, Stephen. As I constantly point out to horrified visitors when I’m called on to present on social media, yes I do use Facebook at work — and isn’t it weird that my employer trusts me! I wrote about this a while back, but the stop blocking campaign doesn’t really seem to have gained a lot of steam.
Feb 21, 2009 @ 15:16:50
Hadn’t considered the phone/email analogy, Kate. Thanks!
What you forgot to mention, Stephen, is the benefits of social networking sites for companies with multiple offices, let alone multinational firms. How else are two office VPs supposed to communicate? Telephone?
Feb 23, 2009 @ 13:16:10
Nice post and very concise (because this is a massive can of worms).
I am not sure that the question of “Which would your employer prefer? A happy worker, connected tightly into industry best practice and able to reach out for help when needed, or the proverbial mushroom — in the dark and fed on the crap that isolation produces?” is that that black and white.
Most people are in between as these are the 2 ends of the spectrum. I have, apart from 1 job, worked in SME’s so this next observation is purely from my own experiences …
The problem lies in the fact that at each SME I have worked at there have been examples of people who act dishonestly. I wonder whether bosses, particularly in SME’s where they have their houses and families security on line, get twitchy about being burnt through another avenue and just aren’t willing to take the risk.
An acceptable use policy is certainly a great start but I know people who have stolen from businesses and that is juts plain criminal – regardless of a policy!
Don’t get me wrong, I think blocking doesn’t work and people resent the employer.
But I think responsibility needs to come from both parties. Employee’s need to show their boss examples of how SM can help their work and be honest about their use – not just tell that it helps us. On the other hand, bosses also need to educate themselves about how social media works and how it can be used 9which the employees can help with). Or maybe Stephen can help them …
Feb 24, 2009 @ 09:27:12
I completely understand the concerns companies face in trying to coral the use of social networks online, but banning it seems to be a knee jerk reaction. In fact many times people are commenting about their workplace (their boss their client, their customers, etc) on those networks. If a company can democratize social media within their organisations they can give it thousands of fresh faces and voices.
On another note, we use Yammer (a private twitter-esque tool) to share insight and ideas, ask questions, brainstorm collaboratively, etc right around the globe. It has proven to be an extremely beneficial communication and productivity tool, I highly recommend it.
Feb 24, 2009 @ 10:11:22
Meghan — blocking is absolutely knee-jerk. Where is the examination of potential benefit over the instinct to shut down what is not understood? Democratisation really is a serious goal that can add immense power to the organisation.
Leanne, there are a number of serious, large organisations that block almost nothing except (rightly) pr0n. With my clients, as they develop an AUP, I work with them on exposing the thinking behind it to all staff. I also encourage them, where they have the size to do so, to have an internal Community Manager who has carriage of social tool policy and can act as a mentor and advocate for their use. In the case where they are small, someone has this role at least part time.
The Field of Dreams approach — “if you build it they will come” — certainly doesn’t work well. You must show value.
Feb 24, 2009 @ 09:55:23
I suspect there is a key in the implementation of this. We tend to think it is simply a matter of blocking or unblocking, and so access lands on someone’s desk. There might be some policy drafted by someone in HR, if you can find it.
But someone needs to ‘own’ these applications and their use in the organisation. Someone needs to educate people about what they are useful for and what acceptable use is (and that is not writing a policy).
We expect people to understand the business benefit of these tools (and there are definite business benefits) but if that conversation never occurs you have conflicting opinions at 40 paces! When we rolled out internet access at a large publicly listed organisation 15 years ago, we got (as Kate did) exactly these comments. But we had a goal to create a ‘web savvy’ organisation. Once we’d stated that (and followed up with much more communication and education) it was hard for the ‘opposers’ to show us how we could achieve that without giving people internet access!
Feb 24, 2009 @ 17:17:25
Thanks Meghan for the link to Yammer, am trying it out in my small start up company http://ofqt.com
I wonder if organisations will more readily go for this so-called ‘in-house’ option?
Feb 24, 2009 @ 20:02:23
Well the stuff about Yammer threatens to hijack the comments from the original post, but I have to just add a couple of thoughts about that:
1. It may be fine for a small company, but not for a larger one or a conglomerate where your email domains may differ between divisions or countries. It only allows you to treat everyone in a single email domain as belonging to the same “company”.
2. Ownership and confidentiality may well be an issue — you want a “private Twitter-like service” but in this case you’re still posting confidential company thoughts out to a third party even if the ability to view the stream is limited to those with a company email address. In those cases, an “in-house” option is really the only one open to you. And this is a real issue, particularly for large organisations with concerns about intellectual property ownership.
3. (finally linking back to the original point) what’s the difference between this and any other social site? Unless you have a culture which empowers the employees to use social software then your organisation is just as likely to block Yammer as it is Facebook or any other site, with the same attitude towards it — “employees are wasting time Yammering / Twittering / using Facebook instead of working”.
Compliance Building · Online Social Networking: Is It a Productivity Bust or Boon?
Mar 11, 2009 @ 03:01:08
[…] Blocking Never Works by Stephen Collins (Trib) of AcidLabs […]
May 06, 2009 @ 15:32:20
Stephen
One of the criticisms I have heard around Canbera for social networking access is that it creates security risks for the employer’s network. Is this concern real or BS to justify a decision to block?
May 06, 2009 @ 16:31:47
I would say that there is a potential security risk. If, and only if the organisation lacks either the appropriate governance over use at work and the organisational culture to deal with people working this way.
With respect to Canberra (where I am too), I am aware of Federal agencies with no acceptable use policy and no blocking of any sort that manage quite satisfactorily allowing staff to use these tools for work purposes. If they do block, Gilmore’s Law gets invoked. Have you seen the number of personal notebook PCs on public sector worker desks? Many of them with 3G broadband access, no doubt.
May 06, 2009 @ 19:05:02
Yes! Yes! Yes! I absolutely agree. Especially with the bit about mushrooms and the crap they feed on. ‘d be a bit worried if employees in some industries *didn’t* use social networks to connect with their peers. I worked for a company that imposed a ban, which really annoyed me as I use these tools for a personal learning environment… not to worry though… I just used my iPhone instead. I don’t know *where* they thought all my ideas used to come from, but Twitter, a tool I was not supposed to use because “management wouldn’t understand” was responsible for many. I guess your post hit a nerve…