So, one of the Dragons from Dragon's Den (Theo Paphitis) has banned his staff from using Facebook at work and suggested other companies should do the same? I am not about to criticise the business judgement of someone who is obviously successful; what he does in his company is up to him and it plainly works for him. But I don't agree that other companies should necessarily do the same. It depends what business they are in, and is wrong for most.
Some companies, indeed, most companies, exist to make money. Some are short term ventures which only make a fast buck and then close. For some such companies, I think he is probably right. They want a focused workforce who just get on with the job, make money for the owners, and then disperse when it all shuts down. The advantages of allowing staff to use Facebook might be exceeded by the costs is some of these companies, in others, not.
Other companies have an additional purpose in mind, but want to make money too, and still others are not for profit organsiations. Most companies though have a desire for longevity, and I think that regardless of their profit or social function motives, long term businesses should not ban staff from using social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter, provided that they don't let it get in the way of doing their jobs, which obviously is a line management policing function. Allowing them to use them during breaks is fine, and even a modest usage during work periods is fine too. Only if it takes up so much time that it reduces their productivity significantly should managers intervene. Why?
Actually, a few good reasons:
People are not just cogs in a big machine, or rather, they should not be treated as just cogs in a big machine. We don't stop being human when we go to work, and as our economy grows, we can afford to concentrate on other quality of life issues than pure financial wealth. Part of the point of wealth generation is that as we become wealthier, we can take time to enjoy life a bit more. Being able to blur the lines between home and work a little is a good thing. It makes people happier. They feel more in control of their lives. This is especially true of people working in mundane jobs. It is historically the nature of low paid work that there is a clear line between work and non-work, but it doesn't have to be that way. As long as the business can cope, why not let staff enjoy their lives too? They will probably work harder and be more loyal.
Secondly, many staff take work home, and companies of course encourage them to do so (Blackberry users work much longer hours than no-users), and it is both mean and exploitative to ask that they leave their social lives at home while expecting them to take work into their social lives. Companies make money by exploiting the efforts of employees, and of course employees gain from the relationship too, but there should be a mutual respect. Confrontation between unions defending staff from bad employers is a regular symptom of bad management or bad unions. In a good company, both sides understand and respect each other, and ensure that both sides get an equally fair deal from the relationship. To demand otherwise is selfish and unethical.
Thirdly, the economy is changing. People doing mundane jobs and behaving as cogs in a machine is sometimes unavoidable, in production lines for example, where they fill the areas that still can't be done by machines. Humane management can make up for this by providing generally good working conditions. But this kind of work is disappearing fast in the developed world. Modern work is already less machine-like, and will become increasingly focused on 'human skills' as time goes on. Adminsitration can be automated to a high degree by smart machines, especially as the semantic web takes hold. Professional knowledge can increasingly be captured and used by machines. Transactions in call centres have been highly displaced by voice recognitions and basic AI. What is left after all this runs its course is that part of work that involves emotional skills, caring skills, interpersonal skills, leadership and communication skills, entertainment, sports, policing, teaching, social work, personal services and and so on. i.e. jobs that are focused on dealing with other people. People doing this kind of work need to have good people skills of one kind or another. Companies that are here for the long term need staff with those skills. It make little sense to prevent them from becoming adept at them by banning them from using social networking tools. Time spent on sites like Facebook and Twitter might be wasted sometimes, but not always. It also sometimes helps improve human skills, so companies could reasonable think of it as training.
Fourthly, using social sites and thereby building and fostering personal networks helps people's employers directly. It is key to them building relationships with other companies that might be suppliers or customers, since those companies are also staffed by people. When companies are comprised of armies of AIs directly interacting with other AIs, we will no longer need to worry about Facebook anyway, but while the work is done by humans, it is a useful tool. Knowing people at the other end helps build and maintain trust, a very key (and increasingly so) ingredient for successful business interaction. Inter-company interaction via social networking also helps cross fertilise ideas and best practices. Finally, having staff that know potential future employees personally is a huge asset, saving on recruitment costs. And of course knowing the competition personally is a great asset too. The ancient wisdom tells us to 'keep your friends close but your enemies even closer'.
So companies have a lot to gain by letting staff use social networking sites while they are at work. Their loyalty will increase, they will be happier, and hence more energetic and probably work harder. The company's relationships with suppliers, customers and other companies will improve and their chances of survival enhanced by continuous updating of best practice and cross fertilisation of ideas. Sure, some employees will always abuse the freedom, but that is a simple line management issue. Most people will behave better when the company treats them better.
So, summarising, I don't think Theo Paphitis is necessarily wrong to implement a Facebook ban in his own ventures, it all depends on his business models. But for most organisations, it would be counter-productive. Treat your staff like humans and you will earn more, it's as simple as that. Even for the most extreme capitalist company, the long term advantages probably outweigh the short term costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment