Imagine this: you’re used to doing things a certain way, a way that works well for you. Used to having the ability to freely connect to and interact with the world. (Free as in speech, and also free as in beer to some degree.) To being able to shop around for the tools you need. How are you going to feel when you’re suddenly prevented from using those tools, and not even given a good reason why?

You might feel what I’m going to call digital deprivation – literally, a sense of deprivation, of frustration at the absence of a valuable tool. (Something that exists! Is right there! And you can’t use it!) I think that this reaction is something that institutions – companies, and perhaps schools – are going to have to learn how to deal with and manage, more and more.

Of course, it’s something they’ve already been dealing with for years, but it’s only going to get worse. We’re all becoming used to being able to connect at will. And we’re used to being able to play on the web, to self-provision, to select from a vast array of goods and services. How much resentment does it actually cause, to suddenly be “shut off” from email / IM / WiFi / cellphone / digital camera / USB key / whatever? How much does it feel like an insult to have to work with the one crappy piece of software that’s provided to you, when Google has something that works better and is free?

In short, how much does it suck to not be able to acquire the things that you need – tools and interactions – in order to be better at what you need to do, when you have that ability outside of the institution where the work takes place? (This is the difficult thing: the fact that it’s both possible and useful. You just can’t do it.)

Now, stepping down off my soap box for a moment, I understand that there are good reasons why some of these measures are in place. Security. Compliance. Sarbanes-Oxley. Hackers. Viruses. In the financial services industry, where I currently work, all of these are huge concerns. So here’s what I’m proposing. (To all the CIOs who read this blog, haha.)

1. If there is a good reason (i.e. one rooted in security, legality, compliance, or ethical concerns) to deny access to something, then explain what that reason is to us.

I’m willing to forego my use of widget X if I know that there’s a good reason behind it, and I know what that reason is. If you have intelligent employees, they’re going to resent following blind orders, but they’ll be willing to forego something if it genuinely puts their jobs at risk. I know I would.

(Note: control for its own sake is not a good reason in my book. How much do you trust your employees?)

2. Otherwise, let us use it.

I can’t emphasize this point enough: denial of access should be justified. It shouldn’t just be the default answer to everything.

Furthermore: don’t just let us use it, let us use it openly and freely, without worrying that our jobs might be at risk. Heck, let us share it with others if we want to; if it really makes our jobs or lives easier, it might make theirs easier too, which leads to better productivity and morale in the long run. And if employees know that you’re not going to arbitrarily veto the use of something without a good, justifiable reason, they’re that much more likely to actually come to you and “declare” what they would otherwise do behind your back. So in the long run, security improves, too.

Productivity, good morale, and improved security. Sounds like a winner to me.

(For a good article from a manager perspective, see Users Who Know Too Much (and the CIOs Who Fear Them).)