△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Facebook at work isn’t an either/or proposition

Shel HoltzFor days, department members had ignored emails from a colleague asking for their input on a business matter. This was no overt act of rebellion against the sender of the email. In fact, she was well-liked. Instead, the request got lost in the avalanche of email employees received, or it represented yet another to-do added to an already-daunting list, or they did not spend their days at desks with computers, checking email at common workstations only infrequently.

None of which diminished the sender’s need to get replies. So at home that evening, she sent the same request again, but this time from her Facebook account to the Facebook accounts of those employees she was trying to reach. Remember, she was well-liked and had been friended by many of her colleagues, every one of whom responded, from home, to her work-related query.

This is not an isolated case. I’ve heard the story three times, from employees in three different companies. In one of those organizations, the employees in question belonged to a union; leadership had dismissed the ability to engage them after hours through social channels because their contract explicitly exempted them from off-hours work. They were flumoxed to learn that they had, in fact, taken non-work time to provide a work-related answer to a colleague. It was even more perplexing to grasp the idea that they would reply from home to a Facebook query when they hadn’t replied during work hours to a company email.

It’s a phenomenon of the networked age. It’s easy to prioritize emails that flood your inbox, but there’s a desire to respond when a friend reaches out to you on a network to which you both belong. It’s another example of the intermingling of employees’ work lives and their lives away from work. People used to keep these dimensions of their lives separate, mostly because you interacted with your work colleagues at work and your friends and family at home. Those distinctions are rapidly evaporating when you add your work friends to your social networks; they all become part of a single relationship pool.

Not that your colleagues were ever confined to a work role. The best boss I ever had—Ed Hahn, who directed Organization Development at Mattel—made it clear: You’re only work colleagues until you get to know each other. After that, you’re friends, acquaintances, or enemies. Work, Ed said, is social.

That’s why employees band together in Facebook groups like the UIHC emergency room staff, or the employees of Siemens Egypt. What Facebook, Twitter, and other social tools have changed is the ability to engage with the people you know outside the physical boundaries that used to restrict your ability to interact. As a result, companies are struggling with the notion of the eight-hour workday when employees are able—and willing—to work just about any time, any place.

If you’re familiar with Gallup’s employee engagement survey, you know that a key question has to do with whether you have any friends at work. Social networks support work-based friendships and thus contribute to building engagement. Companies with large populations of highly engaged employees produce stronger growth than those whose employees are not so engaged.

Because the use of social networks at work is not a simple black-and-white concept—they’re not either exclusively working or exclusively screwing around—companies need to rethink their bans on employee use of social networks at work. It’s simply wrong to assume that employees connecting with friends on Facebook aren’t producing any value for the organization, since their interactions can produce direct work-related results (like the employees who got answers from colleagues they couldn’t get through official channels), insights, and even high-quality candidates for open positions in the company.

Companies that embrace the idea of a networked workforce will recognize that employees connect with one another whenever it makes sense, not just from 9 to 5, using the tools they use to connect to everyone else. These companies will adopt policies that address the biggest risks associated with employees using social channels while giving the company the best chance to be more innovative, more productive, and more profitable.

Comments
  • 1.Great post, Shel.

    I have a few questions: Do you think companies should be pushing official internal communication through Facebook if a large percentage of employees have a profile?

    What do you think of the modern adage "Never friend your boss"?

    Tim | December 2009

  • 2.Great piece, Shel. It reinforces why organizations need to embrace social media as part of their communication plans and provides an excellent example of the benefits of social media to an organization.

    Bill Spaniel | December 2009 | Glendale, Calif.

  • 3.At the very least, stories like this ought to be a wake-up call that there are many communication systems and technologies that companies should be exploring, instead of sticking everyone with the Spork that is e-mail.

    Ike | December 2009 | Birmingham, AL

  • 4.Shel -

    Great thoughts on the nature of work and on the increasingly intertwined "work vs. social" question.

    At Gist (http://www.gist.com), I help users tune their networks so that they can find the most important people in their networks. That grouping often spans personal and professional, and as you suggest, connections happen wherever and whenever you are.

    Thanks for the thoughts and look forward to future blog posts.

    Regards,

    Greg
    @GregAtGist

    Greg Meyer | December 2009 | Seattle, WA

  • 5.@Tim - Absolutely. One of the principles of communicating in the networked era is that your message has to be where the audience is. Consider IABC, which communicates through its own channels (email, its website, etc.), Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Why? Because IABC's members are dispersed through these venues, some spending most of their time in one place, others in another. So, with employees, you'll reach some of them through traditional internal channels (the intranet, for instance) and others through the employee groups on Facebook. Siemens, in fact, established an employee Facebook group specifically for communicating with employees and providing them a place to interact with one another.

    As for never friending your boss, that depends on the boss. Ed Hahn, whom I referenced in the post, is someone I would have friended in a heartbeat. We had beers together after work, we got together with our wives, we even went to concerts together. There wasn't much need with Ed to keep work and my personal life separate. On the other hand, I've had bosses with whom I'd NEVER connect on Facebook -- or in real life!

    Shel Holtz | December 2009 | Chicago, IL

  • 6.Shel,

    Just found your blog. What a wonderful and powerful story. Thanks for sharing.

    This is a timely case study. I'm teaching a class on SM for small business and will include this tale in my class tomorrow! Perfect.

    I've added your blog and would invite you to check me out too. I think we have similar views on a lot of social media issues!

    http://www.businessesgrow/blog

    Look forward to learning along with you, Shel.

    Mark Schaefer
    @markwschaefer

    Mark W Schaefer | December 2009

  • 7.Some great points in there Shel - Companies need to start relaxing on tired old dogmas of working hours. If an employee provides you with great quality work that is valued by the company - Why should you care when/how they do it?

    Personally - I don't care if an employee spends his entire day playing video games and his evenings working as long as I get what I've asked for on time and to a good level of quality. The end product is more important than the process in this case!

    Best

    Boris
    http://www.completeinnovator.com

    Boris Pluskowski | December 2009 | Boston,MA

  • 8.Hey, Shel. How's it going? I am a big fan of the mission you've been on lately to prove to companies that social networks are a part of life in today's world and not just some after work hours time waster. Could not agree with you more.

    Had a perfect example when I used to work at Sprint on our employee social network, Sprint Space. A group of retail employees started a chat via a blog post (notice the innovation, they made the tools work the way that best suited them). They called it Sprint Space Chat and 75 percent of it was social conversation, with a work question thrown in every now and then.

    Some people, leadership especially, cringed at this. But we used it as an example of how Sprint Space was achieving the goals we set out to meet when we started. I've seen the same research you mentioned in the post that employees who like their job and like their colleagues are more likely to perform better and show more loyalty to their employer.

    Companies lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on turnover each year. Social networks should be allowed if for no other reason than they would likely stem the amount of turnover at most orgs. This example is overused, but just ask Best Buy, where Retail turnover among employees who used Blue Shirt Nation was 8-12 percent, compared to an industry avg of 70 percent.

    One question I will ask is about policy and governance, which are definitely keys to the success of social networks in corporations. Have you seen a company successfully institute a policy that required hourly workers to concede that social network participation off the clock was not something they expected compensation for? In my experience, HR and Legal aren't as surprised that employees like your union example will participate off the clock. The worry is about class action lawsuits coming down later from employees who all of a sudden think they should be compensated for time worked after hours. Even saw a Facebook ad from a lawyer once requesting said employees contact him to be part of a class action suit.

    Could write about this all day, but just want to make one more point to emphasize something else I've heard you say in the past. If a company chooses to block social networks at work, they might as well tell all their employees in a company-wide e-mail "We don't trust you." And what's that they say about a relationship when you don't have trust? I believe it's that you have nothing, right?

    Justin Goldsborough | December 2009 | Kansas City, MO

  • 9.Hi Shel,

    You've got one fantastic point there. I have proven myself that social networking is really important in companies. I once worked for an international company where information must be relayed real time. They used to block social networking websites like facebook and the like on our server only to find out that employees are still using proxies to access to these sites. One of our colleagues suggested that we must have a network of our own for faster data transfer and connection to others.

    That was the turning point. After a long study of the advantages and disadvantages, it was implemented. Work had never been easier and stress free.

    And oh, I do agree that WORK is SOCIAL!

    More power and God bless!

    Best regards,
    Betsy

    Betsy montecastro | December 2009 | philippines

Comment Form

« Back