Banning employees from social media is insane
If you believe the numbers, as many as 25—50 percent of all companies still restrict their employees from using social media during the workday. No messing around on Facebook. No connecting with digital friends. And God forbid, no sharing or talking about your employer or company.
These philistines of the business world remain convinced that time spent on social networks can only serve to jeopardize office productivity.
On the contrary, those of us who appreciate the value of listening, connecting, and engaging know just how absurd that argument is, regardless of the research. But guess what? It turns out that even when we’re just wasting our time watching senseless videos or keeping track of a friend’s late night exploits, it still might be a good thing, especially if we work in an industry where problem solving is part of our job.
Need evidence? You can find a pretty compelling one in a recent Wired column Driven by Distraction – How Twitter and Facebook make us more productive workers. Arguing convincingly that social media participation is well suited to stoking the creative mind, Brendan I Koerner reminds us of the following:
“Studies that accuse social networks of reducing productivity assume that time spent microblogging is time strictly wasted. But that betrays an ignorance of the creative process. Humans weren’t designed to maintain a constant focus on assigned tasks. We need periodic breaks to relieve our conscious minds of the pressure to perform — pressure that can lock us into a single mode of thinking. Musing about something else for a while can clear away the mental detritus, letting us see an issue through fresh eyes, a process that creativity researchers call incubation.”
OK, so Wired is clearly vested in advocating almost anything digital. But this argument has been around since before the social web. Check out Creativity and the Mind, Discovering the Genius Within by Ronald A. Finke and friends. He’s written and entire thesis that will convince you that:
“People are more successful if we force them to move away from a problem or distract them temporarily.”
Of course all the companies still slapping a lock on digital access can roll out another argument: the confidential nature of their company’s information or the even more effective government regulation and compliance excuse. Alas, that line of reasoning seems a little stale now, too. I mean if the Department of Defense can embrace social media, can’t an insurance company?
In its new policy (Directive-Type Memorandum 09-026), announced last week, the Department of Defense states that the default for the DoD non-classified network (the NIPRNET) is for open access so that all of DoD can use new media.
“Service members and DoD employees are welcome and encouraged to use new media to communicate with family and friends — at home stations or deployed — but it’s important to do it safely. Keep in mind that everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves and their information online, and existing regulations on ethics, operational security, and privacy still apply. Be sure never to post any information that could be considered classified, sensitive, or that might put military members or families in danger.”
As U.S. military. Capt. Nathan Broshear, Director of Public Affairs for 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern) who is currently leading Air Force communications in Haiti, says:
“We’re not launching missiles, we’re launching ideas.”
My friend David Meerman Scott, author of The New Rules of Marketing and PR, sums it up better than I can. So I’ll leave you with this quote from David.
“There is a huge number of companies that are putting their organizations at a disadvantage. If I managed a hedge fund, I’d sell short a basket of stocks of companies that block social media like YouTube and Facebook and buy stock in the companies (like IBM) that encourage employee use of these new tools and have an established social media policy like the DoD.”
Works for me, David. What do the rest of you have to say? Is there a legitimate excuse to restrict employees from using social media?
Comments
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 Oathamu00c2u00b4s 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
Spencer,
Well put. Seems that if companies follow your advice, they'll be in good shape.
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
.-= jeffshattucku00c2u00b4s last blog ..How do the worldu00e2u0080u0099s great songwriters write songs? =-.
Shit, if I worked for Cheney I'd need more than social media to save me and connect me to the real world. Agree with the train and let 'em go. Look at Best Buy and Zappos. Brilliant. At same time, it obviously makes sense to have a policy. But the examples are all there. IBM, DoD and others have made their's public. All anyone has to do is modify and customize. Thanks, Jeff.
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.
That's also a good point that I should have thought of. Bandwidth and pipe size. Though it seems that inevitably there will be reason to increase it. Gov't in many cases is among the more innovative users of social media, and given that it is potentially the most effective way to serve the public (who complain frequently about delays and poor personal service)in a timely manner, seems a wise investment, despite limited tax revenues.
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.
.-= Kathyu00c2u00b4s last blog ..First Direct serves up more than just no-fee banking =-.
Obviously good points. But it still seems that with a policy and guidelines it will work. What's going to happen is that more and more employees will just do it via mobile. So it's likely to happen anyway.
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 Kolieru00c2u00b4s last blog ..A new website is not a marketing strategy =-.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like