Social Networking in Government

Social Networking in Government: Opportunities & Challenges

Human Capital Institute January 2010

Part I: An Overview of Opportunities & Challenges

Social Networking in Government: Opportunities & Challenges Part I: An Overview of Opportunities & Challenges

Copyright © 2010 Human Capital Institute. All rights reserved.

2

Executive SummarySocial 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.

Social Networking in Government — Part I: An Overview of Opportunities & Challenges



3

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.

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:

•Howmany(andwhich)SNtoolsarebeingcurrentlyusedingovernmentworkplaces;

•ThecurrenteffectivenessandfutureimportanceofSNtoolstocarryoutkeytalentmanagementand performance functions in various government workplaces;

•Thecriticalbarrierstotheimplementationandexpansionofthetoolsingovernment—aswellas 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.

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

Don't use social networking tools

Communities of practice groups

Blogs/Wikis

Instant messaging/Chat

Threaded discussion boards

15%

54%

39%

54%

33%

29%

32%

31%

23%

26%

Corporate

Government



4

Key Findings: Overall Use of Social Networking Tools in the Government Workplace •Sixty-six(66)percentofgovernmentworkplacesusesometypeofSNtool—andsixty-five(65)

percent of those are using more than one tool.

•EmployeeLearningandDevelopmentandPublicCommunicationsaretheworkfunctionsforwhich SN tools are most frequently used.

•Functionsalignedwithknowledge sharing and informal learning and development are the 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.

•Communitiesofpractice/groupsaretheSNtoolsmostfrequentlyused—indicatingthegoalof improving collaboration.

•GovernmentworkersratethefutureimportanceofSNtoolshigherthanthecurrenteffectiveness — highlighting a major opportunity for future expansion.

•LinkedIn,FacebookandTwitterarethethreemostpopularSNpublicWebsites—highlightingthe 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 •SecurityrestrictionsarethemajorbarriertofutureuseofSNtools—manyworkplacessimply

bar all SN tools, while others place restrictions on what SN tools can be used or the employees who are allowed to use them.

•Forthoseworkplaceswilling/abletoovercomesecurityconcerns,therearehighexpectationsfor the improvements in talent management and performance that SN tools can achieve.

Background: Social Networks and Government TodayFor 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.



5

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 methodofattractingcollegestudentstoapplyforinternshipsorjobs.Incontrast,theEnvironmentalProtection 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. Duringsummer2009,adjoiningcountiesinTexas—Grayson,CollinandCooke—havestartedtheirown 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 ManylocalgovernmentagenciesnowonTwitterandFacebook,availableat:<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,IMBCenterforTheBusinessofGovernment,2008.



6

Figure 2. GovernmentagenciesaremostlikelytouseSNtoolsforemployeelearninganddevelopment — 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 sectoronlyleadinginthepercentagenotusinganySNtoolsatall.GiventhattheuseofSNtoolshasonly 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 HowAs 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 donotuseSNtoolsintheiroffice(comparedto15percentofrespondentsinourpreviousstudyon

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



7

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:

•Communitiesofpractice/groups

•Blogsand/orwikis

•Instantmessagingand/orchat

•Wikis

•RSSfeeds

•Threadeddiscussionboards,discussionthreadsandmessageboards.

GiventhatnotallusesofsocialnetworkinginvolveusingoneofthemajorpublicWebsites,weaskedour 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 intheexamplesofSNuseingovernment.Inaddition,65percentofgovernmentworkplacesthatare 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



8

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).



9

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 ToolsThe 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.



10

Table 1. Some Workplace Functions for Which Social Networking Tools Can Be UsedRespondents 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 and development

Increasing leadership to employee communication

Knowledge collection, sharing or dissemination

Recruiting

Informal learning and development

Encouragingcollaborationacross dispersed groups

Project planning Improving service to public

Improving employee productivity

Providing convenient access to subject-matter expertise

Creating employee camaraderie

Creating more efficient feedback from public

Improving workforce management

Offering a quick and easy means for sharing feedback

Fostering the formation of new professional networks

Imparting a positive presence to the 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 learninganddevelopment(66.5percenteffective/veryeffective)showsthatmanyagenciesarelearning 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 IIIofthisseriesofreportsonSocialNetworkinginGovernment).

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.”



11

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.

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 functionsreceivingmorethan50percent“VeryImportant/Critical”rating.Thishighlightsthehighdegree 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,whichjumpedfrom32percenttonearly50percentpositive.

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.

and



12

Figure 8.Governmentagencies’optimismforthefutureimportanceofSNtoolstocarryoutcriticalworkplace functions is higher than their belief in tools’ current effectiveness. n=246

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:

•Yes—28percent(123of437)

•No—17percent(73of437)

•Unsure—55percent(241of437)

Project planning

Formal learning and development

Improving workforce management

Improving employee productivity

Impart a positive presence to the outer world via blogging

Creating employee comaraderie

Increasing leadership to employee communication

Fostering the information of new professional networks

Recruiting

Creating more efficient feedback from public

Improving service to public

Informal learning and development

Offering a quick and easy means for sharing feedback

Knowledge collection, sharing or dissemination

Encouraging collaboration across dispersed groups

Providing convenient access to subject matter expertise

Unimportant

Somewhat important/ImportantVery important/Critical



13

The55percentwhoareunsureofSN’sfutureintheirownworkplaceare,perhaps,themostinterestinggroup. 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 ConcernsintheGovernmentWorkplace).

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.

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:

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

Not applicable

Other (specify)

User adoption

Budgetary

Lack of expertise in selecting and implementing them

Lack of support from senior leadership

Difficulty in building a compelling business case for them

Other, higher priorities take precedence

Security restrictions

15%

7%

9%

21%

25%

26%

27%

28%

66%



14

“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.

SN Tool

Better

collaboration/

communication

Better formal

and informal

learning

Improves

mentoring

Faster, more

effective

knowledge

transfer

Likely to promote

higher employee

engagement

Better

communications

and networking

with the public

and/or suppliers

A means of

connecting

with and

engaging

former

employees

(alumni)

Other

benefitsResponses

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 boards

73 38 23 54 49 39 21 12 309

Discussion threads

72 47 37 57 56 30 16 12 327

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 social software

35 21 15 33 25 33 11 26 200



15

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 Tools

(a common approach for those workplaces uncertain about the

functionality of SN tools)

Limit Access to a Few Selected SN Tools or for a Few

Functions

Limit Who Can Access SN Tools to Selected Individuals

“We are blocked from accessing social networking tools and Web sites.” — Operations Practitioner in U.S. Federal Government Agency

“Wikis/blogs only allowed on internal, secure networks — not to any outside connections.”— Senior Manager of HR in U.S. Defense Department

“The organization has authorized one department to use it to impart company information to our customers. 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 security measures implemented by Defense.”— HR Manager in U.S. Department of Defense

“Due to security concerns, my organization currently makes minimal use of social software. Our current use is limited to a Knowledge Management application that enables communication and information sharing among communities of practice.” — Training and Development Director at a U.S. Federal Agency

“All social networking needs to be limited in scope and tightly managed. Bloggers are limited to two individuals on a site, and senior management within the region must approve of the use and monitor activity on an ongoing basis.” — Manager at a U.S. Federal Agency

“Unless approved by City IT Department, access is restricted.” — Division Manager at a County or Municipal Government Agency

“In our department we don’t have social media methods yet but the agency is worried and is doing things like restricting comments from appearing publicly (they have to be emailed) and making Twitter only used from within our physical office.” — Operations Practitioner in a U.S. Federal Agency

“In order to participate in some of the networks, one must beinvited.Eventhen,careis shown in the information reported on the networks.” — HR Practitioner at a U.S. Federal Agency

“Social networking use is very limited in our agency and controlled by the communication office. Social networking is the responsibility of the office of Chief Information Officer so security is always a concern. 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

“The only social networking tool we currently utilize is blogs. We at the moment do not allow readers to comment, nor do we comment on others’ blog posts.” — Recruiter at County or Municipal Government Agency

“Only a select few employees have access to Facebook, although access to LinkedIn is not denied. Twitter is only permitted for our Communications Department.” — HR Practitioner at County or Municipal Government Agency



16

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.).

•Thecurrent strengths in government use of SN tools for knowledge sharing and public communication should be encouraged and enhanced.

•Informationaboutsuccessful uses of SN tools should be widely distributed to encourage leadership buy-in of SN tools enhancement for underutilized functions.

•Thesuccess of communities of practice (the leading SN function in our survey) should be 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.



17

< 2,500 employees

2,500 to 7,500 employees

7,500 to 20,000 employees

> 20,000 employees

No response

Appendix 1: Research Methodology and DemographicsThe data for this report came from a Web-based survey emailed to government workers in the HCImemberandnon-memberdatabase.Thesurveyincluded5demographic(concerningbothorganization and respondent) and 19 multiple choice, likert-scale and extended text response questions divided into four sections:

•Currentuseandmanagementpatterns

•EffectivenessandimportanceofSNtools

•Useforleadershipanddevelopment

•Expectationsandbarrierstofutureuse

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.

Figure A.2.

7%

41%

28%

17%

2% 5%DefenseU.S. Department of

U.S. Federal government agency (Not Department of Defense)

U.S. state government agency

Government contractor

U.S. county or municipal government agency

Non-American government or other



18

Figure A.3.

Figure A.4.

14%

15%

19%10%

27%

15% Director

Senior manager

Manager

Supervisor

Practitioner

Other

22%

16%

8%16%

22%

16%

Division or program manager

Operations

Recruiting

Training and development

Other human resources

Other

Technology

Social Networking in Government