Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

The Facebook face-off

by
30th Oct 2007
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

One of the most hotly debated issues of the year so far is whether staff should have access to social networking sites in the workplace. AccountingWEB teamed up with Lucie Benson, editor of our sister site HR Zone, and some of both sites' members to find out more.

People up and down the country are divided as to whether social networking sites are actually a business benefit and a useful networking tool, or whether they hinder productivity and are a threat to IT security.

According to a recent HR Zone poll, 54% of HR managers said it shouldn’t be banned, while 46% believed that it should.

Some big firms that have already blocked access to social networking sites due to concerns over productivity and IT security, including LloydsTSB, Credit Suisse, Transport for London and Goldman Sachs. Many companies are concerned that employees may be writing material on Facebook, or publishing photographs or videos that may cast their employers in an embarrassing light.

Watch out, cyber-criminals are about
Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at IT security firm Sophos, warns that the security concerns are very real. "Businesses could be the victims of a targeted attack by cyber-criminals, who are using stolen employee information to their advantage," he remarks.

"It would seem sensible for companies to have a policy as to whether accessing Facebook is appropriate behaviour in the workplace - and if it is, whether there should be any restrictions on the time of day when workers can access the site, or how long for."

HR consultant Sandra Beale believes that the workplace is for work and that social networking should only be allowed during lunch breaks or before/after work. A detailed IT policy should be drafted to cover all eventualities, she says. "Any abuse or reduced work performance due to non-adherence should be a disciplinary offence."

"Every employee owes a duty of mutual trust and confidence to the employer, which may be breached if material is posted which could bring the employer into disrepute."
Jessica Morris, solicitor, Thomas Eggar

Jessica Morris, a solicitor at law firm Thomas Eggar, warns that social networking sites such as Facebook, aside from being a distraction for employees, can pose a serious threat to an employer's business and its reputation.

"Employers' main concerns are potential breaches of confidentiality, and adverse comments about the workplace and other employees which could constitute discrimination, bullying or harassment," she remarks.

"An employer's response to inappropriate comments and/or photos on Facebook should always depend on the circumstances, but every employee owes a duty of mutual trust and confidence to the employer, which may be breached if material is posted which could bring the employer into disrepute.

"I recommend all employers implement an IT policy dealing with personal webpages, setting out clear disciplinary consequences of breach, which should be communicated to all employees," she advises.

Looking at the other side of the coin, there are some organisations that are fully embracing all that social networking sites have to offer. IBM's Facebook policy is a good example; within the firm, there are 22,000 people on Facebook every day.

"It's a social cultural thing," says Ian McNairn, web innovation and technology director at IBM software. "If you're a company with something to hide, you’ll stay away from social networking. But IBM wants to embrace those tools, and then take them to the extreme to see how valuable they’ll be from a business perspective."

Same problem, different name
The argument for and against the use of social networking sites could be considered nothing new. It wasn't that long ago that people were wary of general internet access and email at work, and look how mainstream this is now.

"I don't really see the argument that Facebook is used any more or less for business networking than any other tool," says AccountingWEB member Fred Hoad. "Therefore, whatever the policy on other tools could easily apply here."

But consultant Mike Morrison advises both employers and employees to think about seriously about their internet reputation, or "NetRep", as it is now known. He
explains: "While these sites can reduce productivity and impact corporate brand, the biggest risk ironically is to the individuals themselves. Material published on Facebook, MySpace and so on is in the public domain and will impact their NetRep. In some instances it may undermine their professionalism, or give a potential employer a reason not to employ. We need to educate our staff rather than encourage their creativity in accessing these sites."

Steve Bailey, managing director at BackgroundChecking.com, says that messages posted on theses sites, written in jest, are in the public domain and could affect career prospects.

"What is said may seem clever today, but not in the years to come when a candidate loses an exciting career prospect because of it," he warns. "Bear in mind that there is nowhere to hide from an embarrassing or detrimental internet history."

Business networking
At the other end of the spectrum, enthusiasts such as Dennis Howlett argue that professional firms should embrace social networking sites as a means to solve business problems, network with fellow professionals and even as a recruitment aid. The biggest problem he sees is that most employers and accountants don’t understand its value yet - and that the scare stories merely encourage corporate organisations to continue avoiding the implications of social networking.

In reply to AccountingWEB's recent Question of the Week on Facebook credit controller Claire provided a front-line view of the issue. "I joined Facebook a few weeks ago and was very suspicious of the whole thing, I thought it would be some site where people had easy access to your details and you would be targeted for advertising non-stop."

This turned out not to be the case, she found. "After a while, I was enjoying making new friends and catching up with old ones I hadn't seen in years. Not only is it a social networking tool, it can be used for business networking. It's laid back casual style is more appealing than the more professional communities such as LinkedIn. Also it's good for employees' morale to be allowed to relax for five minutes before retuning to the daily grind of the office environment. It could be used to improve internal company relationships," she says.

"Obviously it's about trust, and if employees abuse that trust and spend hours on Facebook or any other social website and not do any work, are they the kind of people you want in your organisation in the first place?"

A TUC briefing for employers, on online social networking and HR, can be found by clicking here..

Tags:

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Dennis Howlett
By dahowlett
31st Oct 2007 15:01

Social networking matters at multiple levels
"I don't really see the argument that Facebook is used any more or less for business networking than any other tool," says AccountingWEB member Fred Hoad. "Therefore, whatever the policy on other tools could easily apply here."

I'd be very careful with that. I'm currently working on a very large social networking project where the implications go in many different directions.

Having said that, one argument missed here is that Facebook is a 'data roach motel' - what goes in stays in and is hard to surface unless you are a developer. Some firms have gotten ingenious on that one.

Ernst & Young use FB for recruitment. As I understand it, they're very keen. Deloitte has a group there as does BADCASS.

The problem firms will face is proliferation of firm related sites. Check the number of KPMG FB groups for example.

However,just like the phone and email before it, this cannot be ignored, neither should it be feared. Those that ban are short sighted and will do their reputations no good at all.
AccMan

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Oct 2007 16:30

Roach Model ......
http://scobleizer.com/2007/07/15/the-aol-question-as-applied-to-facebook/

How soon will be before we see SN portals controlling access to all SN sites so that one only has to enter standard information once in a single place to have it spawned over all the child SN sites? Also a single portal could span all SN sites and collect relevant events resulting in the fact that you only need to run the portal and not each individual SN site

Anyway, so far as I recall Facebook originally started life as a SN site purely for University students (or invitees) and as such had the implicit credibility associated with Universities which could be the reason for the initial take-up. This illusion of credibility encouraged students to reveal far more personal information that they would normally have done and some have lived to regret it !!

Since then Facebook has opened its doors to all and sundry and caused a number of problems for the original 'trusting' members who were perhaps indiscrete with their postings, believing they were only available for the student population - ergo, was it was originally introduced on the basis of a lie?

Assuming these sites work on trust - what price any future trust when the initial student user base was induced to use Facebook under potentially false pretences ??

Of course the caveat has to be whether one is comfortable with personal data being harvested; furthermore the interest of M$ & Google does little to provide assurances that 'harvesting' is not the ultimate goal

Thanks (0)
Dennis Howlett
By dahowlett
31st Oct 2007 18:20

Of course it is
@jc:

Facebook's motivation, the same as Google and Microsoft is to develop advertising platforms. They hope that by aggregating information about the people visiting them that they will be able to target more specifically rather than the current scattergun approach.

Reality bites - Google has the lock on AdWords and AdSense. They work on the theory that advertising only works contextually (if you use Google Groups you'll see this in action in a pretty smart way already) Google understands that search is the cornerstone for this.

On the trust issue - it's an interesting point but common sense would dictate that you really shouldn't put into the virtual world something you would not do/say in real life.

Thanks (0)