 |
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 |
|
IM bashing - Huh? Just as excitement mounts around Skype (i've added the code to call me on the right panel at my blog - grabbed it from Stuart who's been on a real Skype roll), leaving me with thoughts of how wonderful it would be to integrate this application into a corporate intranet, or even an organisation that currently relies on telephone and email (expensive, tedious and time-consuming), i see this report on a survey : Forget Work, IM Is for Scheming, Flirting, Gossip LONDON (Reuters) - Flirting with colleagues, scheming against the boss and gossiping about co-workers are among the most common Instant Messenger, or IM, missives circulating around the office, according to a new survey on Monday. So-called "IMing" -- the act of sending quick message exchanges to other Internet users -- has become a popular workplace pastime. Just as they did with e-mail a few years ago, corporations have now embraced IM technology as it enables co-workers in large organizations to converse quickly and cheaply. But IM's popularity has its drawbacks, experts say. Because many users believe it cannot be monitored by the boss, many freely fire off messages ranging from cruel cracks about a colleague's hair to sensitive information about major corporate projects. "Businesses don't really monitor IMing," said Nigel Hawthorn, European marketing director for Blue Coat Systems, a Web security firm that conducted the survey of over 300 firms in the United States and Britain, the world's two largest IM markets. "If you're leaning forward and typing away at your machine, who's to know what you're typing about," he added. The preponderance of personal chatter leaves companies open to sensitive corporate leaks and even lawsuits, Hawthorn said. In the UK, 65 percent of the 204 respondents said they use IM for personal purposes during work hours, the survey said. Half the UK respondents admitted to peppering their IMs with abusive language; 40 percent used IM to conspire on colleagues during conference calls and nearly one-third confessed to "making sexual advances" in the easily disguised dialogue box. U.S. respondents, meanwhile, gave more tame accounts of their IM usage. For example, less than one in five American survey participants said they used IM to comment on senior management or to flirt. One explanation for the disparity is the Big Brother notion. Nearly 60 percent of British respondents did not believe or were unsure whether their IM conversations could be monitored by their employer while 71 percent of US respondents believed -- correctly -- that IM messages could be traced." What hit me as i read this - more than the statistics - is the tone in the report which suggests that the organization management and the survey company are both operating out of fear of loss of control. Can you really stop employees from flirting, or gossiping or scheming by telling them they're monitored - they're bound to find other ways of doing it. Can you stop the water filter or canteen buzz ? Can you really stop someone who wants to leak company information ? Or make a personal call ? Or take a couple of hours off to get some personal work done, or quickly meet a date? And if you attempt it - are you not perpetuating closed systems that are so contrary to the way the world is moving today. Some years ago, could you have said no telephones for employees to ensure noone was scheming, gossiping or flirting ? Some years ago could you have said no email access or connectivity? Look at the new generation of employees - they're growing up on these systems, including IM. Are you saying to them "toe the line ... or else"? Are you also implying they cannot be responsible employees without policing? Sometimes we forget trust begets trust, responsibility begets loyalty. And then this letter, in a different context (link via Metafilter) - Don't kill P2P because of a few bad eggs ........ a sigh of relief - i quote an excerpt here : Peer-to-peer networks can be used for legal or illegal purposes. So can the telephone, a newspaper or a church's bulletin board. People are responsible for their own actions and there are laws designed to prosecute people for illegal actions. The legal uses of P2P are rarely heard, because they are not "sexy" or political. P2P allows artists and listeners to connect directly. The proliferation of unique works created and distributed on the Internet is staggering. It is possible that P2P networks could evolve in such a way that the large recording corporations could be out of the music business altogether. The artists could connect with their fans directly and reap the full benefit of their efforts. The corporations are very scared of this scenario--so they lobby individuals to do their bidding. ....... The Constitution reads "We the People", not "Us Corporations." " Reassuring to know that not everyone operates out of fear ! 3:12:15 AM  comment [] trackback []
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 Dina Mehta
