To snoop or not to snoop-for employers today, that is the
question. Big names like Xerox, Dow Chemical and The New York
Times are setting the precedent, axing workers for Net abuses
ranging from inappropriate surfing to violations of e-mail policy.
Meanwhile, tools for monitoring e-mail and Net use are now
affordable and widely available, raising the bar on moral dilemmas.
As easy as it may be to read every word in every e-mail and to know
every Web site that employees visit, is it right?
"Historically, e-mail monitoring has been seen as Big
Brother. But today people are starting to see there may be problems
if you don't monitor," says Walter R. Boos, president of
Content Technologies Inc. in Bellevue, Washington, whose
MAILsweeper software provides a tool for reading all incoming and
outgoing e-mail.
The moral vs. practical issue arises with Web surfing as well.
"Productivity issues definitely come up with employee use of
the Web," says Kevin Blakeman, president of SurfControl, a
Scotts Valley, California, developer of Net monitoring and
filtering tools. When workers are eye-balling stock market ticks
and hopping into auction sites, they aren't doing their jobs,
which triggers employer worries about wasted time.
Content Continues Below
Aggravating matters is that more and more companies are
providing Net access to more employees. A few years ago, Net access
was largely limited to a corporate elite, but "today, much
wider constituencies within organizations are online, and that has
caused greater concern about abuse," says Adam Bosnian, vice
president of marketing at Burlington, Massachusetts-based Elron
Software, another developer of monitoring tools.
With the Net bringing new workplace threats, more employers seem
willing to join the Big Brother ranks. Business use of monitoring
software is growing. In 1999, just 27 percent of companies surveyed
by the American Management Association reviewed employee e-mail; in
2000, that jumped to 38.1 percent. And in 2000, for the first time,
the AMA measured employer monitoring of employee Internet
connections: 54.1 percent said they monitored access. Employee
reaction to this snooping? "More are simply accepting that it
happens," says Boos.
The AMA survey base, however, is mostly drawn from large
businesses-and experts readily concede that use of Net surveillance
tools in smaller businesses is far less widespread. Entrepreneurs
are still divided on instituting eyes-on policies.
Steve Rosa, 36, founder, president and chief creative officer of
Advertising Ventures Inc., a Providence, Rhode Island, ad agency,
wants nothing to do with monitoring. "We don't and
won't snoop," says Rosa. "I'm not going to invade
my people's privacy. For many of my workers, e-mail is their
primary mode of communication. I have confidence in my
team."
Katherine Rothman, 30, owner and CEO of KMR Communications Inc.,
a New York City-based medical and health PR firm, holds the exact
opposite position. "I've found it necessary to limit
employee use of the Net. Productivity was suffering, and my phone
bills were going higher and higher," says Rothman, who, among
other steps, brought in a technician to dismantle all
instant-messaging functions on employee computers. "Too many
were using it, too often," she says, "and it just
wasn't business-related."
Rothman's main way of monitoring Net use is by walking
around and watching, and she's told her five employees that if
they don't shape up, she'll unplug all their Net
connections and set up one computer in her office for supervised
access. "I don't want to do that, but if I have to, I
will," she says, adding that she'd also consider
monitoring software. "The profitability of my business is at
stake."
Kevin Ford, 35, president of the Armstrong Group, a 10-employee
consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia, believes that with the right
balance, monitoring can be liberating rather than restricting. The
moral issue for Ford is not so much monitoring itself, but the way
in which it's done. Honesty is key. "We monitor employee
e-mail and tell them we will," says Ford. "Our culture is
based on openness. All our e-mail passwords are made available to
all employees. Anybody, at any time, can read my e-mail-and I'm
the president. We do this because it's more efficient for
business."
Ford explains that sometimes employees have been absent and key
information was available only in their e-mail. "That's
the main reason we keep e-mail public," he says. "We also
want the computers used as business tools. We simply talk to
employees who are making too much personal use of them."
How do employees react to Ford's policy? "Initially,
they're surprised when they hear it-but we believe in fully
discussing all our policies," Ford says. "When we talk
about what we do with e-mail, employees understand why. To us, the
core value is being open and, when you're open, people usually
go along with you."
While Rosa stands by his view that monitoring "would create
the wrong atmosphere," the role of Big Brother is being donned
by many entrepreneurs, whether with reluctance or with pride. And
maybe it's not such a scary idea in 2000 as it was in
1984. "Our e-mail environment is very safe, for the
company and the employees," says Ford. "We believe our
way is best."
Page 1 |
2 