BYOD: a level playing field?

Johnny went to a private school and had a student job at his father's consultancy firm. He grew up in Johannesburg and now lives in his parents' garden cottage, rent-free. He has used his spare cash to indulge his technophilia, buying himself a Galaxy S4, an iPad with a good data plan, and a netbook.

Mary went to a government school and is paying off her student loans. She has moved to Johannesburg for work and has to scrape together money for rent and living expenses. Her parents do not have extra money to help her, and so she uses a cheap basic phone that she bought five years ago.

Johnny and Mary start work at the same time, at a small company that no longer supplies its employees with mobile devices. They are both given a slightly outdated desktop PC, and some stationery odds and ends. Johnny is able to get work done on the go, keep up with important developments in the industry in his downtime, and use social networking to his professional advantage, outside of work hours. Mary? Not so much.

Johnny and Mary may have equal talent, equal qualifications, and equal motivation, but Johnny will shine as a far brighter star in his employer's eyes. Meanwhile, the company is losing out on the possibility of utilising Mary to her full potential.

Industry voices are loudly touting the 'bring your own device' (BYOD) benefits. Security complexities aside, the advantages of BYOD are numerous: it saves companies money when they allow employees to use their private devices for business purposes, rather than equipping them with company-approved gadgets; it improves mobile productivity; and it encourages employees to use their devices for business, because they are comfortable and happy with them.

The doom of those companies that do not use BYOD is spelled out: they will fail to recruit talent, because millennials who are forced to use a BlackBerry will, we are told, just turn around and walk out.

Companies with an exclusively "bring your own device policy" run the risk of underutilising their workforces.

But there's another side to the story - especially in SA. Companies with an exclusively "bring your own device policy" run the risk of underutilising their workforces, as well as placing in an unfavourable position new entrants to the workforce who come from less privileged, or underprivileged, backgrounds. The principal advantages of BYOD - enhanced productivity and a happy mobile workforce - are lost when only half the workforce is fully equipped.

In a country where industries are hanging on, waiting for the skills void to fill itself, this is the last thing we need. It is an especially bad idea in a country where the majority of entrants to the workforce come from backgrounds ranging from heart-wrenchingly disadvantaged, to just-not-that-wealthy.

The effect of this problem is essentially to inhibit less-than-wealthy job entrants from performing their jobs to the best of their abilities. It may even reach the point of choosing applicants who can afford to equip themselves over those who can't - already a common practice when it comes to having personal transport. In the long term, policies like these shut the door on employment and advancement opportunities to those whose effectiveness might increase drastically if their employers were to place a smartphone in their hands.

This stratification hurts industry not only by damaging employment equity, ethics, and image, but also by minimising the pool of talent from which to recruit, and limiting the diversity of ideas and input which can be brought to the table.

The benefits of BYOD, setting aside the equality elephant in the room, are indisputable: for those employees who are smartphone connoisseurs and turn up their noses at anything other than an S4, allowing them to use a device they like will undoubtedly improve productivity.

The best BYOD policies, however, will account for both sides of the table, enabling the fangirls and fanboys to have their devices of choice, while simultaneously including a plan to equip entrants to the industry, those with less cash flow, and even just those who aren't technophiliac enough to bother getting their own smartphones.

These policies could take two forms: either a standard company device policy, with the chance to opt out and BYOD; or a subsidy provided to all employees, who are able to chip in the extra, if they so desire, for the top-of-the-range devices that set them drooling.

BYOD is still new and partly unexplored territory, and the impact on equality seems to have been largely glossed over in the discussion. One thing is certain, however: no company will benefit from under-equipping and under-utilising Mary, while catering only for Johnny.