Comments on: Blocking never works

By: Mollybob

Mollybob — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:05:02 +0000

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…

By: Stephen Collins

Stephen Collins — Wed, 06 May 2009 06:31:47 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Read

Andrew Read — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:32:20 +0000

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?

By: Compliance Building · Online Social Networking: Is It a Productivity Bust or Boon?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:01:08 +0000

[...] Blocking Never Works by Stephen Collins (Trib) of AcidLabs [...]

By: Andy Piper

Andy Piper — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:02:23 +0000

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”.

By: Jozefa Fawcett

Jozefa Fawcett — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:17:25 +0000

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?

By: Stephen Collins

Stephen Collins — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:11:22 +0000

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.

By: Leanne Fry

Leanne Fry — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:55:23 +0000

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!

By: Meghan Stuyvenberg

Meghan Stuyvenberg — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:27:12 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Oyston

Daniel Oyston — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:16:10 +0000

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 …