The Role of Facebook - and Think Tanks - in the Workplace

Think Tank* Demos reckons bosses should embrace Facebook, as reported by the BBC:

Attempts to control employees' use of such software could damage firms in the long run by limiting the way staff communicate, the think tank said. Social networking can encourage employees to build relationships with colleagues across a firm, it added. However, businesses are warned to be strict with those who abuse access. Firms are increasingly using networking software to share documents and collaborate in ideas, the research found.

And while more work-specific systems, such as LinkedIn or bespoke in-house software tended to be used for work matters, the likes of Facebook, Bebo and MySpace still had a place, said Peter Bradwell, a Demos researcher and the report's author.

"They are part of the way in which people communicate which they find intuitive," he said. "Banning Facebook and the like goes against the grain of how people want to interact. Often people are friends with colleagues through these networks and it is how some develop their relationships."

Now there's a use for Beacon - as an Enterprise 2.0 tool! Why bother with all those intrusive email-spy systems when you can just stick all the drones on Facebook and scrape their data to kingdom come. I see a new revenue stream for Facebook in these straightened times

More seriously though, the issue with consumer social network designs is that they are not really "fit for purpose" yet for enterprise use outside a number of (fairly low risk) applications. Core issues are security, privacy and the different social structure (heirarchical) within organisations.

(Update - to be specific - will employees use Facebook - of course, its an email alternative. What I mean is that its not the sort of structure an organisation - in my view - should use for its own internal systems)

I have also become a bit fascinated with "Think Tanks" and their future in an online world, in that they are often (usually?) merely opaque lobbying organisations with agendas posing behind impressive semi academic sounding names - which of course the emerging open web is a direct counterpoint to. They are nearly always Charities or Not for Profit organisations (which is an area ripe for scams in itself) and thus not held to the same accountability as companies, or even government agencies - they are sort of intellectual hedge hunds. My hypothesis is that, used correctly, the emerging New Media - blogosphere et al - is actually a better approach than the Think Tank as it is currently structured.

Anyway, whenever one sees Think Tank research, the interesting question is always "why is the funder behind this lot punting this line", and "why did they use a Think Tank, not another approach" (Orange funded this by the way). Demos is - and I quote:

Once the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of Great Britain, seen as close to Tony Blair before 1997 general election. Works with number of government departments, public sector agencies and charities.

And is a:

Multi-purpose think tank aimed at increasing effectiveness of all policy making.

However, a recent Open Democracy article lambasted the modern British Think Tank as an obstacle for open democracy, given its opaque funding and accountability, and that they are increasingly putting sizzle over substance:

....a world where right and left have been transcended and where thinking has become traduced to a narrow bandwidth about micro-delivery, policy-lite ideas and buzz words and concepts such as ‘Nudge’, while the big issues of the age about pensions, the credit crunch or how we regulate modern capitalism go unanswered. Where have been the think tank thoughts about the nature of the recent global downturn, or what Britain’s contribution to it should be?

And further noted that:

What is revealing is how lacking in self-criticism and renewal are many of the people involved in the think tank industry. Richard Reeves, newly appointed director of Demos, has recently argued that think tanks ‘win their influence through intimacy with their principal political ‘clients’ or through independent technical expertise.’ This leads, Reeves believes, to the political class listening to them the way ‘you might listen to your spouse or your GP.’

Reeves did not address why think tanks are the best arbiters and providers of this ‘expertise’, or consider Jim Knight, Labour MP’s point that they are ‘ultimately very elitist, top-down institutions’.

There is now discernable doubt around Westminster about the quality of much of think tank work, the influence of corporate funding, and how success is judged by insider access to politicians and media coverage generated.

In other words, for a Think Tank to be talking about open-ness is something of a paradox. But for a New Labour Think Tank to be fishing in new waters unsullied by unpleasant remembrances of its time past - details like old fashioned economic crashes and retirement ruination - is very unsurprising, and what better than Social Media, a sexy area that is fast becoming the repository of Old and New Utopian dreams of all stripes.