In a new study conducted by Robert Half Technology,54% of 1,400 Chief Information Officers interviewed report banning social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook at work.
Interestingly, 19% of respondents reported that the sites would be allowed "for business purposes only", while 16% permitted access for "limited personal use."
CIOs were asked, “Which of the following most closely describes your company’s policy on visiting social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, while at work?” Their responses:
In a blog post commenting on the study, AtlanTech blogger Urvaksh Karkaria commented, "I can understand the corner office's concerns with employees tweeting
about the tuna at lunch or Monday night's Packers-Vikings game, on the
company’s dime."
I can't.
This type of fearful view is short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding of how human beings connect both in real life and in a Web 2.0 world online. What is the difference between using Facebook "for business purposes only" and "for limited personal use"? The urge to make the distinction shows a gap in knowledge of modern work habits. These days, work and life aren't "balanced;" they are integrated. We check on our kids and check the game scores in the office, and we also use our iPhones to check email in the evenings from the game. We log into Facebook at home and talk about the company, and we log into Facebook at work and chat about our kids and pets.
For every study that has shown a decrease in productivity when social networking sites are permitted at work (such as the Nucleus Research study from July showing that companies who allowed access to SNS such as Facebook showed a 1.5% drop in productivity), there are no concurrent studies to show that during those same weeks, employees logged into the server from home over the weekend. No one has done studies to show those same employees chatting up clients, leads and potential employees at dinners, cocktail events and other live social networking events.
For those who separate personal life and work, the argument in favor of allowing employees access to social networking sites can be unclear. "Is it for work?" they might ask. Consider this: an employee of Zappos has a Facebook account. She logs in a few times a day to chat with friends or to post funny articles. She also mentions how much she loves her job or what a kick she got out of a customer service interaction.
Were the logins "for business purposes" or "limited personal"? The question is irrelevant, because the person posting the updates is a fully integrated human being with a range of interests and passions.
Business Is Personal
One of the major benefits of using services such as Twitter and Facebook, as businesses such as Zappos, Starbucks and Comcast have discovered, is that participation by real human beings in social networks puts a human face on a company. Comcast doesn't Twitter; Frank Eliason does. Brad Nelson shares his passion for coffee and tidbits about his own life on Starbucks' Twitter account. Are the Tweets about his life "personal" while the rest are "business"? No. These days, business is personal.
Whom do you trust?
Last year's Edelman Trust Barometer indicated that only 29% of respondents indicated they would trust information coming directly from the company CEO, down from 36% the previous year. Only 13% said they would trust product advertising (down from 20%), and 44% said they would trust information printed in an article in a business magazine (down from 57%).
The reasons for the lack of trust vary, but they all have to do with the fact that people don't know your CEO. They don't know him personally. Maybe if they did, they might trust his words, but most of us don't. Same with product advertising or the writer of those business magazine articles--the audience doesn't know those people and so has less reason to trust their communications.
However, the stream of information available about a person via Twitter or Facebook is much more accessible and more likely to give an overall idea of who a person is and what she cares about. Product advertising can be faked, but an entire Facebook presence will give a good overview of the account holder as a fully-integrated human being.
Tweeting about the tuna at lunch or the Vikings-Packers game gives followers an insight into the human interests of the account holder. And that type of information, mixed with information about the company experience, provides a solid foundation of trust that can be lacking in other corporate communications.
How much Facebook is too much Facebook?
Dave Willmer, executive director of Robert Half Technology, acknowledged that “Professionals should let common sense prevail when using Facebook and similar sites -- even outside of business hours,” he said. "Regrettable posts can be a career liability."
Let's ignore the burglar who was caught because he logged in to Facebook during the robbery (did he post a status update, "Robbing this guy's house," one wonders), and consider whether social networking sites can indeed affect productivity. For some, surely this is the case. Willmer offers some basic common-sense guidelines for SNS use as an alternative to banning the sites all together:
