I've been an IT manager for a while now, and at least once a week, I get a phone call or email from a company offering a web filtering solution, and extolling the virtues of blocking access to various portions of the internet. I even got an email last week with the subject line "Why you HAVE to block Facebook!". I don't HAVE to block Facebook. That, in my opinion, would be counter-productive.
Just to be clear, I do block some websites. Those that are illegal, or possibly illegal, offensive, or harmful (sites hosting malware, for example) - not blocking those sites would just be dumb. We also have a certain degree of monitoring available - if a manager wants to know what websites an employee has been looking at, i can tell them. I certainly don't have the time or inclination to regularly check what people are looking at online, because to be honest, it's going to be 90% Facebook, BBC, eBay, and holiday sites, along with a huge amount of business-related content. We do have an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) of course, which specifies what staff may or may not do with their internet and email access.
Ultimately though, why do people assume that it's the responsibility of the IT department to control what employees do online? Is it the responsibility of the facilities department to control where people walk and where they sit down? And, of course, if someone is on Facebook, does it follow that they're not working? I dip in and out of social networks all day. I use them to keep in touch with friends, colleagues, and professional contacts. I read blogs, articles, and tech news online throughout the day, and all our staff can do the same. It doesn't affect the quality or amount of work I do, and it helps me keep up to date and get stuff done. So not only is it not IT's responsibility to ensure staff work hard, it doesn't follow that internet access = leisure.
Work styles have definitely changed over the years. Now, I work in the office, on the train, in coffee shops, in the car, and at home, at various and unpredictable times of day. If I'm going to allow my work life to intrude on my personal life to such a degree, is it not fair to allow my personal life to intrude into my work life, vice versa? If i can organise my social life through Facebook while at work, I'm likely to be far more motivated and happy to be in the office than if I'm segregated and secluded during [insert office hours here]. I often hear various statistics about how many hours per day are "wasted" through non-business related internet browsing, and suggestions that content filtering can "fix" this. If someone spends two hours online per day, and you take that internet access away, does it follow that those two hours will now be used for work purposes, as efficiently as the rest of the day? Or is it possible that an employee may work far more efficiently with a few minutes "browsing break" every hour, for example?
Of course, some employees don't always work as hard as the employers would like, and sometimes it can be a problem. It may be that their quality of work is slipping, or their timekeeping is sloppy, or that they're spending far too long chatting to colleagues, or staring out of the window for hours on end, or, maybe, browsing the internet for too long per day. Out of those problems, four of them typically come under the remit of the line manager to rectify, while one, oddly, becomes the remit of the IT department. What's further odd is that the solution is so often to simply remove access, rather than address the actual problem. Maybe the employee is not motivated, maybe they're stressed, or depressed, overloaded or even just don't have anything to do. If they were staring out of the window for hours, the good manager would certainly try to work out what the problem is, and address it. If they're browsing the internet for hours, the solution is usually the equivalent of bricking up the window.
