Research from the University of Melbourne (http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxgmug) - which says that workers who are allowed access to leisure Internet sites such as Facebook and YouTube are more productive overall - has just been released.

 

Ostensibly, the research proves the old adage, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," but it also pre-supposes a degree of fair play on both sides of the employer/employee divide.

 

In a small/family-run firm, this approach is the norm, but in mid-sized and major companies, policing this approach is almost impossible without access to Web access security technology.

 

The good news is that the technology that can control access to inappropriate Web sites has reached the stage where granular controls, such as timed or time-based access to leisure Internet sites such as eBay and the like, can be policed and management alerted when a member of staff starts to overstep the mark.

 

But how should the mark be set?

 

If the mark is tightly defined, some staff will always overdo things. And if the mark is loosely defined, there is little point in having a leisure time access policy.

 

And there is also the risk that creating a defined access policy may erode an element of goodwill that a company has with its employees.

 

Why not go the whole hog and install a time clock in the staff room? See how far that gets you on the employer/employee relations front.

 

According to Dr Brent Coker, a Professor with the University of Melbourne's Department of Management and Marketing, employees who surf the Net within a limit of 20 per cent of their total work time tend to be an average of nine per cent more productive than those who do not.

 

But do companies really need that extra nine per cent productivity if it comes at a risk of some employees - as usually happens in a large company - overstepping the mark and management having to employ disciplinary procedures, with all the ill will that such processes engender for all concerned.

 

Good management - down to a local office manager level - should obviate the need for such rigorous controls.

 

Even in a call centre environment, where the norm is for supervisors to actively work with staff on any problems that arrive, a good supervisor will spot an errant employee at risk of taking advantage of company Internet access and move into counselling mode.

 

Good IT security technology can also perform a degree of employee mentoring - even though this should not, strictly speaking be necessary - by flagging up on a user's screen that it may not be in the best interests of their firm if they continue to access a site can reinforce behaviour inline with your internet usage policy.

 

There's also the interesting point that most mid-range and above mobile phones these days support Facebook and MySpace access, so whether the employee uses their desktop PC to access the service is largely irrelevant.

 

Being a good employer means mentoring and counselling staff under and around you. It's not at all about a Dickensien employer barking out orders from his/her desk.

 

Furthermore, the feast-or-famine nature of modern business means that, at quiet times, staff can surf the Net, read the paper or even - heaven forbid - socialise with each other.

 

If they do the latter, then there is every chance that they will be happy employees and, as a result, be more productive.

 

Which probably explains a lot more about the rationale of the University study than any more analysis.

Do you think it is a good idea to allow controlled personal web access for employees? Click this link to vote in our poll http://www.infosec.co.uk/page.cfm/Action=Poll/pollID=165/nocache=true

Or add a comment below

Permalink:
http://www.infosecurityadviser.com/view_message?id=108