Yesterday I read this tweet from Jeremiah Owyang, a Partner in the Altimeter Group:
"Thanks pbworks! They have an in-house masseuse, I feel relaxed now."
Pretty cool I thought! Then today, I read this article in Forbes, The Best Workplace Luxuries yet, that reports that
"Some companies, notably Google, have upped their workplace amenities, making the office into something a little like a mini city. We're talking nap pods, laundry rooms and massages."
The picture at the top of this posting is of a "nap pod", described as follows
"This chair-helmet combination allows you to take a quick snooze on the job. After being lulled to sleep by "soothing sounds," you are put into a perfect position for a nap, the manufacturer says, taking "pressure off of the cardiac system.""
For pictures of more workplace luxuries, go straight to the picture set.
The main part of the Forbes article however, asks the question: "Do such lavish perks make employees more productive?" They quote Prof. Jeffrey Pfeffer, of Stanford University, who says ...
"such added benefits are only useful where there's a positive corporate culture that values employees and rewards their work beyond just food and nap pods. "Those are nice things, and they may represent the corporate attitude, but if they're all you do, they're worthless.""
This got me thinking about social media in organisations.
I have already written a lot (e.g. here) how I believe access to public social media sites is essential in the workplace of today. But as can be seen from the 10 reasons to ban social media, the reluctance to allow this in some organisations is to a large extent due to a lack of trust in employees. So I do get the impression that where access to sites like Facebook, Twitter etc is not controlled or banned, this is also a good indicator of the fact that the organization is building an employee-based culture.
But the question is then, do organisations see access to public social media as a NECESSITY or smply as another workplace LUXURY?
