There’s a lack of mobile working policies can lead to destructive consequences for businesses, according to Ping Identity.
On a regular basis, 44% of employees access up to five applications via their mobile work devices, with 13% accessing more than five apps in order to get their jobs done remotely.
However, when accessing work applications outside of the office, 45% of respondents said there were no restrictions around what they could access. Only 26% said the device they were using impacted what they could access, 22% said access was linked to their role and 15% said access was restricted by where they were geographically.
Moreover, 20% of respondents said their work either has no policy in place around the general use of corporate-owned mobile devices, or policies are not actively enforced. Only 37% of companies asked their employees to set a password on their corporate device.
Even more worryingly, when asked if they’ve ever had a device lost or stolen which contained corporate data, nearly a third of respondents (32%) said “yes’ – with 39% of men experiencing a loss of this manner (compared to 24% of women).
Looking at the other end of the scale, 16% of workers aren’t allowed to access any work applications from corporate-owned mobile devices, bringing into question the point of having them in the first place.
“Deploying corporate devices, allowing remote working, and enabling access to corporate applications is all very well, but if a business is not managing this closely, it could be a recipe for disaster, especially if a device falls into the wrong hands,” said Andrew Hindle, Director at Ping Identity.
“Security measures must start with an individual’s identity, not the application they’re accessing, or device they’re using. Granting staff seamless access to applications, and managing these connections closely, is essential for businesses looking to “free’ their employees from the chains of the traditional working environment. Only then will application access on the move be truly productive, without the risk of disruption.”