I think this points to an even larger question about knowledge worker productivity. Most of our most of our modern concepts of employee value and productivity are unchanged from agrarian and industrial times. Based on those principals social networking is a pure detriment to productivity. In my estimation however, the modern knowledge worker's value is in what they are capable of doing, therefore their general presence of mind, motivation and ability to jump to a new task without much warning are of very high value. To this end social networking is a tremendous benefit, the employee is constantly exposed to new ideas, has a sense of purpose and community and well being otherwise not provided by the padded cell they spend a 3rd of their lives in. A more "productive" employee might be found away from their desk very distracted by busy work, documentation creation or digestion and be far less motivated and alert when the need for their knowledge and mental skill arrives than their Facebooking counter part. Plus when the need arises for advice on training resources or imaging solutions I have someone with expertise right at my fingertips whose advice I can trust!

The premise here seems to be that "work" time and "non-work" time can be separated, but if one is a knowledge worker those lines are gray at best and if one is a good knowledge worker the line disappears.

I think it's true that an employee who spends an inordinate (operational definition required) amount of time engaged in water-cooler talk (do they have those anymore), on social networks, or just chatting with co-workers should be corrected.

But expecting that knowledge workers can spent 8 focused hours using their brains only for work and the remaining hours using their brains only for non-work (otherwise, it's overtime, right?) is unreasonable.

[...] The power of social networking for feedback, collaboration, and …10 hours ago by Beth Chmielowski  Thus, the power of social networks to confuse, amuse, resolve, and evolve, all displayed in lightning-quick real time: disruptive change and accelerated adaptation masquerading as light-hearted banter. What's not to like? … [...]

In the academic world social networking tools are often used to communicate with one's co-authors and other tasks directly related to the research we undertake, in addition to helping busy scholars keep in touch with friends and family despite not having the time to coordinate face-to-face meetings, particularly when living in a different time zone that that in which most of one's "friends" reside.

People will have conversations. It used to be at the water cooler and then the smoking room. If you try to control or ban these conversations they will simply move the location somewhere else. Better I think to engage in a positive way and have dialogues with employees.

The days of 'clocking in and clocking out' are in the past; the lines between work and personal and smudged anyway. A company that expects its employees to work unpaid overtime when the job requires it but doesn't allow them to take personal calls, or keep in touch via social networks is harking back to working practices of days gone by. Trust and openess is the key with guidelines for use and well thought out code of conduct/confidentiality policies.

Wow – great feedback! We clearly have strong feelings about our social networks!

Greg: agree with your point about the blurring of the lines – in my career as a knowledge worker, I’ve definitely seen a shift to “work/life mashup” versus “work/life balance.”

Life-long scholar: What you describe in the academic world happens in the business world as well, as we are an increasingly distributed work-force with lines that blur between companies/partners/vendors, etc. At VMG, we’re all office nomads, with not one of us in the same city. I find I rely heavily on facebook and twitter to keep up with my colleagues both personally and professionally. (And ironically, I find I know more about what they care about, what their strengths are, and what they’re working on than I ever knew about most of the people working one or two cubes over from me for years.)

Dave: you are right on. Far beyond the “it’s healthy/people will do it anyway” argument, I think there’s real value in social networking tools to make us better at our jobs, and more valuable.

So if we love ‘em, and think they’re useful, what do you think it would take for those 54% of companies to be convinced of the value of social networks in the workplace? Kelly suggests trust, openness and a well-thought-out code of conduct. What else? Has anyone championed their introduction? What resonated with stakeholders who were initially resistant?