With the geometric growth in networking sites like Facebook (as well as Myspace), companies are struggling to understand how this trend is impacting the workplace. Some companies who feel that Facebook is a waste of the company's time have even tried to ban access to Facebook from work. I have seen reports that over 40% of the companies in the US ban access to Facebook from their computers (although that number may not seem that high but it is pretty significant nonetheless).
So is your company doing the right thing? Probably not.
Facebook can be compared to the telephone or email in that all of these are all means of communication that have the potential to serve as a valuable tool for companies. But, as with any other privilege in the workplace, these tools can sometimes be abused. I remember when email became widely available for employees. Many companies did not understand the value and how it could increase employee productivity. As a result, some companies tried unsuccessful to restrict access to email. Needless to say, it did not take long for these companies to see the error in their ways. I guess time will only tell if history repeats itself and companies begin to see the same value with Facebook as they do with email.
As a side note, people have come up with ways around the firewalls that companies use to block access to these popular sites. For example, a site named link-protector.com allows a user to set up a fake link at home and then access it at work. It is easy to use and provides an employee with an easy work around from the firewall, making the company ban less effective.
So what is the real concern of Facebook in the workplace? If employers are looking to reduce employee "cyberslacking" as it relates to social networking sites (as well as Youtube, fantasy sports and celebrity gossip sites as well), these companies should develop policies and procedures to address their concerns like limiting amount of time an employee may surf the web for personal reasons. Employers should punish the abuser on an individual basis as opposed to everyone, especially if there has been a decrease in their work productivity. In any situation when an employer is seeing reduced employee productivity, it is only right that
I acknowledge the attractiveness of the argument that employees should only do personal activities on their personal time and not on company time. However, over the last 20 years, the business and personal worlds have become more intertwined than in the past. With addition of blackberries and email access at home, employees are working outside of the office and outside traditional business hours. As a result, work is now infringing on personal time further blurring the lines between work and personal life.
If employers choose to ban personal activities at work, all personal calls, water cooler talk and similar activities would also fall into that category. Companies typically do not go this far because it sends the wrong message to the very people who help the company run on a daily basis. In normal economic times, companies strive to retain their most valuable workers, so banning all personal activities may end up creating a hostile work environment that most employees would not appreciate.
In sum, Facebook is a social networking site that is primarily focused on the personal activities of its users (even though there are many business uses that we could discuss). Companies should be concerned if their employees spend too much time on their personal activities when it reduces their productivity. Companies may feel it is easier to ban access to social networking sites rather than monitoring employee activity...but it is a slippery slope. If an employer chooses to ban Facebook, then it raises questions on whether or not they should also ban Youtube, Yahoo, MSN, CNN, FoxNews, NBC, TheInsider.com, Blogs? I would recommend that companies take a deep breath and see the effects of all these tools on worker productivity before banning them all together.
