Talent & Tech Asia Summit 2024
human resources online

58% of staff spend at least 4 hours weekly on non-work websites

閱讀中文版本

Do you use filtering restrict your employees' use of certain websites or online properties? If you don't 58% of your employees may be spending at least four hours per week (equivalent 26 workdays per year, or at least 10% of a standard 40-hour week), on sites unrelated to their job, a new Spiceworks survey revealed.

Among organisations that restricted one or more website on the corporate network, 85% do so for illegal and unethical/inappropriate sites, 61% for online dating sites, 38% for social media channels, and 34% restrict personal instant messaging services.

Other restricted sites/online properties include video streaming services, music streaming services, online forums/communities, and personal webmail services.

Interestingly, only 13% restrict online retail sites.

When it comes to social media channels, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram are most commonly blocked on corporate networks - 36% block Facebook, 36% block Snapchat, and 35% block Instagram.

Other blocked social media channels include Twitter (32%), Pinterest (31%), and LinkedIn (16%).

Results indicated that in organisations that block or limit the use of social media, only 30% of employees spend more than four hours per week on non-work-related-sites compared to nearly twice as many employees (58%) in organisations that don't block social media.

Spiceworks web filtering survey

 

By organisation size, large businesses are more likely to restrict online properties compared to mid-size businesses with 100 to 999 employees, and small businesses with one to 99 employees (96% vs 92% vs 81%).

Spiceworks web filtering survey 1

 

In line with that, results suggested more employees are staying on task in larger organisations - only 28% of employees spend more than four hours per week on websites unrelated to their job, compared to 45% in mid-size businesses and 51% in small businesses.

Apart from productivity implications, security implications are among the top reasons organisations enforce web filtering.

About nine in 10 organisations restrict websites to protect against malware/ransomware infections, 84% wanted to keep staff from visiting inappropriate sites at work, and 83% sought to prevent unacceptable user behavior — all of which could have legal or cybersecurity implications.

In comparison, only 45% restrict sites to increase employee productivity.

Web_filtering_-_top_reasons

 

Digging deeper, survey results revealed that these security concerns are not unfounded. In the last 12 months, 38% of organisations experienced one or more security incidents through the use of non-work-related websites on the corporate network. These security incidents primarily stem from the use of personal webmail services (15%) and social media channels (11%).

Peter Tsai, senior technology analyst at Spiceworks, said: "It's evident web filtering is effective at keeping employees on task and reducing security risks. But in a world where IT professionals are constantly performing a balancing act between protecting networks and enabling and trusting employees to do their jobs, sometimes it's not possible to block every potentially dangerous website. As a result, web filtering should only be one part of a multi-layered security strategy, instead of being viewed as a cure-all."

Photo / 123RF

Follow us on Telegram and on Instagram @humanresourcesonline for all the latest HR and manpower news from around the region!

Free newsletter

Get the daily lowdown on Asia's top Human Resources stories.

We break down the big and messy topics of the day so you're updated on the most important developments in Asia's Human Resources development – for free.

subscribe now open in new window