Does blocking sites at work make employees more productive? (1 Viewer)

[Spin]

All last week the talk around work was the new access control that my company was going to roll out this week that was going to limit which sites we could visit at work. We already had some kind of restrictions, but if it didn't have nudity you were pretty much ok, for example, LiveLeak and Chive were not blocked. Everyone was complaining and guessing about what was going to be taken away this week.

So this morning when I get to work, I go to grab a coffee and two people are already #####ing about how Facebook is blocked now. Get to my desk and start checking random sites. Pretty much everything seems blocked. (Whew FFA flew under the radar). Yahoo Sports, ESPN, MyFantasyLeague, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I googled an excel formula this morning and the excel forum that popped up was blocked under "Tasteless".

Anyways, is this even an effective strategy? I guess the thought process is, we'll take away everything they're doing that's not work related, then all they'll have left is to work! Why not just monitor and see who's spending a majority of time on the sites you want to block and talk to / fire those individuals? Or trust your managers to hold their reports accountable, and appropriately deal with under performers.

Oh well, for now FFA is still here so I'm gtg. Just doesn't seem like this is going to create the results they're looking for. I already see people checking facebook on their phone while sitting at their desk, so now they've lost any chance of at least monitoring the use that they had.

 

[Spin]

InBeforeFFAGetsBlocked.

 

[swirvenirvin]

no.. The smart thing would be to put a limit on these types of sites.. An hour or half hour a day.

Cause guess what?? If you want to get to a site you will, but it will just take 5 times longer by doing in on your phone instead of the computer.

 

[Cjw_55106]

The "shotgun" approach is rarely a good idea IMO. I have no idea if it will promote a more effective work enviroment, but it turns people off that arent abusing it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, they just find other sites and it also causes resentment.

 

[MattFancy]

I always found in strange that companies would block sites at work. Outside of obvious ones, aren't we all adults? If Jane in accounting wants to spend her day on FB, let her. If it interferes with her work, tell her and if that doesn't work, let her go. Seems pretty simple.

 

[Gustavo Fring]

I just setup my personal hotspot from my phone for an hour or so at a time when I want to look at sites that my company blocks (social, gambling, forums, etc). Also, try using https:// instead of http:// when surfing the web, as putting the "secure" part in there will sometimes allow you to bypass your company's IT firewalls (although not in all cases).

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

No, it might actually make them less productive because they are taking a nap instead.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

No, it might actually make them less productive because they are taking a nap instead.

In the olden days people would spend all day smoking & drinking coffee & chatting at the water coolers. Although nobody actually drank water back them.

 

[Amused to Death]

There are times when spending 10 minutes on FB or FBGs helps me reset. If I've been working on a problem without making much progress, sometimes a few minutes clearing my head helps approach it with a new perspective.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

I don't know we're not restricted other than porn and gambling but I do most my browsing on my phone anyway

 

[Spin]

Curious to hear from the "yes" people.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Curious to hear from the "yes" people.

I'm guessing that after they hit yes they blocked themselves from this site.

 

[MattFancy]

I don't know we're not restricted other than porn and gambling but I do most my browsing on my phone anyway

And that's what I think people would do if their favorite sites got blocked. They would just spend more time on their phone instead. Could be wrong, but I could see that happening.

 

[top dog]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

 

[MattFancy]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

That I understand. If an entire office is streaming music at the same time, the network would be super slow.

 

[Spin]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

I get that. I can understand blocking like Pandora, or Spotify. But what does blocking ESPN accomplish?

 

[IC FBGCav]

I always found in strange that companies would block sites at work. Outside of obvious ones, aren't we all adults? If Jane in accounting wants to spend her day on FB, let her. If it interferes with her work, tell her and if that doesn't work, let her go. Seems pretty simple.

Janice in accounting don't give a ####!

 

[B Maverick]

No just makes them find other ways to get on them....

heck one guy I know started a work FF league with the IT dept so they would allow him to get into FF sites.

 

[Scoresman]

Companies should just fire employees who cant get their work done and not spend resources on blocking software and such. If they're obviously not getting their work done or not meeting expectations, get rid of them, otherwise, who gives a ####?

 

[GoFishTN]

I'm in IT so I can get to most stuff, but when something is blocked it makes me even less productive since I have to use my phone to look at the site.

 

[Amused to Death]

No just makes them find other ways to get on them....

heck one guy I know started a work FF league with the IT dept so they would allow him to get into FF sites.

Many years ago, a group of us would play Unreal over the office network during lunch. After a while other people complained about the slow network to the higher ups. That would prompt a stern email from our IT guy about how network gaming is against company policy and won't be tolerated. Then around noon the same IT guy would email the Unreal group asking who was firing up the game that day.

Always buddy up to the IT guys. Always.

 

[sublimeone]

Having an internet filter is essential IMO. Most of my employees are under 30. Maybe that makes a difference. We also have guidelines on cell phone use in the office so if someone is on their cell phone constantly they'll get an email with the company policy outlined.

 

[sublimeone]

Companies should just fire employees who cant get their work done and not spend resources on blocking software and such. If they're obviously not getting their work done or not meeting expectations, get rid of them, otherwise, who gives a ####?

Theoretically this makes sense but it doesn't work this way. And firing people is a PITA. In my experience people actually prefer a structured environment with rules and guidelines.

 

[Chadstroma]

No. Does not change productivity IMO.

What does impact productivity is leadership offering a work environment that people want to be at and want to succeed with. Most execs suck at this and opt to try to do things like this to make up for the suckiness.

 

[captain_amazing]

As a general rule, I don't think so. However, I do think it depends on the type of company, culture, nature of work, etc. There are also many other obvious benefits to blocking certain sites related to harassment and preventing a hostile workplace.

 

[Eminence]

More time on their cellphone, imo.

 

[top dog]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

I get that. I can understand blocking like Pandora, or Spotify. But what does blocking ESPN accomplish?

Makes management feel like they are managing.

 

[ghostguy123]

Seems very passive aggressive.

 

[MikeIke]

FBG isn't blocked, but Cracked is. Salon isn't blocked but all the scripts running underneath are, so that it makes trying to read it pointless. Fark isn't blocked, though it used to be 4 years ago . I don't like my company's blocking system but it could be worse.

 

[TheAristocrat]

There are times when spending 10 minutes on FB or FBGs helps me reset. If I've been working on a problem without making much progress, sometimes a few minutes clearing my head helps approach it with a new perspective.

Absolutely.

 

[pollardsvision]

Not that I care, I sling hot dogs and wash dishes all day, but I'd assume these results will be heavily skewed as we all spend a lot of time each day on at least one site that employers won't see much value in (not to mention all the gambling and porn that we all enjoy).

 

[kutta]

I say it helps productivity. The temptation is just too great, and limiting it helps. It's really easy to piss away a few hours on the Internet when you could be doing something productive.

I'm all for checking out CNN at lunch, but why allow Facebook, etc.? It's the company's time. Do that stuff at home.

 

[Christo]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

 

[belljr]

IT guy here. From an IT perspective, we only care about sites that can open our network up to being compromised and sites that suck up bandwith. Managers on the other hand, have other ideas. We had a sales manager that wanted google maps blocked because he thought his people were spending too much time on them.

I get that. I can understand blocking like Pandora, or Spotify. But what does blocking ESPN accomplish?

Espn is all bandwidth with their videos etc.Only sport site blocked for me

 

[Hawks64]

I say it helps productivity. The temptation is just too great, and limiting it helps. It's really easy to piss away a few hours on the Internet when you could be doing something productive.

I'm all for checking out CNN at lunch, but why allow Facebook, etc.? It's the company's time. Do that stuff at home.

The people who are going to be productive will be those that won't be productive won't regardless of internet. If someone is going to waste time on the internet and you block access they will find another way to waste time.

 

[Capella]

Having an internet filter is essential IMO. Most of my employees are under 30. Maybe that makes a difference. We also have guidelines on cell phone use in the office so if someone is on their cell phone constantly they'll get an email with the company policy outlined.

Sounds like hell. People can't listen to music on their phones in your office?

 

[Christo]

Seems very passive aggressive.

Doesn't seem passive aggressive at all.

 

[Christo]

Having an internet filter is essential IMO. Most of my employees are under 30. Maybe that makes a difference. We also have guidelines on cell phone use in the office so if someone is on their cell phone constantly they'll get an email with the company policy outlined.

Sounds like hell. People can't listen to music on their phones in your office?

But I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from 9:00 to 11:00.

 

[kutta]

I say it helps productivity. The temptation is just too great, and limiting it helps. It's really easy to piss away a few hours on the Internet when you could be doing something productive.

I'm all for checking out CNN at lunch, but why allow Facebook, etc.? It's the company's time. Do that stuff at home.

The people who are going to be productive will be those that won't be productive won't regardless of internet. If someone is going to waste time on the internet and you block access they will find another way to waste time.

I disagree. That's probably true for the top and bottom 20 percent. It's too tempting for the middle 60.

 

[AAABatteries]

I don't know - have they blocked PCAnywhere also?

 

[flapgreen]

People who put these sorts of things in place don't put much thought into it.

 

[ghostguy123]

If someone is not doing their job well, for whatever reason, wouldnt it make a wee bit more sense to address those issues with that individual rather than create new rules for everyone?

Some people with access to anything online are actually good at their jobs and might even use something from a prohibited website that is positive for their work.

For others, maybe just maybe address their shortcomings with them. Lazy as hell management.

 

[flapgreen]

If someone is not doing their job well, for whatever reason, wouldnt it make a wee bit more sense to address those issues with that individual rather than create new rules for everyone?

Some people with access to anything online are actually good at their jobs and might even use something from a prohibited website that is positive for their work.

For others, maybe just maybe address their shortcomings with them. Lazy as hell management.

Makes too much sense

 

[proninja]

Seems like a better idea to just set up something that emails an internet activity report for every employee to their direct manager.

If an employee is productive, I wouldn't even look at it. If an employee isn't productive, I'd be curious what they're spending their time doing.

 

[ghostguy123]

Seems like a better idea to just set up something that emails an internet activity report for every employee to their direct manager.

If an employee is productive, I wouldn't even look at it. If an employee isn't productive, I'd be curious what they're spending their time doing.

Does it even matter? You address their productivity with them. If it doesnt improve then maybe take that further.

The internet activity report seems like a waste of money when a few 5 minute conversations would be more effective anyway.

 

[GoFishTN]

People who put these sorts of things in place don't put much thought into it.

They always put in enough thought to make sure they're excluded.

 

[proninja]

Seems like a better idea to just set up something that emails an internet activity report for every employee to their direct manager.

If an employee is productive, I wouldn't even look at it. If an employee isn't productive, I'd be curious what they're spending their time doing.

Does it even matter? You address their productivity with them. If it doesnt improve then maybe take that further.

The internet activity report seems like a waste of money when a few 5 minute conversations would be more effective anyway.

Would just be one more thing to put in the file so HR would be ok with letting them go. Truthfully, a company that felt it had to do this would probably be a terrible place to work. Which would be bad for the company. Probably an awful idea all the way around.

 

[flapgreen]

People who put these sorts of things in place don't put much thought into it.

They always put in enough thought to make sure they're excluded.

Well yeah

 

[Spin]

Seems like a better idea to just set up something that emails an internet activity report for every employee to their direct manager.

If an employee is productive, I wouldn't even look at it. If an employee isn't productive, I'd be curious what they're spending their time doing.

Does it even matter? You address their productivity with them. If it doesnt improve then maybe take that further.

The internet activity report seems like a waste of money when a few 5 minute conversations would be more effective anyway.

Would just be one more thing to put in the file so HR would be ok with letting them go. Truthfully, a company that felt it had to do this would probably be a terrible place to work. Which would be bad for the company. Probably an awful idea all the way around.

The thing is, this company wasn't like that at all until this week. We have a ping pong table, a fusbol table. Most people dress in jeans. There are no offices, everyone, even the VPs sit in the same honeycomb structures everywhere. We have no set sick days, PTO etc, everything is just "within reason". So I could take as much time off as my manager lets met. WFH is pretty common and even encouraged...

Then the internet got cut in half.