A few weeks ago I was having a rally good chat about using social networks at work. You know, how useful they can be for making connections to other people, sharing information, chatting about work, chatting about things other than work...you know - all that human type stuff.
"ah yes", they said, "we can use them, but only outside of core hours. After 9:30 we can't access."
I was pretty surprised...so much so that I asked if I could write this blog post about it. It amazed me that an IT organisation would go to such lengths to change firewall rules, or access control rules at a specific time to stop people from accessing certain sites.
I've been in the IT guys shoes though, so I speak from experience. Ten years of managing hundreds of corporate servers, thousands of networked PC's and systems that spanned the globe. So, I know a thing or two about locking down desktops, maintaining access to critical systems and battling viruses.
All these things are interlinked. Lock down the desktop to minimise the risk of viruses getting in so you can maintain access to critical systems. It's all a circle and there are some very good reasons for maintaining control.
And yet, I am still surprised by this move. Perhaps it is because I wear a different hat nowadays, a hat that sees me advocate the use of social networks and support TALK. Or, perhaps it is because these kind of applications weren't a global phenomena when I was working in IT.
You see, I don't recall any so called 'leisure focused' web applications that infiltrated professional environments like they do today. The web is ubiquitous and so interwoven into our lives that the lines between leisure and work use are blurring.
Let's consider Facebook. Last year we had a flurry of activity around banning access to the rapidly growing social network site. Swathes of companies banned access (British Gas, Credit Suisse, Dresdner Kleinwort, Metropolitan Police), the TUC advocated restraint in banning it outright (in favour of time based blocking like the opening example) and there was a report that Kent County Council had blocked it entirely.
Since then, the hullabaloo seems to have calmed down a tad, whilst the user numbers on Facebook have exploded. This time last year, Facebook was a bizarre place where you could turn your friends into a vampire or play meaningless games. A year on and it is a slightly different world...my experience is that it's now more about networking and sharing media.
The Facebook platform has evolved and it may be time now to revisit the debate over whether it should be allowed within corporate firewalls.
Here's why I think we should be looking again:
- Social networking sites have crossed the chasm and are now embedded in our daily internet use.
- It is often difficult to separate our personal and professional lives and sites like Facebook provide brilliant vehicles to mesh the two.
- The purpose of sites like Facebook has evolved. We now use them as networking and communicative mediums.
- Gen Y, the employees of the future use these sites a s a primary communication method. They don't understand the world of email, let alone agendas, meetings and minutes.
In short, I think employers must adapt. We're applying rules and regulations that were appropriate in the days when we could more clearly demark between leisure and work. Those days weren't that long ago and whilst society has built new ways of communicating, socialising and yes, working, our organisations have struggled to get their heads around what this means and how best to harness it.
And at it's centre, this is a debate that swirls around issues such as respect, understanding, training and development, not least trust.
I'll leave you with this statistic from a recent survey by Telindus - 39% of those aged 18 - 24 would consider quitting their jobs if social networking was banned. The organisations that do adapt will attract the next generation of employees. Those that don't, well, what will become of them?
Plus, it troubles me that as we build TALK into a social site for local government and the public sector, will we be stifled by these policies? Is TALK just ahead of it's time for the sector?
I'm going to save that question for another time, but tell me about your place of work? Are you able to use Facebook, Bebo, MySpace et al? Is it blocked or is there partial access?
-pc.
I think:
1. Social Media can be a distraction, but one just has to learn the skills of using it/not using it for oneself.
2. Managers should be able to talk to staff individually about performance & contribution. Switching off access to systems is a draconian cop-out!
3. In any case, psychology shows that people don't just hunker down and focus all day. They do need focus, but they also need to reflect & think in other ways.
4. It is very easy for managers to underestimate how important social media is, and what a fundamental change it represents for society.
5. If the firewall builders are right: by the same argument, they should have been searching bags of employees for the last thirty or forty years. Newspapers should have been pulled from these bags as staff arrived at the office and kept in a special guarded room until the staff headed home. Enlightened councils could have adopted a slightly more flexible system, hiring "Content Officers" (the forerunner of the Firewall-guy) to search newspapers and cut out any content deemed 'irrelevant' such as crosswords, football pages, news and celebrity pages.
Great points, Peter.
It can definitely be a distraction and we all have to learn new skills in how we dip in and out of the 'flow' that is created by social technology.
These sites can be incredibly addictive as they appeal to our voyeuristic tendencies...we like to plug into the flow of our friends and colleagues. But we have to know when to turn off the tap.
So, when you have specific tasks to do and need to concentrate, switch off Twitter, don't go into Facebook and get on with the task at hand. After you've done, you can dip in for a couple of minutes - guilt free. I'm taking a cue there from the Getting Things Done school!
Anyway, that statement leaves me wide open to a comeback from those who say that there is no place for FB et al at work, because we should be getting on with the task in hand, ALL DAY.
Well, that's just a ridiculous stance to hold and I'd echo your first 4 points as a counter. It comes down to managers believing that this is just time wasting...well, it isn't - no more so than cigarette and coffee breaks are, or going to the toilet, or chatting with a colleague about last nights TV. We've long accepted that these are normal facets of our working lives and can generate value through conversation/socialisation...well, social technology is no different to this and it extends the value as we have a far greater reach. Instead of tapping on the shoulder of someone in the break room, we can tap on the shoulder of someone in an entirely different location.
We need understanding, learning, tolerance and trust about how social computing is going to revolutionise our workplaces.
And, finally (for now) point 4 is so true. If we adopt social technologies in our organisations and we adapt them to suit our needs we will find incredible value in them. Managers who fear they have the most to lose from social tools actually have the most to gain. I'll come back to that point in another post.
-pc.
I'm not sure who does / doesn't allow FB et al at work. Does each organisation / council develop their own 'acceptable use' rules? Certainly the BBC and the Civil Service do, though they don't say whether staff can access this in the workplace. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/social.shtml and http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/iam/codes/social_media/participation.asp
Are we back in the days of early Internet use, where we had much the same arguments about people 'timewasting'? And didn't that debate move on too?
Over here in Leeds, there is recognition in some areas at least, that social networking has great potential - and we are not yet scratching the surface. It has obvious appeal to those of us who are trying to create and manage partnerships - this one has been set up for the Leeds Community Foundation, one of the Councils key strategic partners in capacity building in the City. (PS - Another one to add to the map)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=31269510928
Manchester City Council's staff internet and email policy now (by default) blocks staff accessing streaming media on a computer connected to the corporate network. You have to fill in a form signed by your 'Head of Service' explaining that you need access to that stuff as part of your day-to-day job.
I'm assuming (though don't know) that this is partly about infrastructure issues (bandwidth being gobbled up videos of sneezing pandas) and partly worries over staff accessing more questionable content and how that is managed.
I do know the Manchester Library and Information Service (libraries) allows access to Facebook on their network, but then computers in public libraries connect to that network and there would probably be quite a stink if the members of the public who use those computers - many of whom don't own a computer anyway - were blocked from accessing social media sites.
From the people I talk to in various local government jobs there is a definite lack of understanding about the benefits of using social media to support service delivery. (Home care and Twitter, anyone? Staff training videos created by the people who know the job inside out and hosted on YouTube for new members of staff to watch and comment on, by any chance? Managers checking RSS feeds and email on their Blackberries / iPhones as they wait for someone to finish a boring presentation in a meeting they don't need to be at, at all?) But if you block access, how can they learn about it? How can they know if it would benefit them or not?
MCC blocking (by default) streaming media has HUGE implications for the work I do. How on earth can I get people understanding services such as blip.tv, YouTube, Ustream, Mogulus and many others if the staff cannot access it? Will the step of having to go through an approval process (an approval process!!) to gain access to this stuff make people give up at the first hurdle?
I'm kind of waiting for the ironic moment when MCC puts streaming video on it's own website and wonders why most of the staff haven't watched it.
Personally at MDDA I can gain access to almost any social networking site I want to. But we are on a different network and our remit it to help people understand that stuff anyway. If I was stuck in a regular council office I probably would've left for another place a long time ago. No access to Delicious? No access to Twitter? No access to Wikipedia? No access to the TED talks? No access to Mac Break Tech podcasts? No access to Last.fm? No access to Google Talk / Skype / MSN? No access to blip.tv? No access to Google Docs? No access to Basecamp? No access to Flickr? No access to the iPlayer? Are you nuts?
For the record, I don't use Facebook. You can ask me why next time we have a chinwag.
"...the new media are a triathlon: "People like to consume, but they also like to produce, and they like to share..." Read Clay Shirky's views in David Aaronovitch's article here.
I am part of a small team relaunching our intranet at Rochdale. We have all set an ambition 'dare to be different' and be ambitious. But Rochdale blocks access to sites as well.
So the question is 'how far can our staff be trusted?' because we think it actually surfaces a basic change in the world of work we are now facing.........
Our staff are the innovators, our staff are the change agents, our staff are the service, our staff deserve recognition and access to all the tools out there and our staff are worth the risk!
And now "For many people Facebook, MySpace and Bebo are alien words which just won't go away. But experts warn that council leaders ignore them at their peril ".
"This year, Essex CC used Facebook as part of its campaign to save the area's post offices. The council's media manager, Eleri Roberts, claims Facebook is now an 'established' part of the council's communication strategy. She says: 'Two-way interactive dialogue between resident and authority must become the norm for local authority communicators, if awareness and satisfaction levels are to improve.
'Facebook is an important tool to communicate and interact with residents but, in particular, younger audiences, which have been traditionally considered hard to reach. We see such sites now as very much established as one of our communication channels"
Municipal Journal; 28 November
I can e-mail Paul from work on a work related matter and wish him a Merry Christmas at the same time and even attach a jpeg. of a Santa - but I can't send him the same message via Facebook.
I can write a letter to Paul from work on a work related matter and wish him a Merry Christmas at the same time send a photocopy of a Santa - but I can't send him the same message via Facebook.
I can phone Paul up at work via a mobile and chat, wish him a Merry Christams and then send him a picture message of a Santa via MMS.
Facebook is a communication tool just like the above. When we stop communicating we stop listening and one of the primary functions of a local authority is to listen to it's people and it's employees.
Merry Christmas Paul!
Its all about a percieved lack of control. I say percieved as you are correct, all these channels of communications subvert the official channels by going around them. Actually face book would make big brother more effective as its through a channel that can be monitored. and so HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OUR READERS...