That’s the conclusion of one recent Australian study, anyway.

More than 70% of employees with Internet access spend some amount of the day on non-work activities, according to the research by the University of Melbourne. And those who waste time in moderation (for less than 20% of their total time in the office) are on average 9% more productive than those who use their computers for nothing but work.

Why is that? Because employees function better when they take short, frequent breaks, say the researchers who conducted the study. They often lose concentration and need to zone out for a few minutes to get it back.

Another possible factor: The most productive employees are the ones who have the time to surf the Internet.

Does this mean managers should let their employees waste all the time they want? Hardly, though many companies may be putting too much effort into enforcing a ban on personal computer use. Most experts recommend avoiding outright bans and instead addressing individual issues as specific performance problems.

Starting today, NCAA college basketball tournament games will be available for free online.

That’s right, in addition keeping tabs on their entries in the office pool, employees will now have the option of seeing the games live over your company’s computer network. That’s 63 games, many of which will take place during the work day.

Translation: a big drain on bandwidth, and a big new distraction.

What should HR do about it? That depends on who you ask.

Some experts recommend not worrying about it and just focusing on performance problems individually. Others say companies should take action and remind employees not to use the Web for personal activity — the bandwidth required to watch video could make it harder for others to get their work done.

What do you think? Does your company need a policy on streaming live sporting events at work? Do you plan on doing anything if March Madness becomes too big a distraction in your workplace?

Let us know in the comments section below.

Obviously, a lot depends on the type of work being done. Some jobs are safety-intensive, and workers shouldn’t block out external noises they need to hear.

But many managers in all types of departments ban the use of iPods and other music devices. They claim music is a distraction that threatens productivity and collaboration.

On the other hand, a lot of employees, especially those in their twenties, claim headphones isolate them from other noises, helping them concentrate. Also, some workplace psychologists say music makes workers more productive by reducing stress levels  and increasing over-all job satisfaction.

What’s your company’s policy on music at work? How do individual managers feel about employees’ mp3 players? What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

Imagine your company’s IT department catches an employee forwarding offensive e-mails to co-workers. It’s a clear case for discipline or termination, right? Here’s one employee who didn’t think so:

A company monitored its employees’ Internet and e-mail use and found that one worker had sent several e-mails containing pornographic images to other employees.

The company had a policy saying work computers “should not be used to transmit, receive or download any material of a personal, frivolous, sexual or similar nature.” Since he clearly broke that rule, he was fired.

Sounds like a simple case of an employee being terminated for gross misconduct. But the employee didn’t think no — he filed for unemployment compensation.

The unemployment board agreed with him. Why?

First of all, it felt the policy wasn’t written clearly. The rule said employees “should not” — as opposed to “shall not” — send sexual e-mails. Therefore, the board ruled, the company doesn’t “clearly ban the activities, rather it just merely recommends those activities not occur.”

Also, the employee claimed what he did was common practice. And although he presented no evidence that was so, the board believed him.

Didn’t end there

The company appealed the decision in court. This it time it got the answer it wanted.

First, the court ruled there’s no substantial difference between “should not” and “shall not” — it’s obvious to anyone who reads the policy what the company meant, and it went on to say anyone who does those things would be disciplined.

The judge also tossed the employee’s “everyone else was doing it” argument. He couldn’t prove they were, and besides, that didn’t mean his actions weren’t against company policy.

The decision was reversed, and the employee was denied benefits.

The company won in the end, but not before fighting a long and costly legal battle. And all because of one word in its computer use policy.

It’s important to make sure all rules are written as clearly as possible. Read over policies and think about how they could be interpreted — and consider having them reviewed by a lawyer.

Cite: Ernst v. Sumner Group, Inc.

Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

A company got an anonymous tip about an employee’s policy violation: Allegedly, she was using her office computer to do work for a personal business she ran on the side, spending a significant amount of the work day performing duties for her other venture.

The company searched her computer and found that a “substantial portion” of the hard drive contained files related to the personal business. The woman was fired for breaking a policy against moonlighting during work hours with company-owned equipment.

The problem: A few weeks before the investigation, she had filed a gender discrimination complaint. She sued, claiming the investigation and termination were in retaliation for her complaint.

The employer said:

The employee was fired for a non-biased reason — a blatant violation of company policy. The timing of the firing and the complaint was just coincidence.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: Since the company showed it had a good reason to fire the employee, it was up to her to prove the decision was biased. The best she could do was point out the suspicious timing.

Though terminations that closely follow a complaint often look bad, timing isn’t everything. In this case, the company conducted a thorough investigation by searching her computer files and interviewing the woman’s co-workers about how she spent her time. There was no doubt the firing was appropriate.

Also, the policy was applied consistently. The employee couldn’t point to any instances where someone else broke the same rule and didn’t get fired.

Cite: Loggins v. Kaiser Permanante

Here are the biggest three reasons folks flout tech-security policies:

1. They don’t know the rules. No doubt your IT people have a security in place and have publicized it. But many policies have their fair share of gray areas, and that’s where you can get in trouble. For example, a worker has a large file to transmit, and your company e-mail keeps getting hung up because of the size of the file. G-Mail’s forbidden by your company policy, but if that’s the only way to get the file to the customer, is it OK? That needs to be clarified.
2. They know the rules, but no one’s enforcing them. If employees know there are no consequences for bending or even breaking the rules, there’s little motivation to play by them. Yes, your IT policy should have some teeth. But you want people to understand that if they access work files from a public computer, say, at a conference, they’re putting your financial data at risk.
3. The rules get in the way of productivity. Weren’t computers supposed to make folks more productive? But when IT blocks downloading or distribution via e-mail, you can bet employees will find a way to work around that. Bottom line: IT must be sure people have the tools they need to do their jobs — securely.

Source: “3 Reasons Why employees Don’t Follow Security Rules,” by Joan Goodchild. (www.csoonline.com)

What technology creates the biggest legal and financial risks for employers? Hint: It’s something most employees use multiple times a day.

That’s right: e-mail. Outgoing messages containing confidential, offensive or otherwise embarrassing content are increasingly causing big problems for organizations.

In the past 12 months, 44% of U.S. companies have had to investigate a violation of e-mail policy that posed a legal or financial risk, according to a recent survey by data security firm Proofpoint. Those situations most commonly involved:

• Obscene and offensive adult content (28%)
• Confidential information about the company (27%)
• Personal data about employees or customers (20%), and
• Intellectual property or trade secrets (12%).

More than a quarter of companies have fired an employee for one of those e-mail blunders.

And the companies that didn’t perform any investigations weren’t necessarily safe, either. The companies surveyed estimated that, on average, almost one in five (19%) outgoing e-mails sent at work contain potentially dangerous content.

New technology, new threats

It isn’t just e-mail that’s creating problems for employers — other types of technology are to blame for the leak of information. In the past year:

• 21% of companies have suffered a confidential data exposure through an employee’s use of a blog or online message board, and
• 12% have had an employee post dangerous content to a social networking site.

Ways to protect your company

Minimizing those threats requires cooperation between HR and IT. Here are some specific steps employers can take:

• Create policies – The first step toward protection is to tell employees what they’re prohibited from writing in e-mails or posting online.
• Discipline when you have to – One reason employees continue to write things they shouldn’t is they aren’t aware they can be punished or fired for it. That’s why it’s key to consistently deal with policy violations when they’re uncovered.
• Monitor outgoing e-mail – Many organizations install software to flag messages with certain keywords or periodically audit outgoing messages. Some larger companies hire full-time staff to read and analyze employees’ e-mail. Whichever method is used, it’s important for IT to be aware of what’s leaving the e-mail system.
• Search for blogs and other sites – One strategy for finding employees’ blog posts and other online writing is to plug your organization’s name into a search engine and look through the results.

A full report of the survey is available here (registration required).

Early this week, the software giant confirmed that it will include “private browsing” as a feature in the next version of its Web browser, Internet Explorer 8.

Also known as “porn mode,” the ability to cover one’s online tracks is a capability other browsers have featured in past releases. Now MS seems to be climbing on the band wagon.

The updated browser is expected to go to testers later this week.

The private browsing feature, called “InPrivate,” lets users hide their online visits. According to reports, Microsoft is taking this functionality to new levels.

IE 8 lets users to delete selected cookies — not just all of them. This means a user can ditch evidence of some visited sites, but hang onto the cookies of other favorite sites. (For example, a user could delete cookies from a kiddie porn site, but not have to get rid of the ones that make it easy to log into their bank statement or buy movie tickets via a Web page.)

This from the official IE blog:

“Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing ‘off the record’? Perhaps you’re using someone else’s computer and you don’t want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you’re at an Internet kiosk and don’t want the next person using it to know at which website you bank.

“What if you want to delete your browsing history after the fact, but you don’t want to lose your preferences at websites that you use frequently?

“When we began planning IE8, we took a hard look at our customers’ concerns about privacy on the Web. As evidenced by some of the comments on this blog during the IE7 days, many users are concerned about so-called ‘over-the-shoulder privacy’, or the ability to control what their spouses, friends, kids, and co-workers might see.”

The IE blog touts some more privacy features, including:

• “InPrivate Blocking informs you about content that is in a position to observe your browsing history, and allows you to block it,” and
• “InPrivate Subscriptions allow you to augment the capability of InPrivate Blocking by subscribing to lists of websites to block or allow.”

Limit recreational use.

When employees take company-owned laptops and other pieces of equipment home, it’s likely they (or members of their families) will get some personal use out of them.

But that puts the integrity of the company’s data at risk, as the computer could be exposed to viruses or buggy software.

A growing concern for companies that give devices to employees is their children, who are often more tech-savvy than their parents. That means they may know how to work around security controls that IT has set up, or do things like download and install software.

What to do

What’s the best way to handle it? Some companies make employees sign policy that prohibits the device from being used by anyone other than the employee and for any significant non-work purposes. Other employers don’t have a set policy but remind employees that they’re responsible for whatever happens to the device while it’s in their possession.

In many cases, education is the best way to prevent problems. In a recent survey, 31% of employees who work from home said they were unaware of their company’s security policies.

Playing games at work has been a common occurrence ever since computers first started coming with solitaire installed. But, thanks to more powerful processors and faster Web connections, the games have gotten more complex and accessible — and more time-consuming.

Some companies have responded by taking a firm stance against game-playing, while others have stayed passive. Who’s right?

Answer: It depends. Some things to keep in mind regarding the issue of workplace gaming:

• Which breaks are allowed and which aren’t? If people can leave their desks for 10 minutes to smoke, is it wrong to stop people from playing a game for a few minutes at a time?
• Are all employees going to be treated the same? Having a policy that’s not consistently enforced can be worse than not having one at all.

The best solution might be to take a performance-based approach; in other words, if someone’s screwing up or not getting the work done, it doesn’t matter why.

In fact, some even argue that allowing employees to play at work will boost productivity. A few big companies like Google have even gone so far as to create “gaming rooms” where employees can go for breaks to keep their minds sharp.

What do you think? Does your company have a policy on workplace games? Let us know by dropping us a comment.