Social Networking in Government

Social Networking
in Government:
Opportunities & Challenges

Part I: An Overview of

Human Capital Institute January 2010

Social Networking in Government —
Part I: An Overview of

Executive Summary
Social networking (SN) has become the new online rage. Blogs, wikis, RSS feeds and social networking
sites like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn have provided creative ways to recruit, engage, connect and
retain employees. They have also provided an opportunity to facilitate strategic knowledge sharing
across organizations and government agencies.

Most SN tools are Web-based and provide a variety of ways for users that share interests interests and/
or activities to interact. Users can share best practices and build communities of practice. These tools
provide e-mail and instant messaging services — constant connectivity. SN tools can help with the
current challenges facing today’s government agencies such as brain drain from a retiring workforce,
the need to create inter-agency knowledge sharing and an increased need to imbed talent tools where
the work is getting done.

Despite the growing consensus that social networking tools can improve talent management,
performance and service to customers (or, for government agencies, the affected public), recent
studies by the Human Capital Institute (HCI) and others show that, in general, government agencies
lag behind the private sector in their adoption of social networking (SN) tools — see Figure 1.

2 Social Networking in Government: Opportunities & Challenges
Part I: An Overview of Opportunities & Challenges
Copyright © 2010 Human Capital Institute. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Percentage of Organizations Using Various Social Networking Tools
Private sector results from Fall 2008 study. Public sector results from current Summer 2009 study.
**Note: in the current survey of government agency use of SN tools, respondents were asked if they used
threaded discussion boards, message boards and/or discussion threads. Since some respondents may not
differentiate between these three types of tools, the results are combined — meaning that the 26 percent may be
an overestimate of government use of threaded discussion boards and the actual gap between private and public
sector use may be even greater.

26%
Threaded discussion boards
33%

23%
Instant messaging/Chat
54%

31%
Blogs/Wikis
39%

32% Government
Communities of practice groups
54% Corporate

29%
Don't use social networking tools
15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

n=192 (private sector); n=607 (public sector)

For those with an interest and stake in better leveraging the capabilities of Web 2.0 and SN tools in
government, it is critical to better understand the current state of use of SN tools, future expectations
and the factors that influence both. To explore these issues, HCI and Saba partnered on a research
study to explore:

• ow many (and which) SN tools are being currently used in government workplaces;
H

• he current effectiveness and future importance of SN tools to carry out key talent management
T
and performance functions in various government workplaces;

• he critical barriers to the implementation and expansion of the tools in government — as well
T
as the best practices for overcoming these barriers.

To discover the answers, a Web-based survey was completed by 607 respondents from federal, state
and county/municipal government agencies. This report is the first in a three-part series on the use of
social networking tools in government and will provide an overview of their current and future use.

For this study, we differentiated between social networking functions and social networking public
Web sites. SN functions — such as communities of practice, blogs and threaded discussion boards —
are general approaches to creating and using social networks and can be implemented with publicly
available or customized organizational software. Social networking Web sites — such as LinkedIn and
Facebook — are publicly available Web sites designed for general social networking that can be used
by agencies for some of their own social networking needs.


Key Findings: Overall Use of Social Networking Tools in the Government
Workplace
• ixty-six (66) percent of government workplaces use some type of SN tool — and sixty-five (65)
S
percent of those are using more than one tool.

• mployee Learning and Development and Public Communications are the work functions for
E
which SN tools are most frequently used.

• unctions aligned with knowledge sharing and informal learning and development are the
F
most likely to be effectively conducted via SN tools.

• Workforce management and project planning are the functions least likely to be effectively
conducted via SN tools.

• ommunities of practice/groups are the SN tools most frequently used — indicating the goal
C
of improving collaboration.

• overnment workers rate the future importance of SN tools higher than the current
G
effectiveness — highlighting a major opportunity for future expansion.

• inkedIn, Facebook and Twitter are the three most popular SN public Web sites — highlighting
L
the value that many organizations find in leveraging already existing tools for their own
purposes.

Key Findings: The Future of Social Networking Tools in the Government
Workplace
• ecurity restrictions are the major barrier to future use of SN tools — many workplaces simply
S
bar all SN tools, while others place restrictions on what SN tools can be used or the employees
who are allowed to use them.

• or those workplaces willing/able to overcome security concerns, there are high expectations
F
for the improvements in talent management and performance that SN tools can achieve.

Background: Social Networks and Government Today
For most people, in and out of the government workplace, social networks primarily are one of
the major Web sites designed to connect people, such as MySpace and Facebook. These sites
serve as feature-rich chat boards in which an individual’s site can be connected to a large group of
“friends.” LinkedIn, a Web site with growing popularity among professionals, is similar in that it also
provides tools to easily create groups of connected people. It also emphasizes sections for jobs,
service provider recommendations and job-related questions. However, SN tools are not limited to
public Web sites. They also include very specific tools, some modeled on the public sites and others
using other aspects of Web 2.0 technology that can be used within an organization to build better
collaboration, improve employee learning and development and make government information more
accessible to the public.


Several government agencies are taking advantage of these Web 2.0 tools for recruiting and talent
management, as well as improving job performance.1 For example, the CIA leverages Facebook as a
method of attracting college students to apply for internships or jobs. In contrast, the Environmental
Protection Agency created a Facebook network for employees to achieve better talent management
— as a way to share knowledge, build collaboration and improve employee engagement.

Other agencies are using public social networking Web sites as models for their own sites. NASA’s
CoLab program involved building its own collaborative workspace site to develop and support both
online and offline groups and communities of practice. This allows its own internal groups to form a
collaboration network and link to non-NASA groups of like-minded, technologically knowledgeable
people and tap into the expertise of non-NASA scientists and engineers.

Using social networking tools is not limited to U.S. federal agencies. State, county and municipal
governments are also getting into the act of leveraging these tools to carry out important functions.
During summer 2009, adjoining counties in Texas — Grayson, Collin and Cooke — have started their
own Facebook and Twitter sites to make it easier for the public to access important information —
such as that provided by the counties’ emergency management offices.2

The various examples above highlight a major issue in the organizational use of SN tools — that
between internally focused (employee and other agencies) versus externally focused (citizens and
business).3 Internally focused applications such as in-house blogs, wikis and discussion boards for
knowledge sharing or employee development are, in many ways, easier to implement since there
are fewer security issues with which to be concerned — e.g., the unintentional access of private
information by the public. However, the externally focused uses are those that are more directly linked
with a primary purpose of many agencies — providing information and service to the public. Most
government agencies that are using SN tools are likely to be using them for both purposes — see
Figure 2. However, in Part II of this series, we will discuss the various ways that SN tool use diverges
among (and within) government agencies.

1
Guide to Managing U.S. Government Web Sites, Social Networking and Government from Webcontent.gov, accessed 6/22/09.
2
Many local government agencies now on Twitter and Facebook, available at: <http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/51938567.html>
(posted July 28, 2009).
3
Chang, Ai-Mei and Kannan, P. K. Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government, IMB Center for The Business of Government, 2008.


Figure 2. Government agencies are most likely to use SN tools for employee learning and
development — an internally focused purpose — and communications/public relations functions — an
externally focused work function.

n=387

Despite the many positive examples of how government agencies are currently using SN tools —
whether for internally or externally focused actions — the fact remains that the government sector
is still lagging behind the private sector in both its overall use of these tools. This is apparent from
several recent studies, including our own research at the Human Capital Institute. In Fall 2008, HCI
conducted a research study of the extent and uses of social networking tools by the private sector.4
Figure 1 highlights the level of use (or lack of use) of major social networking functions and tools in the
private sector (from our Fall 2008 study) and the public sector (from our current research). Clearly, the
private sector is ahead of government agencies in the use of social networking tools — with the public
sector only leading in the percentage not using any SN tools at all. Given that the use of SN tools has
only increased globally since Fall 2008, it is likely that the percentage of corporate users of various
tools is even greater today — indicating that the gap may be even larger than the figure shows.

In the remainder of this report, we explore the details of the current use of SN tools in government
to better understand how (and how well) they are being used, why they are not being used more and
what is needed for government agencies to better leverage the value of SN tools for both internal and
external functions.

Social Networking (SN) Tools in Government — What Is Being Used and How
As we discussed previously (see Figure 1), the use of social networking tools in government continues
to lag behind the private sector — with 29 percent of the respondents in this study telling us that they
do not use SN tools in their office (compared to 15 percent of respondents in our previous study on

4
Schweyer, Allan. Leveraging Social Networking & Web 2.0 Collaboration Tools in Enterprises, 2008, available at: http://www.hci.org.


the use of SN tools in the corporate setting). However, while they may be trailing the private sector,
the fact remains that two-thirds of all government agencies are using SN tools (Figure 3).

When most people — in and out of the government workplace — hear “social networking,” they think
Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn or a host of other Web sites that sprung up with the advent of Web
2.0. However, many individuals, including those actively engaged in integrating SN tools into their
own workplace, understand that it also means the use of many types of social networking functions
— either independently or connected — that build and enhance connections among people. These
include functions such as:
• ommunities of practice/groups
C
• logs and/or wikis
B
• nstant messaging and/or chat
I
• ikis
W
• SS feeds
R
• hreaded discussion boards, discussion threads and message boards.
T

Given that not all uses of social networking involve using one of the major public Web sites, we asked
our survey respondents to tell us about their use of both SN functions and SN public Web sites.
Figure 4 highlights the SN functions used by the 66 percent of government workplaces using social
networking, while Figure 5 shows the uses of the major SN Web sites. Clearly, the improvement of
employee collaboration through the creation of communities of practice or other work groups is the
most used social networking function. As far as which social networking Web sites are used, there is
no real surprise — the leaders in our survey are also the most commonly used by the private sector
and the public as a whole and are the ones (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook) which we previously highlighted
in the examples of SN use in government. In addition, 65 percent of government workplaces that
are using SN functions and/or Web sites are using more than one — usually two or three but, in a few
cases, as many as nine different functions and seven different Web sites.

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents reporting that their workplaces use — or don’t use — social
networking tools. n=607


Figure 4. Most used social networking functions. Percentages based on total respondents (users and
non-users of social networking tools).

Figure 5. Most used social networking Web sites. Percentages based on total respondents (users and
non-users of social networking tools).


Much of how SN tools are implemented in an agency will depend upon who makes the decision
(Figure 6). To explore this issue, we asked our respondents to tell us where, within the agency,
decisions on which SN tools to use were made. For 37 percent of respondents, the decision is made
at the national office, which sets a standard guideline for social networking use across the agency.
However, 32 percent of government workplaces possess local control over which SN tools they use
while another 21 percent use a hybrid decision-making process — often with headquarters setting
general guidelines or rules but allowing local offices a wide degree of discretion on how to implement
social networking.

Figure 6. Where in Agency Are Social Networking Tool Decisions Made?

n=378

Regardless of who makes the decision, in most cases when an agency does decide to implement
or expand on its use of social networking for talent management, improving job performance or
communicating with the public, the decisions will (or, at least, should be) driven by the current
effectiveness and perceived future importance of the various tools to the agency. In the next section,
we will explore how current users view the ability of various SN tools to improve their agency’s
performance — as well as the variation in this performance among and within agencies.

Current Effectiveness and Future Importance of SN Tools
The growth of SN tool use in the government sector, just as in the private sector, will to a large degree
depend upon the ROI achieved. That ultimately depends upon how effectively agencies use SN
tools to carry out many critical talent management, performance enhancement and public interaction
functions. Table 1 lists 16 critical workplace functions. For each function we asked all respondents
who use SN tools in their workplace to tell us the current effectiveness and future importance of their
SN tools for carrying out these functions.


Table 1. Some Workplace Functions for Which Social Networking Tools Can Be Used
Respondents of workplaces using SN tools were asked to rate the current effectiveness and future
importance of their tools in carrying out each of the following functions:
Talent Management and Performance Functions Interacting With
the Public
Formal learning Increasing leadership to Knowledge collection, Recruiting
and development employee communication sharing or dissemination
Informal learning Encouraging collaboration Project planning Improving service
and development across dispersed groups to public
Improving Providing convenient access Creating employee Creating more
employee to subject-matter expertise camaraderie efficient feedback
productivity from public
Improving Offering a quick and easy Fostering the formation of Imparting a positive
workforce means for sharing feedback new professional networks presence to the
management outer world via
blogging

As Figure 7 describes, government agencies are effectively using SN tools for many critical functions
today — knowledge sharing, feedback and informal learning and development, in particular.
Knowledge sharing and feedback are not surprising since these represent some of the first functions
in which social networks have been put to use. The high rating that respondents give to informal
learning and development (66.5 percent effective/very effective) shows that many agencies are
learning how to leverage the knowledge sharing and feedback functions of SN tools for other
purposes — in this case providing an effective, if informal, framework for talent development. (see Part
III of this series of reports on Social Networking in Government).

In contrast to the functions at the top of the list of Figure 7, SN tools are much less effective at carrying
out performance-related, work functions. For example, improving employee productivity, project
planning and improving workforce management all received less than 40 percent effective/very
effective ratings. Part of the reason for this is certainly that, unlike knowledge sharing and feedback,
using SN tools for performance- and project-related functions is relatively new. However, another
reason is that some managers still see social networking as a time waster and not as a productivity
enhancer — as summarized by one Director of Human Resources at a federal agency as his reason for
not widely adopting SN tools:

“Concern about the inappropriate use of social networks and
our inability at this point to accurately measure and assess their
potential distraction from business use and bringing value to
the employee’s performance and the overall mission and func-
tioning of the agency.”


Figure 7. Overall, SN tools are perceived as being most effective at handling knowledge sharing and
communication in internal processes and goals; public communication and recruiting functions are in
the mid-range of effectiveness; the use of SN tools for managing work trails behind. n=238.

and

Our respondents were significantly more positive when it came to rating the future importance of using
SN tools for the same functions — see Figure 8. In fact, respondents ranked the future importance
of using SN tools for every function higher than they did the current effectiveness — with all but three
functions receiving more than 50 percent “Very Important/Critical” rating. This highlights the high
degree of optimism that many workers in government have for the future of social networking in their
workplaces. This increased optimism included project planning and, in particular, improving workforce
management, which jumped from 32 percent to nearly 50 percent positive.

In addition, while knowledge sharing, feedback and informal learning and development remain highly
rated, some of the biggest gains — from current effectiveness to future importance ratings — were for:
• Encouraging collaboration across dispersed groups — highlighting an increased focus on using SN
tools to actively develop professional networks.
• Improving service to public and creating more efficient feedback from the public — indicating the
increasing desire to use SN tools to carry out their public service.


Figure 8. Government agencies’ optimism for the future importance of SN tools to carry out critical
workplace functions is higher than their belief in tools’ current effectiveness. n=246

Providing convenient access to subject matter
expertise
Encouraging collaboration across dispersed
groups

Knowledge collection, sharing or dissemination

Offering a quick and easy means for sharing
feedback

Informal learning and development
Unimportant
Somewhat important/Important
Improving service to public
Very important/Critical
Creating more efficient feedback from public

Recruiting

Fostering the information of new professional
networks

Increasing leadership to employee communication

Creating employee comaraderie

Impart a positive presence to the outer world via
blogging

Improving employee productivity

Improving workforce management

Formal learning and development

Project planning

The Future of Social Networking Tools in Government
“Social software is considered to be a free resource by half
the folks and a security risk by the rest. There seems to be no
middle ground.”
— An IT Manager at the U.S. Department of Defense

We conclude our study with a brief discussion of the future of social networking in the government
workplace — the likelihood of growth and the factors that may hinder that growth. We asked
respondents to tell us if their workplace was planning to implement or expand the use of SN tools in
the future:
• es — 28 percent (123 of 437)
Y
• o — 17 percent (73 of 437)
N
• nsure — 55 percent (241 of 437)
U


The 55 percent who are unsure of SN’s future in their own workplace are, perhaps, the most interesting
group. They represent both a challenge and an opportunity for those attempting to increase the use
of SN tools in government agencies. The challenge arises from the need to understand the barriers
that are holding people back from committing to the future expansion of SN tools in the workplace.
The opportunity exists because, if the barriers can be removed, there is the potential for rapid and
large-scale adaptation of SN tools.

The major barriers to the expansion of SN tools, as told to us by our respondents, are shown in
Figure 9. Previous studies of the problems of implementing social networking in government have
shown that security concerns are the major roadblock. Our study is no different, with 66 percent of
respondents choosing “security restrictions” as one of the greatest barriers. To explore this issue
in more detail, we asked those respondents with knowledge of how their agency deals with security
concerns to tell us about their approach (see sidebar: Dealing with Social Networking Security
Concerns in the Government Workplace).

Figure 9. Security restrictions are the #1 barrier to the expansion of SN tools in government agencies.
Not surprisingly, our research shows that the barrier is greatest in the Defense Department — but is
high among all agencies and all levels of government.

Security restrictions 66%

Other, higher priorities take precedence 28%

Difficulty in building a compelling 27%
business case for them

Lack of support from senior leadership 26%

Lack of expertise in selecting and
25%
implementing them

Budgetary 21%

User adoption 15%

Other (specify) 9%

Not applicable 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The concern over security can be a complex issue, which goes beyond simply securing government
agency data, as was made clear to us by one of our respondents, a training and development
practitioner in a state government agency:


“In creating a ‘job club,’ am I effectively inviting people to
a place where anonymity is lost? Even just giving an email
address often reveals a name or location, sometimes age!
Having read of misuses and employers seeing inappropriate
online photos or language, am I opening a can of worms?
These resources are so vast; is it the wave of the future or the
greatest waste of time imaginable? Will my own reputation be
enhanced or destroyed?”

As this quote highlights, security concerns often occur hand in hand with other concerns — such as the
fear of productivity loss from people using SN tools for personal purposes, the uncertainty over the
actual effectiveness of the tools and the worry about career damage from pushing for tools that fail
to return the hope for ROI. However, despite these concerns, most respondents remain hopeful that,
once security and other barriers to SN use are lowered or eliminated, that the benefits of SN use will
outweigh any potential negatives (Figure 10).

Figure 10. What major social network tools do government workers expect to use in the future — and
what benefits are they looking for?

Better collaboration / communication is the most commonly expected benefit in the future.

A means of
Better connecting
Faster, more
Better Better formal Likely to promote communications with and
Improves effective Other
SN Tool collaboration/ and informal higher employee and networking engaging Responses
mentoring knowledge benefits
communication learning engagement with the public former
transfer
and/or suppliers employees
(alumni)

Blogs 98 57 29 66 67 77 36 13 443
Wikis 59 53 20 74 43 27 12 13 301
Chat/IM 61 21 26 44 44 22 12 11 241
Message 73 38 23 54 49 39 21 12 309
boards
Discussion 72 47 37 57 56 30 16 12 327
threads
Facebook 63 20 22 38 48 85 41 24 341
MySpace 33 10 9 16 21 39 20 18 166
Twitter 60 17 16 45 40 74 31 19 302
Other 35 21 15 33 25 33 11 26 200
social
software


Dealing With Social Networking Security Concerns — Examples From the Government Workplace

Dealing with Security Issues:
Three Common Approaches
(as told to us by respondents)
Block All Social Networking Limit Access to a Few Limit Who Can Access SN Tools
Tools Selected SN Tools or for a Few to Selected Individuals
(a common approach for those Functions
workplaces uncertain about the
functionality of SN tools)
“We are blocked from “Wikis/blogs only allowed on “The organization has
accessing social networking internal, secure networks — not authorized one department
tools and Web sites.” — to any outside connections.”— to use it to impart company
Operations Practitioner in U.S. Senior Manager of HR in U.S. information to our customers.
Federal Government Agency Defense Department One concern is that we cannot
control what our employees say
on a social network.” — Training
and Development Director at a
U.S. Federal Agency
“Typical firewalls and other “Due to security concerns, my “All social networking needs to
security measures implemented organization currently makes be limited in scope and tightly
by Defense.”— HR Manager in minimal use of social software. managed. Bloggers are limited
U.S. Department of Defense Our current use is limited to to two individuals on a site,
a Knowledge Management and senior management within
application that enables the region must approve of the
communication and information use and monitor activity on an
sharing among communities ongoing basis.” — Manager at
of practice.” — Training and a U.S. Federal Agency
Development Director at a U.S.
Federal Agency
“Unless approved by City “In our department we don’t “In order to participate in some
IT Department, access is have social media methods yet of the networks, one must
restricted.” — Division but the agency is worried and be invited. Even then, care
Manager at a County or is doing things like restricting is shown in the information
Municipal Government Agency comments from appearing reported on the networks.” —
publicly (they have to be HR Practitioner at a U.S. Federal
emailed) and making Twitter Agency
only used from within our
physical office.” — Operations
Practitioner in a U.S. Federal
Agency
“Social networking use is “The only social networking “Only a select few employees
very limited in our agency tool we currently utilize is blogs. have access to Facebook,
and controlled by the We at the moment do not allow although access to LinkedIn
communication office. readers to comment, nor do is not denied. Twitter is
Social networking is the we comment on others’ blog only permitted for our
responsibility of the office of posts.” — Recruiter at County Communications Department.”
Chief Information Officer so or Municipal Government — HR Practitioner at County or
security is always a concern. Agency Municipal Government Agency
The measures to control the
use of social networking have
been with Web filters where
the Web sites and tools are
blocked from access from the
employees.” — IT Manager at
U.S. Federal Agency


Recommended Action Plans:
The results of this study lead to several key recommendations for action by those thinking about or
planning the implementation or expansion of SN tool use in their workplace:
• Security concerns are the #1 barrier to future expansion in government and need to be dealt
with through implementing a combination of practical guidelines for the secure use of SN
tools, the improvement of the safety of existing Web sites and SN tools, and the focused use of
SN tools that limit security concerns (e.g., internal discussion boards, wikis, etc.).
• he current strengths in government use of SN tools for knowledge sharing and public
T
communication should be encouraged and enhanced.
• nformation about successful uses of SN tools should be widely distributed to encourage
I
leadership buy-in of SN tools enhancement for underutilized functions.
• he success of communities of practice (the leading SN function in our survey) should be
T
leveraged by using it as a model for increased use of SN tools.

Parts II and III in this report series will examine the variation among and within government agencies in
the use of SN tools and using these tools for learning and development in the government workplace.


Appendix 1: Research Methodology and Demographics
The data for this report came from a Web-based survey emailed to government workers in the
HCI member and non-member database. The survey included 5 demographic (concerning both
organization and respondent) and 19 multiple choice, likert-scale and extended text response
questions divided into four sections:
• urrent use and management patterns
C
• ffectiveness and importance of SN tools
E
• se for leadership and development
U
• xpectations and barriers to future use
E

We collected data from 607 respondents that included all levels of government — from municipal to
federal (defense and non-defense). The demographic breakdown of respondents is shown in Figures
A.1. – A.4.

Figure A.1.

< 2,500 employees

2,500 to 7,500 employees

7,500 to 20,000 employees

> 20,000 employees

No response

Figure A.2.
U.S. Department of
Defense

2% 5% U.S. Federal government agency
7% (Not Department of Defense)
17%
U.S. state government agency
41%
U.S. county or municipal
28% government agency
Government contractor
Non-American government or other


Figure A.3.

15% 14% Director
Senior manager
15%
27% Manager
Supervisor
19% Practitioner
10%
Other

Figure A.4.

Division or program manager

16% 22% Operations
Recruiting
22%
16% Training and development

8% Other human resources
16%
Other


Social Networking in Government

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Social Networking in Government

Semelhante a Social Networking in Government (20)

Último

Último (20)

Social Networking in Government