Surf control; it seems like such an archaic practice. The sort of knee-jerk reaction some frightened religious sect might resort to. And yet, it's still common practice for so many companies around the world.

For me, banning web pages in the hopes of keeping people focused at work is the sign of a company hopelessly out of touch with technology and laughably behind the times. They trot out the old reasoning: productivity, responsibility, keeping out inappropriate web traffic - but do any of these things still apply?

Does it really boost productivity? Not according to more and more studies which say the exact opposite. As people's real world lives become more symbiotic with their online persona, visiting sites like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace aren't much different from checking your email.  And in fact a survey from a few months back showed time spent visiting online social profiles made employees more focused when returning to their duties. 

Photo by: Paul Linton (via Flickr)

In my mind there's little difference between that and having newspapers available in a common room for people to read on their breaks. Does it really make a difference where your employees are sourcing their information from? Does it somehow become more respectable if they're getting it from a printed page (now if it's the Toronto Sun)?

The productivity issue could be debated ad nauseum and the statistics are still open for debate, but what's not, is the idea that you don't trust your employees.

As I've mentioned in other posts, why not take the unpopular position of trusting your staff from the get go? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to use the web as another useful tool, instead of some time-sucking abyss. I've always thought that banning certain (non x-rated) sites speaks volumes about the kind of workplace you're creating.

Lift the reigns a little and let them surprise you. Besides, if the work isn't getting done, you'll figure it out pretty fast.