A recent survey suggests that half of businesses are restricting employees' access to social networking site Facebook, due to concerns about productivity and security.

According to the poll, 43% of workers said that their employer blocks Facebook access completely and a further 7% said access is restricted according to the role and responsibilities of the individual user.

But sweeping prohibition could prove disastrous if companies wish to present a welcoming face to young talent.

Recent research conducted by Logicalis suggests that the UK Realtime Generation -young people between the ages of 13 and 17 who will make up tomorrow's workforce --  are a socially active, community-oriented generation and use Internet community sites like Facebook to engage in existing and new friendships in their droves.

In fact, Logicalis found that 87% of 13-17 year olds are members of one or more community and social-networking websites.

Our take: Quite clearly, members of the Realtime Generation use, and will continue to use, social-networking sites as a major part of their social personality - a trait that they'll carry over into their future working lives. Businesses must learn to adopt social-networking technologies both internally and between themselves and partners to underpin learning and collaboration. Banning Facebook may satisfy immediate goals regarding how employees use their time, but could prove detrimental in the long run.

Comments

There are currently 11 comments about this blog.

Amanda Smith, 10 months ago

I'm interested to find out how businesses are communicating on Facebook and other social networking sites. I'm not a member of Facebook so I don't know what companies that have formed groups on the site use it for - can anyone enlighten me? And more importantly, are they using it to communicate and collaborate in ways they couldn't do offline? On a slightly different point, I can see how companies might use Facebook to 'monitor' what is being written/said about them online and in the blogsphere - as HSBC clearly did when it agreed to reverse its policy of not charging interest on graduate accounts after a group was formed on Facebook to lobby the bank on the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6970570.stm

Casper Craven, 10 months ago

I have a slightly different take on assessing the value of social networks. The analogy I look to is that of "real life" conferences, seminars and trade shows etc. The first question is what cost and value are placed on these by organisation? For some companies I know, trade shows are their primary marketing focus and what they spend vast resources on - both direct cost and people time. So, if a lot of cost is spent, what is the value? Well clearly there is some learning and direct knowledge transfer which has value. However, I see the most important part being the relationship building and creating connections, and dare I say it emotional connections which form the basis of decisions on who you would and wouldnt buy from. So, if that is the value (in my view) of conferences, doesn’t it follow that social networks can provide the same thing? I can see the dangers of uncontrolled use and employees spending 5 hours a day for interaction with their mates, and would agree that is a poor use of company resources. It is an area which has I believe a strong business benefit, but just need to be managed carefully.

Gary Edwards, 10 months ago

I agree with Jon's point, also touched upon by Amanda. Should there be a distinction made between friends and business contacts? Facebook and similar tools such as IM (which is now an accepted business communication tool) are essentially networking tools and, after all, we're all part of the overall workforce. For example, I have contacted friends as an initial entry point into organisations on a number of occasions, and in the first instance it's usually on a social basis or through text, IM or other online networking sites.

Amanda Smith, 10 months ago

It's interesting to recall that when Facebook first opened up its social networking site beyond people with an email address ending .edu, the only people allowed to join back then were employees from a selected ten companies (Amazon, Microsoft, Electronic Arts and other well-known companies) and one not-for-profit organisation. Obviously these were companies where a lot of graduates had gone on to work at after leaving university, but it's also an indication of how important Facebook is as a way for people to stay in touch with work colleagues (although there's plenty more debate to be had around whether they're using Facebook to communicate for work or social reasons!)

chris gabriel, 10 months ago

I think Mandy is spot on, but I would also add one thought. We have to be cautious in our drive to push all new 'consumer' technologies into IT departments without some identification of the tangible benefits . I take Jon's point about 'companies will be worse off who ban facebook' but we must back up these claims with tangible results. PRTM consultancy have some excellent benchmarks on collaborative businesses competitive advantage, and perhaps we need to start factoring in social networking sites into these benchmarks over time to see if we see the positive improvements we all expect. I think expect so, but some harder evidence in the next 12-18 months as these services mature will ease the path of these new services. Let us not forget, IT have to deliver all this 'stuff' and managing the complexity of new technologies will create more load, so must be validated by the business.

Jon Mell, 11 months ago

The banning Facebook issue seems to have caught on in the press today. There is an article on the BBC News site here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6969791.stm. I was with a customer yesterday who asked a similar question. My response is that you deal with someone who spends too much time on Facebook in exactly the same way as someone who spends too much time emailing, or takes too long at lunch. Their performance drops and you put them through standard disciplinary reviews. Of course, in certain roles it could be that their performance increases as they take on board new ideas about work from the contacts they make. Many of my Facebook contacts are business colleagues as well as friends, and we use it to exchange ideas. I see a similarity with mobile phones. Companies don't ban them, equally they don't allow employees to expense any handset or any tariff. There is the corporate handset and corporate tariff and an acceptable usage policy for personal calls. This is exactly how it should work for Facebook and other sites.

Mandy Shaw, 11 months ago

Jon's comment re instant messaging is very relevant. We all use IM in a business context - but many, or most, of us don't use the standard IM offering that comes with Windows - lots of organisations will block that, instead using a suitable, secure business-oriented product (which may connect to the outside world). Similarly, I would suggest that organisations would be a lot happier with suitable, secure, business-oriented functionality in the 'Facebook' space.

Victoria Furness, 11 months ago

In a way, banning access is also rather ironic, given a lot of professionals use sites like Facebook and LinkedIn to network with others in their industry! I think it's just another knee-jerk reaction to new technologies and shows once again that many organisations might talk about being forward-looking, but in reality they're not quite ready to embrace such innovative technologies or ways of working just yet.

Gary Edwards, 11 months ago

It would be interesting to know which types of businesses from the survey did allow access to Facebook (i.e. the remaining 50% that don't block it). Did any make an intentional decision to allow access and, if so, I wonder what their rationale was?

Jon Mell, 11 months ago

I think it will be a turnoff to all generations. A recent article in Business Week estimated that 41% of Facebook users are aged 35 or over. There were similar concerns when instant messaging became popular but it is now (mostly) seen as a vital business tool. Further, organisations who ban Facebook will be worse off than their competitors who do, as they are cutting off an important source of inspiration for innovation from their employees.

Mandy Shaw, 11 months ago

I think we have to look a bit further forward. Most of the surveyed 13 to 17 year olds won't realistically be in the world of work until 2011 to 2015. By that time Facebook will no doubt be old hat. I absolutely agree that employers (and vendors) have to start thinking about providing the immediate and attractive communication and collaboration technologies to which people (especially the RTG) are now accustomed, including the ability to interact with people outside the organisation. But it surely isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with ways of working, and supporting technologies, which give people the connectedness, immediacy and usability they crave, while channelling the individual's energy in a more commercially oriented direction. Our RTG will surely retain their essential and positive need to interact, but, unless they are different from all previous generations, their motivations and day-to-day imperatives will change in other ways over time. Anyway, what do other people think?

Leave a Reply

Name

Email Address

Your Website URL (please include http://)

Your Comment

type the text from the image