A new study from no less than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and powerhouse IBM finds that workers who maintain online connections to their bosses produce more than those who don’t.

The surprise finding: Not only were people who frequently communicated online with their manager more productive, but those who avoided their managers online were much less productive.

The researchers (two of them from MIT’s Sloan School of Management) analyzed a wide range of electronic communication channels, including e-mail, buddy lists and social networking activity of 2,600 workers over 12 months to come up with their conclusions.

Employees who maintained constant electronic communications averaged an increase in revenue of $588 per month over the average; the luddites who didn’t produced $98 per month less than the average.

The researchers concluded that the under-performers probably felt pulled in too many directions with no clear leadership or direction.

As the modern workforce becomes more geographically dispersed it’s become a challenge for workers and managers to stay connected and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

Using electronic tools to forge stronger bonds and communicate tasks, objectives and feedback seems to be a key way for companies to keep everyone connected and productive.

To read the details of the MIT/IBM study, visit here.

London law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer — the fourth largest firm in the world — recently had to lay off 14 attorneys.

That’s nothing new — like any other business, many law offices have had to make cutbacks. What sets Freshfields apart is the way it did the deed.

Normally, you’d expect the firm’s partners to deliver the news to the unlucky 14. But Freshfields’ head honchos delegated the dirty work to the company’s HR department.

But apparently the HR staffers weren’t up to the task either. So instead of arranging meetings, they made phone calls. And in a few cases where the attorneys didn’t pick up, they left messages with details of the layoff.

News about job loss is obviously hard to take, but hearing it on your answering machine certainly doesn’t help. One of Freshfields’ ex-employees called the partners “gutless” and said HR’s strategy “obviously made people feel incredibly under-valued,” the UK’s Daily Mail reports.

The firm’s defense: It was just the quickest and most efficient way to spread the word. A company spokesperson said the method wasn’t ideal, but “we were trying to get the information out as soon as possible.”

Experts recommend always delivering bad news in person. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but how the termination process is carried out can affect whether or not someone’s angry enough to take an ex-employer to court.

That’s what researchers at the Florida Institute of Technology say in a recent report. They looked at e-mail records at Enron in the months leading up to the company’s demise. Here’s what they found:

A month before the collapse, the number of “active e-mail cliques” — defined as groups in which every member has had direct e-mail contact with every other member — jump from about 100 to almost 800. Also, messages within those groups became more frequent but were sent to employees outside the group less often, the New Scientist reports.

The researchers say it’s a characteristic behavior in organizations experiencing a crisis — employees speak more often with co-workers they know, and withhold information with those they don’t.

“Human resources folk would probably find this extremely useful,” says Gilbert Peterson of the Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton, Ohio, who has also studied Enron’s e-mails.

Some problems, though: Enron’s a pretty special case, and what happened there may not be indicative of what would happen at other companies.

And there are probably easier ways to sniff out discontent among employees than a complex analysis of their e-mail habits.

Last week, the IRS announced a proposal to start collecting taxes on employees’ personal use of work-issued cell phones. A few days later, the agency had a change of heart.

It wasn’t a new idea — the taxes are technically already required. A 1989 law classifies personal use of a business phone as a taxable benefit, meaning employees are required to track their calls, text messages, and downloads, and pay taxes on the value of anything not work-related.

But the law was passed when cell phones were bulky, calls were expensive and service was limited. So hardly any employees got phones, and those that did made few personal calls.

Once cell phones became common, the IRS stopped enforcing the law. That stance looked like it was going to change, though, when the agency unveiled a plan to collect the taxes.

To ease the administrative burden of tracking every call, the IRS came up with three other options:

1. Consider 75% of phone use to be work-related, and the other 25% to be personal, across the board. All employees would pay tax on the 25%, regardless of how they used the phone.
2. Let employees prove they have a personal cell phone they can use during work hours. Then they wouldn’t be taxed at all for the work-issued phone.
3. Have employers take a statistical sampling to determine employees’ average personal use.

The IRS announced it would take public comments on the proposals until Sept. 4. But it looks like they got enough already.

Even with the three options, the proposal generated an outcry of protest from IT and accounting staffers worried about dealing with call records; HR and benefits pros concerned about one of their perks diminishing in value; and anyone with a work-issued cell phone who doesn’t want to pay more taxes.

In response, the agency reversed its position. In a statement released last week, IRS chairman Doug Shulman asked Congress to make it clear there will be no tax consequence for employees who use work-related devices for personal reasons.

He said the purpose of the proposal was not to “crack down” on collecting the taxes, but rather to simplify the rules. However, Shulman said in the statement, “the passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete,” and keeping it on the books will “inevitably leave widespread confusion among employees and businesses.”

Bills that would repeal the old law have been introduced into both houses of Congress this year. We’ll keep you posted.

More than half (53%) of employees say their managers shouldn’t be able to view what they put on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites, according to a recent survey by Deloitte. For workers 18-34 years old, that number jumps to 63%.

But most managers disagree — 60% say they deserve to know what their reports do online. The main reason: Monitoring and protecting the company’s reputation. Social networking gives users a chance to make details of their lives public — and work is a heavily discussed topic. Browse any Facebook profile or Twitter account, and odds are you’ll find something about the person’s job.

Managers might have a real cause for concern: One-third of employees admit that they never consider how their employer will be affected when they post material online. Almost 75% admit that social networking sites make employers more vulnerable to damaged reputations.

What do you think — do supervisors have the right to check out employees’ online personalities? Do managers at your company search for folks on the Web? Let us know in the comments section below.

An employee complained that his manager made racially offensive comments. The company investigated and fired the supervisor.

But about a month later, the employee was fired — according to the company, because he threatened to make up  accusations about his new boss if he didn’t approve a paid vacation request. The employee said he never made the threat.

The company fired him before conducting an investigation. He sued, claiming it was retaliation for the complaints against his former supervisor.

The primary piece of evidence against the company: an e-mail from the HR manager recommending the termination.

After saying the employee should be fired, the HR manager reminded decision-makers that the employee had recently filed a complaint about discrimination. Therefore, the employee’s lawyers claimed, the firing and the complaints were connected.

The result: Unable to fight the case in court, the company settled for $175,000.

Cite: EEOC v. Maverick Tube Corp.

More than a third (35%) of employees haven’t taken and don’t plan to take a vacation in 2009, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey.

That’s compared to 20% in 2007.

The main reason is the economy, with 71% of those non-travelers saying it’s because they can’t afford to go away. Another 20% say they’re afraid of losing their jobs if they take any time off.

Those that do get out don’t plan on making a complete break. About 28% of those employees plan to contact the office at least once while they’re gone, compared to 20% in 2007. The reason: pressure from employers. Half of companies said they expect workers to be able to keep in touch while they’re away.

While companies may appreciate the dedication and be glad to see fewer empty desks this summer, experts warn employers against encouraging employees to skip their time off. Vacations are key to maintaining productivity and preventing burnout, they say.

Managers can set a good example by taking time off themselves, and by not e-mailing or calling employees who are on vacation.

Twitter.

For those who don’t know, Twitter is a social networking site that lets users post short updates about what they’re currently doing or thinking. Naturally, work is a common topic.

But poking around the site shows many users don’t understand that what they say can be read by not only friends and colleagues, but also bosses and HR. Updates range from the simple “goofing off at work” to more serious admissions.

Here are some examples of most ridiculous workplace Twitter gaffes, according to the online resume service ResumeBear:

1. “I used a new Autosend email feature last night on my boss. Completely fooled him! He called me this a.m. to thank me for working so late!”
2. “I’ve been sleeping with my boss for years and haven’t gotten a promotion yet. It’s not worth it.”
3. “I am currently trying to decide which disease to fake so I can leave work early.”
4. “Work was crappy today, my boss is a stupid idiot.”
5. “I lied about being sick on Friday, now I really am sick.”
6. “I hate the fact that they have Twitter blocked at my job … Gotta do it from my phone.”

What would happen if a manager at your company found a quote like those on an employee’s Twitter page? Is it grounds for firing? Or should the boss look the other way? Let us know in the comments section below.

Here’s a lesson from a recent case about preventing e-mails from being used in court against the company:

A company performed a self-audit to make sure it was complying with the FLSA’s overtime regulations. After investigating, the company’s attorney concluded that several IT employees were mistakenly c lassified as exempt.

The lawyer e-mailed the HR department, recommending the company change the classifications or risk being sued. The employees were reclassified, and the attorney’s message was forwarded to some members of upper management.

Although the e-mail was only supposed to be read by managers, it was mistakenly sent from a supervisor to an employee. The message made its way around to all the affected employees. They sued the company, seeking a payout for the time they worked while classified as exempt.

The company claimed the e-mail was protected by attorney-client privilege and couldn’t be used as evidence in the case. It asked the court to make the employees destroy all copies of the e-mail.

Did the court agree?

No, the judge ruled the e-mail wasn’t protected. When the advice was forwarded to managers, HR gave no indication it originally came from a lawyer or that it should be kept confidential.

Companies waive their right to attorney-client privilege, the court noted, when they forward documents to others or take no care to keep them private. As a result, the employees’ lawyers were allowed to use the e-mail in court.

The lesson for employers: In most cases it’s best to talk about sensitive legal issues in person. E-mail creates a permanent record that can easily fall into the wrong hands.

Cite: Clarke v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Employees who frequently talk face-to-face are more productive than those who rely on e-mail, phone calls, Facebook and other electronic means, according to a recent report by researchers at MIT and New York University.

Participants in the study were equipped with devices called “sociometers,” small badges that track wearers’ movements, record their voices and detect when they’re standing near someone else wearing the device. In other words, they measured how often the employees interacted with each other in person.

The result: Employees who had face-to-face conversations throughout the day were more productive.

A similar study by the same research team was released in December, with the same results: Employees at an IT company who had regular in-person meetings were 30% more productive than those who didn’t.

The reasons are two-fold, researchers say. First, talking face-to-face helps groups solve problems faster than when they try to brainstorm other ways.

Second, face-to-face support networks increase general morale and job satisfaction, which are key to maintaining productivity.

The lesson for managers: Though technology has made it possible for employees to work together without ever seeing each other, it’s good to encourage in-person collaboration.