alstin communications

With social media and other forms of Internet usage being integral to our daily recruiting and sourcing work lives, it got me to thinking about workers’ personal use of the Internet in the workplace in 2010. While an issue for over 15 years, it seems that Internet abuse on company time has reached epidemic proportions, yet employee productivity has gone through the roof. It’s increasingly harder to make sense of Internet access at work and getting the most from your employees. 

Consider a trio of recent studies done by a web-monitoring firm, an anti-virus company and the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Cyclope-Series, which produces computer monitoring software, found that 24% of employees spend more than one hour on social networks during working hours and are checking personal email up to 5 times per day. Interestingly, you’d think that the study would be biased since the company is selling productivity software to employers but the employees in the study knew they’d be monitored and even signed agreements permitting the recorded activity.

Trend-Micro, makers of anti-virus software conducted a similar study and found that 66% of employees checked personal email, 51% browsed websites not directly related to their jobs, 39% did personal online banking, and 31% made a non-business related online purchase.

Certainly if you’re looking at all this activity from an employer’s perspective it seems like the majority of workers are slackers. But how to explain record worker productivity? Enter the University of Melbourne. Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, researchers there have amazingly found that employees who use the Internet at work for personal reasons are 9% more productive than employees who don’t. They reason that perhaps surfing the Internet for pleasure or personal reasons increases worker’s concentration levels or eases anxiety about other parts of their lives, enabling them to concentrate more on their work. “People need to zone out for a bit to get back their concentration,” said Dr. Brent Coker from the University of Melbourne’s Department of Management and Marketing. “Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the Internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity.” Of course, even the researchers admit there are limits. Workers spending 20% or more of their time at the office watching YouTube or bidding on eBay auctions aren’t likely to be improving their productivity.

As with everything in life the whole issue comes down to one of moderation. Short personal breaks on the Internet seem to be okay but overuse cuts into meaningful work. The solution, as it’s always been, is strong management and personal oversight. However, in today’s technologically connected world perhaps companies feel their management has become overtaxed and are fighting technology with technology. Cyclope-Series has found that in 2009 54% of US companies have decided to block social networks at work.

In the “that-happened-yesterday-who-cares-about-it-now” age we live in, I was really glad this article caught my eye. I’m referring to a detailed, even-handed and informed criticism of ESPN’s handling of the LeBron James trade saga, also known as “The Decision.” What made this article special was that it was written by one of their own: Don Ohlmeyer, who is ESPN’s official “Ombudsman.” The link is here, and I strongly encourage you to read it. You’ll find that Ohlmeyer is very critical (as I think he was right to be) about ESPN’s handling of The Decision and pulls no punches when it comes to the network’s numerous mistakes and serious journalistic integrity lapses leading up to, and during, the over-hyped event.

What makes for a good ombudsman like Ohlmeyer? The definition of an ombudsman is one “who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements,” but I think it of more as a “tell it like it is person,” someone who is immune from—or above—any influence or corruption from the organization he comments on. No killing the messenger here, this person is expected to speak the truth without corporate-speak, prejudice or fear of retribution. When it works, when the person is truly impartial, and truly free to say what he or she wants, it’s great. I actually think more highly of ESPN as an organization for having someone like Ohlmeyer as an ombudsman—though do I think his piece deserved more prominent placement on the ESPN website.

How about in the corporate world? In my opinion, a good ombudsman is something a CEO would covet, as a strong leader wants honest feedback but very often doesn’t receive it, hearing mostly from yes-men or having to work with watered-down, distorted information. A report in SHRM states that a corporate ombudsman is still a rather rare commodity. I think that’s unfortunate, especially with large corporations, as a good ombudsman can give voice to employees or a community that wouldn’t normally have access to top management. Some companies set up an ombudsman program as a result of a legal ruling but SHRM claims most organizations create them voluntarily. If you’re thinking what I’m thinking, the answer if yes, BP does have an ombudsman.

The danger of a corporate ombudsman program? If the person in that role is simply there for show, serves as a mouthpiece for top management, can’t speak freely or faces retribution, that’s worse than having no program at all. Many media and news outlets have had an ombudsman for decades, and it’s always been considered a very important position in a one-newspaper city, or a place where a single media outlet dominates the news dissemination for a region.

Does your company have an ombudsman, be it official or unofficial? Do your employees know about this person and how are his/her comments communicated? What would you say to your CEO if you were appointed the role of ombudsman?

Social media has been a game changer. It’s made us rethink how we like our news delivered. How we prefer to communicate with each other. And how we portray ourselves to the world. Personal brands are no longer resigned to the famous.

For many of us our personal brands are connected to our professional identities. For example, my handle on Twitter is @AnnetteatAlstin. I use Twitter to share happenings at Alstin, links back to this blog, contests we’re running and all around interesting HR or social media news I come across. Sometimes though, that can be a little monotonous. I tweet more personal sidebars about my comings and goings at work too — a great restaurant I tried in Center City for lunch, a funny video, or being stuck on a late Septa train. It all needs to be pretty innocuous stuff because these tweets are not all about me, it’s all about me at Alstin.

Read this tweet from former CNN Senior Editor of Mideast Affaris, Octavia Nasr who was using this Twitter handle, @OctaviaNasrCNN:

Nasr, who invested 20 years of her career at CNN, was ultimately fired for her tweet about Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah who has been described by the AP as, “staunchly anti-American and linked to bombings that killed more than 260 Americans.”

After her firing Nasr posted an explanation, apology and remorse for her tweet saying:

It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I’m sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah’s life’s work. That’s not the case at all. It’s something I deeply regret.

Her firing has been controversial. Stephen M. Walt, a professor of International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School, pointed out in an editorial, “plenty of American journalists and politicians have shown ‘respect’  for various world figures with hands far bloodier … but it didn’t cost them their jobs.”

Thinking back on my blog discussing  the ”Cisco Fatty” tweet and the importance social media policies (and common sense), my first question on all this was:  What are CNN’s social media guidelines for employees?

 So I Googled, found their policy and it reads:

Don’t list preferences regarding political parties or newsmakers that are the subject of CNN reporting. Unless given permission to comment publicly on the issues or people we report on as a CNN analyst or commentator, it is important that you and all other CNN employees be independent and objective regarding the news and people that we cover. If you publicly declare your preference for issues or candidates or one side or the other of the public policy issues CNN reports on, then your ability to be viewed as objective is compromised.

With the delicate balance of reporting in the Middle East, it seems that Nasr is correct in copping to making an error in judgment. Even with very clear social media policies, I don’t think we’ve seen the first or the last of these sort of firings in the forseable future. We are human after all. In the mean time though, please, whatever you do,  don’t follow any of these examples.

Employment-at-will, the HR law of the land in most states, is often cited as follows: “The employer is free to discharge individuals for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.”

There are a lot of other definitions and summaries, but the one that always stuck in my head is, “You can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason, just not an illegal reason.”

I remember when I first started working in the industry—I thought: Really? The law says it’s okay to be fired for a bad reason? Even NO reason? Like after 50 years of employment I could be fired because I have on a yellow shirt that day and my boss hates yellow? I could be fired because they can’t stand the sound of my voice anymore? Because if they have to look at my face one more time they’ll go crazy? I could be fired because…well, just because? What is this, a marriage? (just kidding, honey).

Of course, being fired for a shirt color or other ridiculous reason is rare, and often in these scenarios the employee will contend that these “at-will” reasons are used as a cover for an illegal dismissal. It’s not the fact that Joe has on a yellow shirt but because Joe is older and due a pension. Not because we hate the sound of Sally’s voice, but because Sally is pregnant.

Of course, under employment-at-will, the employee has the same rights. A worker is equally free to leave his job at any time, for a good reason, bad reason or no reason. In most cases, an employee can get up from his/her desk and walk out the door with no repercussions.

Obviously, so many people lost their jobs over the last few years—and yes, some because they were low performers, but I think in most cases business conditions were so awful their companies simply couldn’t afford to keep them any longer.

Now here’s a new wrinkle that’s a product of that lousy economy: I’ve read a few disturbing articles stating that because most companies are so desperate to show their customers, shareholders and vendors that their business is rebounding, some are using “creative” firings and terminations–since a round of layoffs would signal weakness when they need to project strength. If these people are not in a protected class or are not being dismissed for discriminatory/illegal reasons, they have little recourse.

My perspective? I think overall, employment-at-will makes a lot of sense, and is fair and just for both sides–but like everything involving laws or policies there are always a few groups that try to abuse the law—and we need to keep an eye on them. For now, just don’t wear your yellow shirt to work.

“Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.”
- Gertrude Stein

I had a conversation that I (almost) can’t believe I am still having with a friend this weekend about Facebook and the workplace. My friend who is a “director” of a department shared with me a recent Facebook wall post by a person who reports directly to her. It read (and this is further edited to ensure their “privacy”) along these lines:

“I still have to endure working at COMPANY XXX.. Anyhoo, did you get the vibe that SO-AND-SO is waaaaaay too tense and uptight…like there was something missing from their life? A NOT SO NICE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SO-AND-SO MAY BE MISSING IN THEIR LIFE WAS HERE. It’s a good thing I’m not friends with them on Facebook, or I’d be fired right about now.”

While comments like these may not exactly be grounds for firing, they do lay the groundwork for impressions of a person’s character. Remember that old adage, if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all? Well, just apply that to your coworkers and what you’re saying about them on Facebook big time.

“Doesn’t she know that I can see this?!!” my friend asked. Umm, probably not, but they really should.

The clueless co-worker in all likelihood is really clueless about their privacy settings. Little do they know that allowing “Friends-of-Friends” to view their wall posts allowed their boss to view their rant about a fellow coworker. A rant that was a wall post to a mutual friend.

Many of us have been confused, annoyed, leery and/or still somewhat clueless about the recent changes Facebook made to their privacy settings. Their switcharoos have caused many to lose some trust in Facebook and question the ulterior ($$$) motives of the service.

An editorial on CNN.com by Danah Boyd, a social media researcher at Microsoft and fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, points out many key issues when it comes to trust, informed consent and Facebook. It’s worth a read and she offers up a recommendation for those who aren’t so sure how to manage their Facebook privacy settings – check out ReclaimPrivacy.

By following a few simple steps, ReclaimPrivacy will perform a series of scans that inspect your current Facebook privacy settings and warn you about settings that might be unexpectedly public. Regular visits to their site will also keep you posted on the latest developments on Facebook’s policies when it comes to users privacy.

There’s no doubt that sharing information is what Facebook is all about – it’s essential to the site’s success and has contributed to the success of individuals and organizations by the very nature of its openness. Just check out how Bravo TV is using social media to cater their very successful TV shows to a very specific demographic – and I admit I am totally one of them, they’ve got me! On the flip side, wouldn’t you rather “opt-in” to sharing your Facebook profile content beyond your group of friends vs. the other way around? Get your settings squared away and then tell us what you think. Do you still give Facebook’s approach to your privacy the thumbs-up?

For those that don’t remember, Primetime Glick was a short-lived comedy show featuring Martin Short as the rude, clueless Hollywood reporter, Jiminy Glick (if you don’t recognize Martin, don’t worry, he was in a body suit and under tons of makeup). I came across an old clip on YouTube recently, and I was struck by the way Jiminy’s style represented the very worst in HR interviewing. Specifically:

• Being ill-prepared for the interview

• Having your facts completely wrong

• Going off on wild tangents

• Asking questions but not listening to the answers

• Making snap judgments about one’s abilities and qualifications

• Being dismissive

• Letting your emotions get the best of you

• Asking inappropriate questions

• Talking more about yourself than listening to the candidate

To see an example of bad interviewing in action, watch Jiminy’s interview with Julia Louis-Dreyfus here:

You can also watch Jiminy as he takes over CNN and makes many of the same interviewing mistakes with Anderson Cooper:

Unfortunately, I bet many people reading this blog have worked with people who are almost as bad at interviewing as Jiminy.  Let’s join together, think about the above bullets, and resolve to never let it happen to us! Have a great weekend everyone!

Laptops. Netbooks. iPhones. Blackberrys. Smart Phones. Mobile Devices. WiFi. Broadband. 3G. 4G. Mobile Broadband. The list of technological advances of the past 10 years is mind-boggling. It also means most office workers are connected to their jobs 24/7. The efficiencies we’ve gained IN the office mean we have more work to do OUT of the office. It may be one of the hidden reasons why worker productivity continues to rise while employee counts drop. 

As more and more of us work from home on our days “off” and telecommuting becomes more popular, it’s interesting to note that not being seen in the office can have a detrimental effect on your career. 

According to a recent article in the Sacramento Business Journal, the University of California Davis conducted the first-ever academic study of “passive” face time – when workers are seen in the office without any interaction. They found that bosses think more favorably of employees who are present. 

“Merely being seen – often from a distance and without any interaction or real understanding of what a person is doing – that in itself has value,” Professor Kimberly Elsbach says. “People notice.”

Workers who telecommute or have flexible hours often focus on quick and constant communication via phone or text messages. Others send e-mail late at night to show their dedication. But if you’re a telecommuter it pays to periodically come into the office–to see and to be seen because researchers have also found that face time has a direct, and sometimes unconscious, effect on how managers view employees. 

Career mobility still hinges on working hard, working smart and reviewing accomplishments with superiors. But even with all new technologies swirling around us, it seems that in 2010 good old face time still carries much weight when being evaluated in the workplace.

The office copy machine: A wonder of efficiency that we all pretty much take for granted. A pit stop for office gossip. A real threat to your personal identity.

Wait a minute, what was that last one again?

Did you know that any copier manufactured since 2002 comes fully equipped with a hard drive? A hard drive just like your computer that can hold a copy of all the images ever copied on that machine. Machines that companies often lease and just as often swap out for new ones. Machines that wind up in warehouses to be resold to anyone, anywhere.

Copy machine hard drives can typically take a handy person about 30 minutes to retrieve. Using forensic software that’s available for (you guess it!) free on the web, within a matter of hours complete images of documents copied can be extracted, viewed and reprinted.

Just when you thought it was only your privacy settings on Facebook that you needed to worry about, this piece from CBS News on the subject is a real eye-opener. The good news, hard drives can be scrubbed – most cases they are not – and security features can come pre-loaded into copy machines – ditto. So think before you copy and before that copier heads out the door, check to see if all the information on its hard drive isn’t about to go with it.

Watch CBS News Videos Online