Banning employees from social media is insane

I've felt this way for a very long time Edward. If employers (as am I) feel the need to restrict SM they have the wrong team in the first place. How exactly do restrictions make things better? I never could figure that out. .-= Mark Kolier´s last blog ..A new website is not a marketing strategy =-.

Pay Me for reading my Twitter Followers? All I need is an employer who thinks so. Reading the company followers - maybe so.

I hate you. You write so well. Great content to engage with. I've got to do much better ; ).

People who have commented: nobody has mentioned social media WITHIN the workplace. I think it will become a way of working. .-= Luke Oatham´s last blog ..I woke up in London 2012 =-.

"Social networks can only serve to jeopardize office productivity." I agree with the assertion that restricting employees outside communications whether by phone, text, email or social medias (twitter, facebook, blogs) will have more negative effects than positive. Human beings are social beings and are therefore intellectually stimulated by social interactions whether in person, digitally or writing. I believe that appropriate rules and regulations should be relative to the specific industry and job position. If employees do not fulfill their job requirements because they spend too much time engaging in social media then the employer should be able to restrict access. Similar to an employee takes an inappropriately long lunch break. But to simply block access to all social media is like blocking access to a lunch break. Spencer Ostrander Parsons School For Design Sophomore

Great topic, great post. Not too long ago, i got into a debate with one of the smartest people I've ever met about this very topic. I was advocating that large public companies had to restrict Internet usage in order to mitigate all kinds of risk (trade secrets, marketing plans, CEO bathroom habits). He told me I was dead wrong. Over time, I have come to agree with him 100%. One of my favorite expressions is "you can't legislate the weather" and controlling people's communication habits in organizations of all sizes is a fool's game. That said, obviously there are situations where you need to restrict people's behavior, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. Equally important, even in these highly controlled networks, absolute control is absolutely impossible. So the best policy is to train your people well and treat them with trust and respect so they are motivated to look out for each other and for their organization. Sadly, many managers opt for a command and control stance and simply lay down rules along with threats of punishment should the rules be broken. Think Cheney! Jeff .-= jeffshattuck´s last blog ..How do the world’s great songwriters write songs? =-.

The court system has a reason to block. Employees may use the internet, and in turn social media, but it may tax the internal system and slow it to a crawl. Thus limiting the functionality of internal databases. It is a hard line to limit use, but service to the customer and public and others doing their jobs, may need to be a priority for a business that chooses to limit or restrict use.

In most cases, I'd say no. But there are some networks that are used for very secure information exchange (banks, for instance) that could face security issues if they embraced social media. In fact, a bank Twitter account was used in the UK to gain login credentials for Twitter from bank clients. Because most people use the same password for everything, it would leave that bank's clientele at risk. So, I'd say, businesses in certain security-sensitive domains have a right to restrict access - at least until they find a way to protect their networks from phishing and malware attacks. That said, those businesses that choose to restrict for security reasons should most certainly be looking for ways to enhance security, or they risk being left behind in the new economy. .-= Kathy´s last blog ..First Direct serves up more than just no-fee banking =-.