Reminds me of South African Schools & mxit last year. sigh
Karen Lotter
· 2 years ago
Vinnie, I've been posting comments on blogs the whole week saying the same thing -but I must admit, you've said it better. I hate this "banning" and restriction" stuff - it's just a power trip for the elite (who can make the rules) over the masses.
Sure everyone will be excited about Facebook, but the novelty value will wear off and note how these prophets of doom love to use the word addiction, just like the old regime loved to put -isms onto everything so that they would immediately be bad by association.
Performance management in the workplace, incentives and good policies are what are need, not bans and restrictions.
I'm so excited about social media, people are returning to community - to seek people who they like across racial, demographic and geographic boundaries - this is so very good.
Al Kags
· 2 years ago
LOL. I was at a corporate office a client actually recently and he was telling me how he is going to block at chat IMs - Somehow i forgot to tell him about Meebo! Someone has to feel for those poor blighters that work for him?! I did send an email to his secretary who spread word around about Meebo. LOL
It it time that corporates woke up and realised that the fact is the new era is here and it is to their advantage. But then that will be a while.
Miguel dos Santos
· 2 years ago
I think these social networking sites companies are loosing there employees' productivity to, might just be accentuating a deeper problem, being that their employees don't have goals that motivating enough for them. They're not truly enthusiastic about in what they're doing, so they look for escapes, distractions. It might not be considerable lack motivation and direction, but like I said, the new technology just accentuates the problem. What do you think?
Vinny Lingham
· 2 years ago
Thanks for the comments guys - keep them coming.
I think my point is getting across :
Corporates that are ineffective at managing work performance tend to make prohibitive decisions based on their own inabilities. Companies such as incuBeta recognize the problem, advise staff accordingly, behaviour gets adjusted and sites remain unblocked. That's how the problem should be dealt with. Internet browser usage should not be a privilege - it should be a necessity for anyone who uses email.
If we start trying to control it's usage however, then it's basically saying that we are not willing to empower our staff within the organisation to think and work according to whatever is most effective for them. This is contrary to all the most effective management techniques, including Google's 70/20/10 rule.
Miguel - you are quite correct - this issue is exposing the lack of performance management techniques that are being implemented successfully within corporates. I'm singling out corporates here, because small businesses tend to not be concerned with things like Facebook, as many staff put in enough work to "Get the job done", and in corporates, the mentality is often to coast along.
Corporates often also don't actually understand how to harness the power of the Internet, both for internal customers (staff), and external.
It's a process, but they'll wake up from their cocoon's, eventually. Some already are, and kudos to them!
Mike Mothner
· 2 years ago
I think this is a great discussion and a very important one. I certainly agree with the notion that corporate blocking can get out of control and in the end take away from an employer's good intentions. One of my questions is whether this issue is much more widespread than only corporations in South Africa.
Vinny Lingham
· 2 years ago
Hey Mike
Actually, it indeed is. I was using South Africa, as that was the reference for my original post - Facebook blocking is happening around the world at the moment - the stats I saw from Alex is showing a decline in pageviews this past week...
V
Brandon
· 2 years ago
Hi Vinny?
Definitely agree with your article.
Seems like the "BIG Corporates" have a tendency of doing primitive execution style actions. They under the false impression that by inconveniencing and bullying employees into rules - they have solved the problem.
I suspect its more a sheep mentality of the corporates that have really fuelled this blocking though. If one blocks a site, the rest follow without doing proper investigations.
But having said that - corporates are in the business of making money - not molly coddling peoples emotions and well being.
Karen Lotter
· 2 years ago
It also doesn't help when so called "leading" members of the blogging/web2.0 community write stories about how much money South African business is losing on non-productivity in the workplace due to Facebook. These are the "experts" who get onto the talkshows, who shape public opinion.
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
Karen, as I said on my own blog, you need to actually read what you are responding to before you start jumping up and down. Facebook DOES cost businesses money and even Vinny admits in this post that Facebook distracts people from their work.
Corporates ban stuff all the time - MSN, Skype and other applications that tip the balance of abuse. That's the difference between Facebook and other social networking sites - people are using it excessively, in relation to the volumes required for legitimate business use.
Frankly, I have been through one dotcom boom based on hype and I am not going to be part of another one. If there is a legitimate case for widespread Facebook use then lets see the numbers. Anyone?
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
And let me just add to that - the labour law in this country makes performance management largely toothless and everyone knows it. Maybe instead of banning Facebook corporates should just make using it for more than half an hour a day an offense warranting a warning. That way everyone can spend tons of cash sitting through disciplinary hearings when... wait a minute, they could just have switched it off and told people to use the service at home where it belongs.
Here's the thing people: you can still support social networking and be a Web 2.o pundit and support the legitmate need for corporates to maintain employee productivity, and of course their legal right to control access to internet services on their premises.
Why is it that everyone seems hell-bent on charging around like Don Quixote when someone points out that reality is a little more nuanced than the pundits will tell us?
Karen Lotter
· 2 years ago
I don't know this guy Vincent, but he seems to have this obsession with THE LAW. Maybe he should have become a cop! I know he does internet stuff for the M&G, which also isn't the paper it used to be - and suddenly now he is an economist!
Of course Facebook cost business money, so does going to the lavatory, but should one put a time limit on a pee?
One weighs things up in business, like in life - it is not just your bottom line that counts, you also look at your staff. Happy staff are more productive. Empowered staff are more productive.
If you are penny pinching and anal you and make them return the stubs of their pencils before you give them a new one - now that is cost-effective - just like banning Skype and Facebook.
This freaky thing with Control - it is scary.
Miguel dos Santos
· 2 years ago
I think with the fact that technology develops soo quickly and larger companies move relatively slowly. They can't keep up with developing policy to manage usage of these new technologies, so they block them off as a short term solution, until they can figure out how to properly handle it, but sooner or later they will have to reopen access to it and manage it's use.
Well, they won't really have to, but it would be best, otherwise they risk unhappy employees and competitive disadvantage against those companies that do manage these technologies effectively.
I think the important thing to remember is, there are no good guys and bad guys here, both sides have a valid stance, so it's up to both parties to understand each others position and meet a consensus.
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
You have a great point there Karen - most corporates do allow their staff to ransack their toilets and take all the toilet paper home for personal use every day... yeah... brilliant analogy.
"Empowered staff are more productive" - yeah, who is disputing this? What is being disputed is how Facebook empowers staff on a general level and whether the so-called benefits apply across th board or just for those performing a certain job.
Taking jabs at the publication I work for, calling me anal, suggesting I might have a career in law enforcement all suggest one thing to me - your argument cannot be made without resorting to ad homeniem or emotional attacks. Like I said before, show me the numbers.
Karen Lotter
· 2 years ago
Sorry Vinnie, this guy seems to take things very personally. I really didn't mean to clutter up your blog comments with psychobabble. But I think I've made my point. You know these blogs and all the to-ing and fro-ing and people's egos take up a lot of my work time; I'm gonna see if I've made any new connections on Facebook.
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
So er... you're going to make a bunch of bold statements and then duck when someone asks you to justify them?
Vinny Lingham
· 2 years ago
No clutter on this blog - this conversation is fascinating me, and others - I'm sure! Please guys, do continue! :-)
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
Vinny honestly now, you must be hating the fact that people keep visiting this page to follow the comments LOL
Vinny Lingham
· 2 years ago
Definitely Vincent - all these extra pageviews are just hurting my server :-)
Karen Lotter
· 2 years ago
I don't need to justify anything Vincent, but I do believe that "playing" with applications like Facebook, ups the gerenral computer skills level of the working community. Do you realise what a low level of computer-literacy there is in the workforce?
I have a friend who is a trainer and she says she finds it almost impossible to teach, especially graphics programmes to older people - their heads just don't work that way.
I struggle to get people going with blogs and other web 2.0 applications because they don't get it - once I get them into Facebook and they learn to upload pics and do all the things, they start getting excited about social networking - this is not usually for recreation, it is to promote their websites.
In South Africa we have a very un-computer/internet minded population. Most websites are brochures. My standard reply from people is "why should I pay you to write copy for me - we can just use my annual report!"
Facebook is a hook. It reaches into that place in people called community, even if it is only virtual community and makes them forget they live behind razor wire and high walls.It makes them feel like they belong again, it validates them.
And while our shell-shocked society is getting all this stroking they're getting hooked into the internet and are learning its language, their computer skills are improving and they are actually becoming more valuable to their employer.
Well, you see, maybe that's just me. I work for myself and it's really a thrill for me if I can get someone excited about Web2.0.
Do I care about the corporates' bottom line? Not really.
PS. Independent on Saturday had this interesting story on the from page yesterday - Taxing time for South Africans, that says that average South African employee only gets to keep a day's pay a week according to research carried out by retired Absa Bank economist Adam Jacobs who found out that people for out 65% direct and indirect taxation.
And then you want their Facebook taken away, Vincent?
Vincent Maher
· 2 years ago
@Karen, I agree completely about it being a great hook and the general difficulties getting people to understand the type of tech we're dealing with. I have had the same experience with FaceBook.
I guess the difference between our positions is that I am saying the corporates care about their positions on this matter and they also have some valid points, especially if they're not trying to get their staff involved in this stuff.
It strikes me that you deal with the select few who somehow have been nominated to get involved in company Web 2 strategies, or individuals o organisations where everyone has to play a role in the marketing and client acquisition. In these cases it doesn't make sense for a company to ban FB, but in a business with a few thousand employees, where only a handful have the mandate to do this kind of stuff, the rest are just taking the piss.
I't not as if LinkedIn has been banned - people are just using FB compulsively during work hours to the point that it becomes identified as a problem. In many companies its now the most visited site and responsible for the most bandwith. If people were using it the same way they use LinkedIn there wouldn't be a problem.
So while I am not for the banning of Facebook unconditionally, I would support a corporate who, like ABSA, turns it off and then selectively opens it to the people who really do need it.
In fact a better idea - block it from 8:30 to 5PM or whatever normal working hours are.
All Comments
Sure everyone will be excited about Facebook, but the novelty value will wear off and note how these prophets of doom love to use the word addiction, just like the old regime loved to put -isms onto everything so that they would immediately be bad by association.
Performance management in the workplace, incentives and good policies are what are need, not bans and restrictions.
I'm so excited about social media, people are returning to community - to seek people who they like across racial, demographic and geographic boundaries - this is so very good.
It it time that corporates woke up and realised that the fact is the new era is here and it is to their advantage. But then that will be a while.
I think my point is getting across :
Corporates that are ineffective at managing work performance tend to make prohibitive decisions based on their own inabilities. Companies such as incuBeta recognize the problem, advise staff accordingly, behaviour gets adjusted and sites remain unblocked. That's how the problem should be dealt with. Internet browser usage should not be a privilege - it should be a necessity for anyone who uses email.
If we start trying to control it's usage however, then it's basically saying that we are not willing to empower our staff within the organisation to think and work according to whatever is most effective for them. This is contrary to all the most effective management techniques, including Google's 70/20/10 rule.
Miguel - you are quite correct - this issue is exposing the lack of performance management techniques that are being implemented successfully within corporates. I'm singling out corporates here, because small businesses tend to not be concerned with things like Facebook, as many staff put in enough work to "Get the job done", and in corporates, the mentality is often to coast along.
Corporates often also don't actually understand how to harness the power of the Internet, both for internal customers (staff), and external.
It's a process, but they'll wake up from their cocoon's, eventually. Some already are, and kudos to them!
Actually, it indeed is. I was using South Africa, as that was the reference for my original post - Facebook blocking is happening around the world at the moment - the stats I saw from Alex is showing a decline in pageviews this past week...
V
Definitely agree with your article.
Seems like the "BIG Corporates" have a tendency of doing primitive execution style actions.
They under the false impression that by inconveniencing and bullying employees into rules - they have solved the problem.
I suspect its more a sheep mentality of the corporates that have really fuelled this blocking though. If one blocks a site, the rest follow without doing proper investigations.
But having said that - corporates are in the business of making money - not molly coddling peoples emotions and well being.
Corporates ban stuff all the time - MSN, Skype and other applications that tip the balance of abuse. That's the difference between Facebook and other social networking sites - people are using it excessively, in relation to the volumes required for legitimate business use.
Frankly, I have been through one dotcom boom based on hype and I am not going to be part of another one. If there is a legitimate case for widespread Facebook use then lets see the numbers. Anyone?
Here's the thing people: you can still support social networking and be a Web 2.o pundit and support the legitmate need for corporates to maintain employee productivity, and of course their legal right to control access to internet services on their premises.
Why is it that everyone seems hell-bent on charging around like Don Quixote when someone points out that reality is a little more nuanced than the pundits will tell us?
Of course Facebook cost business money, so does going to the lavatory, but should one put a time limit on a pee?
One weighs things up in business, like in life - it is not just your bottom line that counts, you also look at your staff. Happy staff are more productive. Empowered staff are more productive.
If you are penny pinching and anal you and make them return the stubs of their pencils before you give them a new one - now that is cost-effective - just like banning Skype and Facebook.
This freaky thing with Control - it is scary.
They can't keep up with developing policy to manage usage of these new technologies, so they block them off as a short term solution, until they can figure out how to properly handle it, but sooner or later they will have to reopen access to it and manage it's use.
Well, they won't really have to, but it would be best, otherwise they risk unhappy employees and competitive disadvantage against those companies that do manage these technologies effectively.
I think the important thing to remember is, there are no good guys and bad guys here, both sides have a valid stance, so it's up to both parties to understand each others position and meet a consensus.
"Empowered staff are more productive" - yeah, who is disputing this? What is being disputed is how Facebook empowers staff on a general level and whether the so-called benefits apply across th board or just for those performing a certain job.
Taking jabs at the publication I work for, calling me anal, suggesting I might have a career in law enforcement all suggest one thing to me - your argument cannot be made without resorting to ad homeniem or emotional attacks. Like I said before, show me the numbers.
I have a friend who is a trainer and she says she finds it almost impossible to teach, especially graphics programmes to older people - their heads just don't work that way.
I struggle to get people going with blogs and other web 2.0 applications because they don't get it - once I get them into Facebook and they learn to upload pics and do all the things, they start getting excited about social networking - this is not usually for recreation, it is to promote their websites.
In South Africa we have a very un-computer/internet minded population. Most websites are brochures. My standard reply from people is "why should I pay you to write copy for me - we can just use my annual report!"
Facebook is a hook. It reaches into that place in people called community, even if it is only virtual community and makes them forget they live behind razor wire and high walls.It makes them feel like they belong again, it validates them.
And while our shell-shocked society is getting all this stroking they're getting hooked into the internet and are learning its language, their computer skills are improving and they are actually becoming more valuable to their employer.
Well, you see, maybe that's just me. I work for myself and it's really a thrill for me if I can get someone excited about Web2.0.
Do I care about the corporates' bottom line? Not really.
PS. Independent on Saturday had this interesting story on the from page yesterday - Taxing time for South Africans, that says that average South African employee only gets to keep a day's pay a week according to research carried out by retired Absa Bank economist Adam Jacobs who found out that people for out 65% direct and indirect taxation.
And then you want their Facebook taken away, Vincent?
I guess the difference between our positions is that I am saying the corporates care about their positions on this matter and they also have some valid points, especially if they're not trying to get their staff involved in this stuff.
It strikes me that you deal with the select few who somehow have been nominated to get involved in company Web 2 strategies, or individuals o organisations where everyone has to play a role in the marketing and client acquisition. In these cases it doesn't make sense for a company to ban FB, but in a business with a few thousand employees, where only a handful have the mandate to do this kind of stuff, the rest are just taking the piss.
I't not as if LinkedIn has been banned - people are just using FB compulsively during work hours to the point that it becomes identified as a problem. In many companies its now the most visited site and responsible for the most bandwith. If people were using it the same way they use LinkedIn there wouldn't be a problem.
So while I am not for the banning of Facebook unconditionally, I would support a corporate who, like ABSA, turns it off and then selectively opens it to the people who really do need it.
In fact a better idea - block it from 8:30 to 5PM or whatever normal working hours are.