Facing
up to Facebook
With
a growing number of companies becoming concerned about
staff spending excessive amounts of working time on personal
Internet activities, HR departments are under pressure
to find a workable solution to maintain productivity without
alienating their workforce. Simon Norris
of Temperus looks at the options.
|
You can’t
stop thinking about it. You wonder what has changed since you
last saw it. That urgent document you need to write is the last
thing on your mind. You are impatient, you just cannot wait for
your next fix. All classic signs that you have an addiction to
Facebook. And you’re not alone. Office workers the length
and breadth of the country are spending increasing amounts of
their work time on social networking sites, resulting in a growing
concern among employers and human resource departments about staff
productivity in the workplace.
Some organisations
are already responding to the issue, adopting a range of different
approaches. In a recent survey of HR managers, two thirds said
that their companies blocked access to social networking sites.
Yet many of the solutions on offer can themselves be problematic.
A Nottinghamshire hospital is one of the many organisations that
has chosen to ban employees from accessing Facebook at work but
created a reputation-damaging backlash from staff, who even created
a webpage to voice their protests. Taking a tough stance is not
as straightforward as it might appear, and HR managers need to
tread carefully.
Many organisations
are still ignoring the whole issue; whether through ignorance
or indolence. But all the signs are that this is a problem that
is only going to become more widespread. Managers who fail to
take appropriate action risk creating resentment among diligent
staff who are picking up the slack from colleagues who are busy
with blogging, instant messaging or social networking. Secondly,
for organisations that lack clear policies, guidelines or directives
on internet use, it’s that much harder to define what is
inappropriate or - should the need arise - take disciplinary action
against staff who abuse the trust placed in them.
We all have
to accept that social networking sites, blogs and instant messaging
are here to stay. So what solutions are available, and what are
the pros and cons of each?
Outright
Banning
For the vast majority of organisations an outright ban on Web
use is simply not realistic. Despite the deluge of headlines about
the Internet damaging productivity, it’s important to remember
that it is also an essential business tool and removing access
can be hugely counterproductive.
Selective
Restrictions
The Nottingham option – and an increasingly popular choice
with senior management – is to use technology to block access
to selected sites. But this can be fraught with problems. Firstly,
a great deal of time and resource is needed to administer the
policy. A recent survey by Computer Weekly showed that 45 per
cent of IT managers said workloads have increased as a result
of policing social networking sites.
Secondly,
employers commonly have no way of measuring the effectiveness
of the restrictions. This is important, because it is often possible
for staff to find their way around restrictions by using ‘proxy
sites’. These freely-available websites replicate the content
of popular sites, like MySpace and YouTube, under a different
domain name, bypassing restrictions placed within the company’s
network. A simple search of ‘facebook proxy’ provides
a taste of the thousands of options available, and a sense of
the challenge involved in maintaining an effective blocking policy.
Blocking other
non-Web Internet use can be even more of a challenge. Instant
Messaging programs, for example, are often skilfully designed
to negotiate their way around restrictions. So your staff may
spend less time on MySpace but more time chatting with their friends.
Blocking can
also prove to be highly inconvenient to staff, who might need
to make frequent requests to unblock sites that are ’blacklisted’,
and doesn’t take into account that some sites have business
and non-business applications. An online newspaper may provide
the latest updates on the business issues of the day but also
offers lifestyle and sport content that can seriously eat into
the working day. Also, as the Nottinghamshire hospital trust discovered,
blocking can make you deeply and publicly unpopular with your
staff.
Using time-selective
blocking - with restrictions lifted at specific times of the day
– can provide some freedom to surf. Yet this can also limit
flexibility, requiring all staff to follow the same rigid timetable.
Work may grind to a halt as everyone checks their webmail at the
same time, placing strain on the organisation’s network.
Meanwhile an over-running conference call can put paid to that
day’s opportunity to check personal mail or an online bank
account, creating resentment and a reluctance to schedule anything
within half an hour of their allocated surf-time.
Activity
Monitoring
If it is done covertly, monitoring the PC-based activities of
a workforce can risk alienating staff and creating an unhealthy
atmosphere of distrust in the office. Secret monitoring can also
have serious implications in relation to the Data Protection Act,
the Human Rights Act and the Code of Practice, to name but a few.
Open and transparent
monitoring, however, can offer employers a flexible and manageable
approach – provided it is done thoughtfully and sympathetically,
with the interests of both employer and employee in mind.
By measuring
the amount of time staff spend using different websites or applications
and feeding this information back to employees in a clear and
straightforward manner, a self-regulating culture can be created
in which staff can adapt their own working practices to ensure
that their employer’s policies are adhered to.
Staff are
free to plan their own time in a responsible manner. Private surfing
during lunch breaks becomes possible, no matter what time the
lunch break occurs. Those who choose to spend more time on personal
activities during the day can make up time by starting earlier,
working later or taking a shorter lunch break. Employers can identify
significant transgressions and deal with them on an individual
basis without restricting the activities of others. Use of sites
that may constitute either work- or non-work related activity
can be measured, and action taken if required.
But as well
as providing statistics relating to non-work activities, such
monitoring can provide employers with a wealth of information
about the performance of their businesses. By comparing the working
patterns of different teams, for example, they can assess the
effect of different workloads on productivity. By looking at the
changing patterns of productivity by time of day or day of week,
activities can be scheduled to ensure that time is used as efficiently
as possible. The effectiveness of home workers or those located
in remote offices can also be assessed.
Many staff
– and employers – shudder at the prospect of having
their working patterns logged and recorded. However there is increasing
recognition that employers need to ensure that the trust placed
in their staff is not abused. Faced with the alternative solution
of site blocking, most will recognise that monitoring provides
a more flexible, trusting and employee-friendly solution. Employers
can ensure that policies are adhered to and benefit from the wealth
of information provided to help ensure that their organisations
are managed as effectively as possible.