S.M.A.R.T. Blog

More Nominees for the Digital Hall of Shame … and How to Avoid Becoming One Yourself

Similar to Jeremiah Owyang’s “Chronology of Brands that Got Punk’d by Social Media,” this piece provides examples of individuals and organizations that have recently “earned” nominations to the Digital Hall of Shame. It also offers resources and recommendations to better manage digital activity and interactions to avoid legal and other risks. Readers are invited to contribute to the list of cautionary tales and to provide additional resources and recommendations.

===//===

Although a certain Congressional representative from New York has dominated recent discussions, his lapse in judgment is, unfortunately, not as uncommon as we might assume. Over the past several months, since publishing “Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient,” I have learned of numerous new nominees for the Digital Hall of Shame. I have written about some of these cases (see Related Resources section below), but there have been so many “what were they thinking?” examples that I couldn’t specifically address all of them.

And the list is only going to grow! Before it gets too unwieldy, I thought I’d capture, share and reflect on the cases I currently know about. Though I don’t relish learning of others’ misfortunes, I invite everyone to share examples as well. This is definitely an area in which it’s better to learn from the mistakes of others to avoid their same fate.

I think it’d be particularly valuable to create something similar to Jeremiah Owyang’s Chronology of Brands that Got Punk’d by Social Media, which continues to be updated three years after it was originally posted! Although overlap between the two collections is inevitable, the focus isn’t identical. Owyang’s emphasis is primarily on marketing mistakes, whereas mine is on managing risks through the development and enforcement of sound contracts, policies, and guidelines.

 

More “What Were They Thinking?” Examples

The Digital Hall of Shame has two main wings: one for individuals and one for organizations. Listed below are links to some of the cautionary tales that have been brought to my attention that I’ve not specifically written about previously. Most of these examples are from the past few months, but several are older.

The links below are only intended to introduce the stories and provide a brief overview. I encourage people to search for additional coverage to ensure they have complete information and multiple perspectives.

Employees

Here are examples of individuals who were fired or disciplined by their employers (or perhaps should have been) for inappropriate Facebook and Twitter activity:

Facebook

• Facebook post costs waitress her job
• Teacher fired over ‘friending’
• Teacher mocks student’s hairdo on Facebook
• Police Lesson: Social Network Tools Have Two Edges
• Paterson Teacher Suspended Over a Post on Facebook
• Facebook posts cost firefighter his job

Twitter

• 8 Journalists Who Were Fired for Tweeting, Part 1
• 8 Journalists Who Were Fired for Tweeting, Part 2
• Official Exits State Dept. After Jabs at Pentagon
• US Secret Service Apologizes For ‘Blathering’ FOX News Tweet

 

Other Individuals

Concerns about inappropriate social networking activity are not limited to employees. Here are some examples of problems that resulted from the actions of a student, a juror in a criminal trial, a celebrity spokesperson, and representatives of a couple public relations firms:   

• University Aide Resigns Over Blog Item
• Facebook juror sentenced to eight months for contempt (here is an example of sample juror instructions)
• Comedian Gilbert Gottfried Jokes About Japan, Loses Aflac Job
• Chrysler Splits With New Media Strategies Over F-Bomb Tweet
• Twitter tantrum sinks Duke Nukem Forever PR agency

Click here for more on the Aflac/Chrysler stories from the New York Times.

 

Organizations

Although organizations are justifiably concerned about the negative impact that individual actions can have on their brands and reputations, they can sometimes go too far in trying to minimize their risks and engage in damage control. Here are several stories that demonstrate how overreacting and acting impulsively in the face of a perceived issue can cause greater harm than the precipitating event itself:

• Tweet costs Pa. worker her job and Woman in Twitter firing wants name cleared
• Videos 'Ripped' From Online-Course Footage Bring Threats to Instructors and Missouri Campus Officials Absolve Labor Instructor in Video Controversy
• Elements Of NPR Gotcha Video Taken Out Of Context and NPR: O'Keefe 'Inappropriately Edited' Video; Exec's Words Still 'Egregious'
• ‘Negative’ Facebook Post Gets Student Barred From Commencement

 

Related Resources

As noted above, my interest in these and similar stories is rooted in my focus on managing Digital Era risks, especially from a human capital management perspective. I’ve written rather extensively about social media governance issues, particularly legal and policy considerations and community rules and guidelines. Here are links to pieces that provide additional examples, discuss some of the issues in greater depth, and provide specific recommendations.

• Social Media Policies and Guidelines
  • Social Media Policies: Necessary but Not Sufficient
  • Social Media Data "Ownership": Recommendations for Employers
  • You Can’t Say That! ... Can You? Managing Comments in Online Communities

• Social Screening
  • Social Screening: Candidates – and Employers – Beware
  • Social Screening: The Expanded Discussion
  • Digital Era Employment Practices Under Fire – Again!

• The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
  • The NLRB's Recent Action: Separating Fact from Fiction – and Unfounded Fear
  • The NLRB “Facebook Settlement:” Let’s Focus on the Facts
  • Is the NLRB Turning up the “Social Media Heat” too High? No… Not Yet

 

Words to the Wise

As I reflect on these latest Digital Hall of Shame nominees, as well as other less dramatic lapses in judgment and inappropriate exchanges, I’m reminded of some of the recommendations I’ve shared previously, plus a few new ones…

Recommendations for Individuals:

• Define your personal privacy rules and establish the proper settings on the digital platforms and social networks in which you engage. Recheck the settings at least once a quarter.
• Monitor your digital identity/brand regularly by setting up something like Google Alerts on your name.
• Even if you have tight security settings, never assume any digital communication is truly private. Your connections may feel no obligation to maintain confidences you share via social networks. In fact, some of them may have a duty to report activity that appears to violate laws and/or policies. For that matter, so may you.
• Know the rules and play by them. This includes laws (e.g., defamation), contracts (e.g., confidentiality agreements), employer policies, and community guidelines.
• Take the higher ground – and stay there. Maintain civil discourse at all times. Avoid swearing, salaciousness, sarcasm and snarkiness. Don’t engage in or dignify personal and ad hominem attacks. Keep your emotions in check and focus on facts. Take conversations offline when necessary.
• Remember that even though the flow of information cyberstreams may be rapid, the pool into which they end up doesn’t evaporate. Old activity can come back to haunt you if it’s not purged. Always think before you tweet, blog, comment, provide a status update, etc.

 

Recommendations for Organizations:

• Expecting individuals to use “common sense” and “good judgment,” or to “not do anything stupid” is naïve and potentially dangerous. That doesn’t mean it’s necessary to be draconian or overly bureaucratic, but there’s no good reason not to acquire a reasonable level of insurance that fairly balances the needs and perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
• Policies and contracts should be reviewed and updated to address Digital Era risks. If necessary, new policies and contracts should be written.
• Organizations that are actively engaged in social media should develop posting guidelines for both employees and other participants.
• Consequences for rule violations of all types should be reasonable, clear, fair, and enforceable. Punishments should fit the crimes.
• Develop “crisis management” plans for handling the inevitable problems that will arise.
  • Respond swiftly but don’t overreact.
  • Verify, verify, verify.
• Educate employees and other brand agents/representatives about the rules and your expectations. Remind them about the rules regularly, through various channels and in various ways.
• Later, rinse, repeat. Plan to revisit certain policies and contracts at least once a quarter, to ensure they’re current. Update training and communication to reflect any changes you make.

 

Conclusion

I’ll continue to share examples as I learn of them through the SMinOrgs LinkedIn group and Twitter channel, and will add comments here as appropriate. As I mentioned in the introduction, I think it’d be valuable to create something similar to Jeremiah Owyang’s Chronology of Brands that Got Punk’d by Social Media,so I invite everyone to share examples of social media gaffes (by both individuals and organizations) that can serve as cautionary tales. I also welcome additional recommendations for preventing these gaffes and/or mitigating their impact. And of course feel free to ask and/or answer questions. Together we can help define best practices by learning from worst practices. Thanks!

- Courtney Hunt

 

Digital Era Leadership: Opportunities for Cities, States, and Regions

What does it mean for a city (or state or region) to be a Digital Era leader? This post provides ideas to stimulate thinking and discussion by promoting a broader focus than the technologies themselves, specific applications like consumer marketing, high-tech start-ups, and the digital sector. Advocating a more strategic and holistic approach, it introduces other ways in which Digital Era leadership can and will manifest itself in the decades to come, and invites others to share their thoughts (as well as examples) on how to turn possibilities into realities.

===//===

A few weeks ago I sent an opinion piece to Crain’s Chicago Business (CCB). I’d like to share the ideas in that piece with a larger group to stimulate thinking and discussion about what it means for a city (or state or region) to be a leader in the Digital Era. I’m particularly interested in identifying examples of these ideas in practice, and am especially keen on learning about communities that are already taking a more strategic and holistic approach to defining Digital Era leadership.

 

New York: Roadmap for a Digital City

Before I move on to what I sent to CCB, let me say a few words about a recent report, Roadmap for the Digital City: Achieving New York City’s Digital Future, which was published by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment. Obviously, given the piece I had submitted to Crain’s, I was quite curious about the report and New York’s initiative when I read about it in this TechCrunch article. Had I been scooped? Not exactly… Did New York beat Chicago to the punch? No, not really…

Aiming to become “the world’s top-ranked Digital City” is certainly an ambitious undertaking. New York deserves credit for its commitment and for appointing Rachel Sterne as its Chief Digital Officer. But as broad as their scope is (addressing access, open government, engagement, and industry), it’s still fairly narrow. Specifically, there’s a heavy emphasis on technological infrastructure, as well as on enhancing the ways in which the city engages with its inhabitants and promotes open government. And with respect to industry, it appears the focus is primarily on the digital sector. Though all those things are important for Digital Era leadership, the reach and potential impact of new technologies on people, organizations, society and the economy are much greater than that.

 

Thinking Bigger

As the Founder of the Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community, I’ve spent the last two years trying to help people understand the applications and implications of social media beyond marketing, sales, public relations and customer service, particularly in the business-to-consumer context. Targeting organizational leaders who are social media rookies, for example, the Social Media Primer I’ve been developing provides a conceptual foundation, helps put Digital Era realities in perspective, and offers strategic guidance.  Through blog posts and white papers, I’ve written extensively about human capital management issues and  legal concerns (see this post, for example, and this one). And most recently, I’ve started addressing the need for social media expertise and the ways in which education and training can help develop that expertise (here and here).

My own thinking has evolved beyond social media, to focus on digital technologies more broadly, for several reasons.

The term “social media” creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. Even though the denotation is clear (see Part 1 of the Social Media Primer, updated here), connotations vary widely. Many people (including so-called experts) treat distinct terms (e.g., social media and social networking) as if they’re synonymous, confound applications of the technology (e.g., marketing) with the technology itself, and erroneously assume that the most well-known platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook) comprise the entire social media universe.

The rise of mobile technology has been dramatic. Handheld mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, readers) and related applications have been more successful and evolved much more quickly than many people anticipated. Even though there’s tremendous overlap between this rise and the increase in 2.0 technologies, mobile devices and their applications themselves don’t meet the literal definition of social media.

Cloud computing continues to expand. This is another independent but related phenomenon that is likely to become a large and permanent part of the digital landscape. Yes, there have been threats and challenges recently, but they are an inevitable part of the development process that will lead to better risk management technologies and processes. The cloud will not evaporate.

The juggernaut is even bigger than you think. In Part 2 of the Social Media Primer (updated here), I describe many organizational applications of social media that extend beyond the possibilities most people are aware of. But as I continue to read and learn, I become increasingly aware of related applications of technological advances beyond social media, as well as myriad implications for individuals, organizations, and society. And when we consider that everything is in a constant state of flux with no end in sight, the transformative potential of these advances becomes even greater.  

As an umbrella term, therefore, digital technologies is much more accurate in describing the fundamental force behind the (r)evolution in which we find ourselves.

 

The Submission to Crain’s

Given Crain’s length restrictions on opinion pieces (425 words), I couldn’t provide a lot of detail in my submission. I thought about expanding it for the purposes of this post, but then decided it might be better to leave it “as is.” Here’s the unedited version…

Chicago’s commitment to supporting homegrown technology start-ups is admirable, and it’s been encouraging to read recent news about the increased activity of venture capitalists, incubator programs, entrepreneurs, and others in support of local web-tech firms.

It’s important to remember, however, that there are many other ways in which Chicago can demonstrate Digital Era leadership. Rather than trying to replicate Silicon Valley’s model, perhaps we would be better served by forging a path that builds on our unique history, capitalizes on our economic and cultural strengths, and emphasizes our academic community and traditional Chicago enterprises.

One way in which we can do that is to employ best practices in leveraging digital technologies to communicate with customers and other stakeholders. This effort has already begun, but there is more we can do to demonstrate leadership in various industries, especially those strongly associated with Chicago like consumer products, healthcare, museums, and financial services.

We can also demonstrate leadership with respect to new legal challenges related to intellectual property, commercial activity, employment practices, e-discovery, and social issues like privacy. Similarly, we can offer expert guidance in addressing the new human capital management challenges organizations are now facing.

We can provide examples for how traditional enterprises like media companies and manufacturers can develop new business models and find new ways to be competitive in response to economic threats and changing global realities resulting from new technologies. Chamber groups and various economic development entities can offer resources and guidance to help both new and established businesses better integrate digital technologies into their strategies and plans. Foundations can provide similar services for non-profit organizations.

Our academic community can become a hub for training Digital Era leaders and providing expertise by conducting research that addresses new realties and challenges. And with the new mayor’s commitment to open government, Chicago could become a model of Government 2.0.

We should create a coalition to ensure an integrated approach to establishing our city as a Digital Era leader. Perhaps the city’s economic development office could establish a Digital Era Leadership initiative. Or we could create a Council for Digital Era Leadership, similar to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs or the Chicago Council on Science and Technology.

Pursuing a Digital Era leadership agenda would provide a great economic boost to the area, in addition to enabling us to create a best-practices model for other communities. To my knowledge, no other community has thought about Digital Era leadership in broader terms. Why not us?

 

Your Thoughts?

A version of this opinion piece could probably be written for almost any metropolitan or regional area. Though areas differ in terms of their size and access to resources, and the specific ways in which digital leadership might manifest itself vary based on a region’s history, economy, academic institutions, citizenry, etc., those factors can be viewed as parameters within which to work and opportunities to capitalize on rather than immutable obstacles that can’t be overcome. The traditional barriers to success (e.g., access to capital and other resources) are in many respects a lot lower in the Digital Era than they’ve ever been. We are more restricted by the limitations imposed by lack of vision, inspiration, leadership, strategic focus, and discipline than we are by a lack of finances, technology, or human capital.

At least, that’s how I view things. How about you? Do you share my vision? Can you provide examples of that vision in action? What ideas do you have for moving forward? What leadership role do you plan to assume to help your city/state/region capitalize on the opportunities new digital technologies present?

As always, I welcome your feedback and input.

-  Courtney Hunt, PhD

 

Social Media Data "Ownership": Recommendations for Employers

As individuals become more engaged with social media in their professional lives, employers are increasingly recognizing the need to address new challenges with respect to protecting their brand and commercial interests. Though it’s tempting to develop one-sided, draconian approaches, they are not usually in an organization’s long-term best interests. This post offers recommendations for developing a pragmatic, balanced approach to articulating the relative rights and responsibilities of employers and employees when it comes to their social media “property” and activity.

===//===

Recently, Workforce magazine published an article focused on the portability of social media connections, particularly when recruiters part ways with their employers (Special Report on Social Media: You Can’t Take Your Online Contacts With You ... or Can You?). The article reminded me that I’ve had my own post brewing about the relative rights and responsibilities of employers and employees when it comes to their social media “property” and activity. For some perverse reason, I have a strong interest in the legal issues related to social media and have been tracking them closely for some time. I am not an attorney, however, and the perspectives I offer should not be construed as legal advice.

I’ll start by sharing a few thoughts on the Workforce piece and then provide general and specific recommendations for employers. My ideas are not necessarily exhaustive, and I encourage others to share their points of view, relevant resources and examples, as well as questions and answers. I especially welcome contributions from people outside the US, since my knowledge is generally limited to this legal environment.

 

Thoughts on the Workforce Report

Contrary to the implications in the report, I think there are some existing legal precedents on the issues they discussed. In Sasqua v. Courtney, for example, a federal court determined that LinkedIn contacts did not constitute trade secrets (see this and this for more details). In addition, though they've not yet been decided, there are a couple cases now pending that demonstrate how existing laws – the Lanham Act in these cases – can be applied to social media spaces. The first case relates to an employer continuing to communicate via an employee’s accounts while she was recuperating from an accident (see this and this for details), and the second relates to ownership of a Twitter handle (details here). Another case that may have precedential value is a recently-decided case about cybersquatting (click here and scroll down for details).

General Recommendations for Employers

Here are some of my thoughts on the best way for employers to approach the new challenges that social media has generated, particularly with respect to its brand and commercial interests. These ideas build on the comments I (and others) shared last fall in response to this post, in which an attorney recommends a rather draconian approach to non-compete agreements and trade secrets.

A good general rule to follow is that while an individual is employed by a specific organization, he/she is effectively an agent of that organization (click here to read about the law of agency). Therefore, the employer has a right to dictate certain things that relate to the individual’s employment and/or his/her activity. Those rights are not unlimited, of course: they must conform to existing laws and regulations (e.g., the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), guidelines from FINRA), as well as employment policies and agreements.  Once an individual’s employment ends, an employer’s rights generally only continue through the restrictive covenants included in certain employment agreements, as well as general laws such as defamation.

But legal considerations are only one aspect of risk management. Employers must also consider business and reputational risks. Here are a few recommendations along those lines:

• Consider employee morale and the desire to be an “employer of choice.” The more one-sided and draconian an employer’s approach is to determining and communicating the relative rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, the more it is likely to alienate employees, reduce engagement, decrease loyalty, increase turnover, etc. Conversely, demonstrating consideration of the employee perspective can have a strong positive human capital management effect.
• Take a long-term, relationship-oriented view rather than a short-term transactional view. Rather than viewing employee termination as the end of a relationship, it’s better to view it as a transition to a new relationship. An alum could become an employee again, or a key customer, a supplier, a business partner. He/she may serve as a great resource for candidate and client referrals or other valuable information/contacts. And at a minimum, he/she has the freedom to speak about his/her employment experiences, choosing to either promote or disparage the organization and its products/services.
• Remember that rules can impact other stakeholders besides employees. Suppliers, clients, partners and other stakeholders form relationships not just with an organization, but with its representative employees. How departures of those employees are handled can impact those relationships. When they’re characterized by secrecy, punitive approaches and a lack of trust, they can damage an employer’s reputation, standing, and future business prospects.
• Respect both employer and employee brands. We’re well past the era of “lifetime employment,” and most all individuals recognize that they must manage their own career and professional brand. Knowing there are no employment guarantees, employers must respect and support their employees’ rights and ability to pursue and find work in the future, even when they’re currently employed.  

Using these considerations as a guiding force, employers should:

• Update/create relevant policies and guidelines. As I discuss in this post, employers need to review and update all of their policies to ensure they reflect Digital Era realities and provide proper risk management.  Specific policies related to the issues discussed here include those that address trade-secrets, intellectual property, etc. In addition, if the organization doesn’t have a social media policy and/or guidelines, it needs to create them; however, as I discuss in this post and others, the policy must comply with existing laws such as the NLRA.  
• Update non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. In addition to updating their policies, employers also need to update their non-compete and non-solicitation policies to reflect digital realities, risks, and activities.
• Determine terms of ownership for specific organizational accounts on social media platforms. Ideally this would be done before an account is opened, but agreement should be reached on all accounts as soon as possible. I discuss specific stipulations in the next section.

 

Specific Recommendations

Here are some specific recommendations on the “Big Three” social media platforms, plus a few general comments on blogging. As evidenced by the notes on blogging, there’s an underlying set of principles that can be applied to various platforms and an individual’s activity therein. Relying on those principles can help both individuals and employers determine where the lines should be drawn on other sites like YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, Quora, FourSquare, etc.

LinkedIn

• Individual profiles: Each individual “owns” his/her own profile. While he/she is employed by a specific organization, however, the employer has a right to dictate what gets included in it, but those requirements should be limited to the individual’s current employment. For the sake of consistency and brand protection, employers should provide all employees with guidelines about how they should represent themselves, the organization, and their jobs, paying particular attention to the profiles of leaders and externally-facing employees (e.g., business development folks, recruiters).
• Contact information: LinkedIn allows people to have multiple email addresses, and they specifically recommend that everyone include both a personal and a professional address. I further suggest that people make their personal address their primary address, and select personal/professional addresses for specific activities, as appropriate (e.g., selecting where to receive group messages).
• Contacts: As noted above, employers can argue that any contacts made during an individual’s employment are the “property” of the employer, but that’s not a very pragmatic position to take. A more practical approach may be to recognize that it’s joint property. Allow employees to connect with people via LinkedIn at will and keep their connections post-employment. At the same time, employers should have an internal system for capturing relevant information about prospects, clients, candidates, suppliers, partners, and whatever other relationships may be covered by employee agreements. Then, if/when the employment relationship ends, there’s no need to divide up the assets. (NOTE: maintaining individual connections does not nullify employment agreements; they can still be legally bound to restrictive covenants).
• Groups: This is another area in which a balance must be struck. Employers may provide rules/guidelines about what groups an individual can join, but only to the extent that they relate to his/her employment/role. For example, a plastics manufacturer can require certain employees join a group for the Society of the Plastics Industry, but it should have no say in whether an employee joins a professional or alumni group. If an individual starts a group on behalf of an organization, additional managers should be added to allow for smooth transition of the management of the group if/when the initial owner leaves.
• Comments: The social media policies and guidelines I referred to earlier should address whether and how employees can comment on a variety of social media sites, including LinkedIn. Generally speaking, when individuals make comments in groups, ask or answer questions, or create/comment on polls, they should clarify whether they’re speaking on behalf of their employer and (more importantly) when their views are their own.
• Recommendations: Many employers have “no recommendations” policies that probably need to be updated to include LinkedIn (and other platforms). In the absence of such a policy, employers should still create guidelines about what is/is not acceptable for current employees.

 

Twitter

• Organizational accounts: Many social media advocates recommend personalizing Twitter engagement by having individuals tweet/interact on behalf of organizations rather than having anonymous corporate handles. A good balance is to have relevant individuals create handles that reflect both their individual and corporate identities. Employers should also make clear that the account and its followers are all the property of the organization, not the individual. If/when the employment relationship ends, the Twitter handle can easily be changed to reflect a new identity. This can get tricky, however, when individuals start to gain a following based on their individual personalities (see this story, for example, about Rick Sanchez and CNN), which may require developing an alternative approach to dissolution/transfer that reflects the co-branding.
• Personal accounts: Generally speaking, it’s probably best if individuals dissociate themselves from their employer in their Twitter profile. At a minimum, they should include a disclaimer that the views they express are their own. The employer’s social media policies and guidelines should also specify whether and how the individual can refer to the organization and its brands in their tweets.

 

Facebook

• Personal profiles: Because individuals primarily use Facebook for personal rather than professional purposes, employers probably have no say over what gets included in their profile.
• Privacy settings: Employers can’t dictate an individual’s privacy settings, but it’s in both their and their employees’ best interests to educate individuals how they work and provide general guidance.
• Activity: Irrespective of an individual’s privacy settings, the employer’s social media policies and guidelines should specify whether and how the individual can refer to/represent the organization and its brands in their status updates, comments, photos, videos, etc.
• Connections: Employers should update their policies to extend them to digital spaces where necessary and appropriate. For example, if an organization has a fraternization policy, that policy should be modified to include Facebook. In the absence of a policy, employers should at least consider providing education and guidance for connections, similar to what they would offer with respect to privacy settings.  
• Pages and groups: It’s a quirk (at best) of Facebook that all pages and groups be created by and attached to an individual profile. Although it is a violation of Facebook’s terms of service for an individual to create more than one profile (another quirk), I think it may be possible for an organization to create a “corporate” identity/profile and use that identity to establish its pages and/or groups. Even if an official presence has been created by an individual, there should be multiple administrators so that ownership of a page can be maintained if/when one of them leaves.

 

Blogs

• Organizational blogs: The considerations here are similar to what I described earlier for Twitter accounts.
• Personal blogs: The considerations here are similar to what I described earlier for Twitter accounts.
• Commenting: The considerations here are similar to what I described earlier for LinkedIn commenting.

 

Conclusion

The preceding recommendations reflect my personal experiences with social media, the extensive reading I’ve done on the subject, my interactions with and observations of both individuals and employers, and my general expertise in related areas (e.g., employment law, human capital management). That said, this is still uncharted territory, and there are few definitive answers. I encourage others to share their points of view, as well as other relevant resources and examples that illustrate what best (and worst) practices look like. I especially welcome contributions from people outside the US, since my knowledge is generally limited to this legal environment. Asking and answering questions is encouraged as well. Thanks!

-  Courtney Hunt

 

Digital Era Leadership: The Role of Business Schools

This post is intended to start a dialogue about the role business schools should play in fostering Digital Era leadership. It describes the importance of education in preparing professionals in all business disciplines (not just marketing and sales) to address the opportunities and challenges new digital technologies (in terms of both social media and mobile devices) present.  It offers suggestions for changes to both curriculum and pedagogy and provides recommendations for business school leaders.

Although focused on business schools, it can promote similar dialogues for professionals in non-business fields, through the application and extension of comparable ideas with respect to schools of public health, social work, education, public administration, etc.

===//===

Last December, Bill George and Rosabeth Moss Kanter noted in this HBS Working Knowledge piece on 2010's Biggest Business Developments that changes in digital technology, particularly social media, have tremendous implications for organizations and how they function – not just externally, but internally as well. Proper management of the rise in digital technologies is critical to ensure that organizations respond effectively to the opportunities and challenges these changes present. Professionals in a range of disciplines need to provide leadership and support for various initiatives, in addition to preparing for the impact on their own career development.

Despite media hype and early adopter enthusiasm, we are still in the early stages of understanding social media and its implications and applications, and most individuals and organizations have not yet leveraged it in significant ways. But things are changing steadily, and people are increasingly recognizing the need to move forward. As they do, many realize that hands-on experience alone is not sufficient, and they are starting to seek formal guidance through training and education.

Last week I shared an assessment of the current state of social media training and education, as well as a projection of what we can expect in the months and years to come. This analysis was based on research I conducted earlier this year in conjunction with the development of a Social Media and Online Communities Specialization for a Master’s Degree Program in Corporate and Organizational Communication for Northeastern University.

Though this assessment was fairly comprehensive in some respects, it was also limited due to my focus on developing a specific curriculum for a targeted group of professionals. In addition to preparing folks for whom social media will be a part of their primary job responsibilities, we also need to think about what efforts needs to be made to prepare individuals whose work may not be dominated by new technologies (at least in the near term!).

 

B School Priorities – Current and Future?

Over the past year, there have been a few pieces in the business press proclaiming B schools’ enthusiasm for digital technologies (e.g., this article and this article in Bloomberg Businessweek). Although courses are no doubt being developed and offered, based on my research earlier this year they are generally concentrated on marketing and sales applications and are hardly ubiquitous. In general, there is little indication that Digital Era concerns are a strategic priority. In recent articles on undergraduate business school rankings, for example, digital technologies were not even discussed as a distinguishing feature of any school or program (see here and here). The biggest emphasis by far, it seems, is on internationalization, as evidenced by this article ranking the best undergraduate programs and this article about a recent AACSB study on globalizing management education.

It’s impossible to argue with the importance of globalizing the B school curriculum, but it’s also difficult to continue thinking of it as a leading-edge issue. More importantly, perhaps, rapidly advancing technologies continue to flatten the world and transform the way in which we view and manage organizations from a global perspective, which means that we should not consider global business without emphasizing its digital character. Just like the articles ranking undergraduate business schools, however, the piece on the AACSB study is silent on the role of digital technologies in global business (note: I have not read the report itself).

Furthermore, as important as global business is, we must acknowledge that international issues are unlikely to impact the daily work lives or career trajectories of most business professionals. By contrast, however, only those closest to retirement might escape the need to adapt to, if not embrace, digital realities.

Fortunately, the news isn’t all bleak. Although there may not be strong institutional emphasis on digital technologies yet, many individuals are recognizing the opportunities and needs they create. In the summer of 2010, GMAC launched a contest for ideas to improve management education at the MBA level (see this article for details). They selected 20 winners from 650 entries (described here), and half of those entries addressed digital technologies either directly or indirectly.

 

Digital Era Impact: Curriculum and Pedagogy

Sound business principles in the Digital Era must reflect emerging technologies and their implications. To date, however, it seems that few academic institutions have recognized the need to revise their curricula and teaching methods to reflect Digital Era realities. As noted previously, the public emphasis on external applications of social media has prompted schools to develop and offer courses and programs focusing on digital technologies from a marketing/sales perspective, but there’s little evidence of comparable developments in other disciplines.

As I discuss in Part 2 of the Social Media Primer (updated here), external applications like marketing and sales are just the beginning. The internal applications and implications of new digital technologies are likely to be far more significant. Here are some of the ways various functions (other than marketing) are already being impacted:

• Accounting and Auditing
  • Enhancement of business intelligence through the use of 2.0 technologies
  • Changes in what auditors need to focus on
  • Impact of new technologies on behavioral accounting

• Finance
  • New regulations and requirements from entities like FINRA and the SEC
  • Increasing use of social media by activist investors, financial advisors and financial services organizations
  • Impact of social media chatter on share prices

• Business Law and Ethics
  • Changes in regulations and case law to reflect Digital Era realities (both commercial and employment law)
  • Inclusion of social media in investigations
  • Changes in the nature and scope of e-discovery
  • General social issues and new ethical challenges (e.g., privacy)

• Operations Management
  • How new technologies can be used to enhance supply chain efficiency and effectiveness
  • The use of wikis and other tools to enhance internal operations

• Knowledge Management
  • Enterprise 2.0 platforms and related initiatives
  • New ways of promoting innovation and creativity (e.g., crowd-sourcing)

• Information Technology
  • Cloud computing and mobile devices as alternatives to traditional IT systems/approaches
  • New risk management issues from mobile devices and cloud computing
  • New 2.0 tools for managing IT and other projects

• Leadership
  • New interaction expectations for leaders
  • New internal governance challenges and issues
  • Increased need to incorporate digital technologies into strategy development and implementation
  • Cultural and change management challenges arising from new initiatives and shift to new technologies

• Human Capital Management
  • New job requirements for social-media focused positions, along with related concerns about compensation, performance management, etc.
  • New methods for onboarding and mentoring new employees
  • Changes in approaches to training and development, in terms of both content and delivery
  • Shifts in administrative processes (e.g., payroll, benefits)
  • New requirements for staffing, leadership development and succession planning
  • New approaches acquiring and retaining talent

• Communications
  • New channels for internal and external communication
  • New normative expectations with respect to when and how people should communicate

Recognizing the shifts that are already taking place in the business world, B schools need to start modifying their curricula to better prepare future graduates to address the opportunities and challenges these shifts present. Although there could be specializations (e.g., community management) and specific courses (e.g., Digital Era legal issues) focused on some of these topics, what’s ultimately more important is integrating Digital Era realities into all courses in which they’re likely to have an impact.

In addition to addressing content, B school instructors also have to be prepared to incorporate new 2.0 technologies into their teaching methods and student assignments. Blogging, for example, is a great way to promote reflective learning. In addition to writing papers, students can create videocasts and podcasts and slideshows as means of conveying information and ideas. And wikis and other tools can be used to promote knowledge creation and sharing, manage projects, enhance communication skills, etc.

 

Recommendations for B School Leaders

There are a number of ways in which business school academia will be transformed in the Digital Era. In addition to the curricular and pedagogical changes highlighted in the preceding section, there are myriad opportunities to expand existing research agendas and create new ones, as well as enhanced roles for academic leaders to contribute to society via the development of policies, public service, and enhanced citizenship.  

To adapt to Digital Era realities, I recommend that deans and other business school leaders embark on four key initiatives as soon as possible:

• Send faculty to Digital Boot Camp: Most faculty can benefit from intensive training in new digital technologies, particularly with respect to the wide-ranging impact of these new technologies on organizations.
• Review/revise existing curricula: Both individual courses and programs of study at all levels (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, executive education) should be evaluated to determine how they can/should be updated to incorporate new digital technologies.
• Explore new pedagogical approaches: Faculty should engage in ongoing discussions about how digital technologies can/should be integrated into course delivery and assignments, as well as interactions with students.
• Create means to support new/expanded research agendas: Summer research and other grant programs, as well as various journals and conferences, can promote ways to increase the exploration of the impact of digital technologies on different aspects of business and organizational life. As much as possible, new research should emphasize practical implications and applications rather than a purely academic perspective.

 

Conclusion

What do you think? Do you agree that business schools should more explicitly incorporate Digital Era realities into their curricula, pedagogical approaches, and research agendas? What challenges and obstacles do you perceive? Are you aware of specific courses, curricular changes and/or degree programs that reflect these realities? Are there new/existing centers or institutes that emphasize digital technologies? Do you know of any schools that can be considered Digital Era leaders?

I look forward to your input and seeing where this conversation might lead.

-  Courtney Hunt

 

Social Media Education and Training: Where We Are. Where We’re Going.

In this post I offer my perspective on social media education and training. I share my thoughts on the education and training debate, report on my efforts to assess and categorize current courses and programs, and provide an initial sketch of what future offerings might look like. The post is intended to initiate dialogue and create a plan of action.

 

There are several ongoing debates regarding social media. One of them – concerning social media experts – was recently reinvigorated by Peter Shankman’s polemic a few weeks ago, which I reflected on in this post. A related issue concerns the best way to develop social media skills and knowledge. Many people argue (often vociferously) that learning from experience is not just the best way to learn, it’s the only way to learn, and they reject the notion that social media skills and abilities can be developed through training. Many people also assert that credentials such as social media certificates are useless, and that the offerings behind them are generally worthless.

Here are links to a couple of thoughtful (and generally snark-free) discussions about the value of social media certificates that are worth investing the time to read:

• The "Social Media Certificate" - Smart Move or Scam?
• How legitimate is a Social Media Certificate? Where will this lead? (must join the Social Media Today LinkedIn group to access)

Though not as prevalent or heated, people have also started talking about the need for formal education in social media. Here are a few discussions that provide some good food for thought:

• Got Social Media Courses?: PR Students Thirsty for More...
• Social Media Online Courses – Where are They?
• For Social Media Managers – did you study "Social Media/Marketing" in school? (must join the Social Media Today LinkedIn group to access)

This post provides an overview of my perspective on social media training and education, but my interests are more pragmatic than rhetorical. My main purpose is to help social media rookies make sense of the issues and their options so they can make informed decisions about the best way to increase their knowledge and skills to pursue their professional objectives. This post (along with the social media expert post) can also provide useful guidance to organizational leaders who need to make decisions about the kinds of knowledge, skills, training and credentials they should look for when hiring social media resources. And finally, it can help professional associations and academic institutions determine their own strategies and plans for incorporating social media and digital technologies into their own training and education offerings.

Since we’re still in the nascent stages of developing formal education in this area, I see this post as way of initiating dialogue and creating a plan of action rather than a definitive statement of what is or should be. I invite people to share their insights and recommendations and offer additional resources to help us continue this journey.

 

Thoughts on the Education and Training Debate

Here are my thoughts on some of the common objections to and concerns about social media training and education.

Social Media is too new. The basic argument here is that it’s too early to have created a body of knowledge and/or best practices about what social media is and how it should be leveraged. Specific platforms may be relatively new, but as I stated in my post about social media experts, the underlying technologies have been around for almost 20 years – longer if you consider some of their digital precursors. Even with respect to specific platforms, there’s a wealth of “how to” advice from experienced practitioners. And the core characteristics of social media technologies – such as user-generated content and social sharing – date back to our earliest days on the planet.

Things change too quickly. Because “social media time” often seems to be moving ahead at warp speed, people believe that specific knowledge gained through formal education will become stale in short measure. That can be true with respect to specific platforms and their features, but the underlying concepts and principles don’t really change. And when the courses emphasize foundational skills that have broad applications, the training should provide a solid base for future refinements.

Certificates are meaningless. Many people are rightfully concerned that any charlatan can offer a certificate program that has no substantive value, and that naïve buyers will waste their money on them. They’re also right to be concerned that certificates alone are no definitive marker of achievement. I’d like to see us get beyond the concern over labels. Certificates may provide a credential that can help in a variety of settings, but it's the training itself that's important. Most people in a variety of professions are still social media rookies, and high-quality training can provide the kickstart they need to develop their knowledge and skills (check out this post for thoughts on how to evaluate the quality of a certificate program).

Experience – and results - are more important than training and education. Countless social media professionals, many of whom are early adopters, believe that the best way to learn how to leverage social media effectively is by jumping in and using it. But learning by doing is a time-consuming process. Given that demand for social media skills and expertise is likely to rise much faster than available supply in the foreseeable future, there's value in participating in courses that can enable people to climb their learning curves more quickly and effectively. Plus, the notion of training OR experience creates a false dichotomy. Training alone is never sufficient for developing expertise, but that doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. If we can recognize the importance of both in other disciplines (e.g., engineering, accounting, human resources), we shouldn’t unfairly bias one over the other when it comes to social media.

Continuous learning argument. Given the rate of change, many people emphasize the need to commit to learning constantly, which is as true in social media as it is in any other dynamic discipline. Those who use that argument to reject certifications and degrees seem to be assuming that they represent some kind of end state or pinnacle achievement. It is more accurate, however, to view certification as a beginning or a middle, something that can jump start lay the foundation for hands-on experience. As things continue to evolve, formal and informal learning can offer powerful complements to one another.

 

Categorizing Current Offerings

Earlier this year I was hired by Northeastern University (NEU) to develop a Social Media and Online Communities (SMOC) specialization for their Master’s degree program in Corporate and Organizational Communication (click here to read descriptions of the courses). To develop the curriculum, I conducted numerous internet searches to identify available training and educational programs as of January 2011. My search was not necessarily scientific or exhaustive, but it was thorough and sufficient for my purposes.

It should be no surprise that the offerings were heavily focused on the marketing applications of social media. Because the curriculum I was asked to develop was not strictly focused on marketing, however, I had to dig deeper to find courses and programs in other areas such as communications, journalism, public relations, non-profit management, and other business topics (e.g., human resources).

Although the results weren’t equal across them, the courses I discovered fell into the following categories:

• Non-degree offerings
  • Training courses: offered either individually or as a short series
  • Certificate and certification programs: longer series of courses that result in a “credential”

• Degree offerings  
  • Individual courses: either elective or required, as part of a formal degree
  • Majors and specializations: a series of courses required for a degree specialization or major

I set up a spreadsheet to capture these courses, categorizing them as follows:

• Academic degree programs (i.e., degrees that include at least one required course in digital technologies)
• Other academic offerings (i.e., training and certificate programs from academic institutions)
• Non-academic offerings (i.e., training and certification programs from individuals and organizations with no academic affiliation)
• Individual courses and other offerings (i.e., elective courses from academic institutions and stand-alone training courses from others)

I explored websites and followed links and reviewed as much information as I could about the courses and programs I found. In addition to the categories above, I noted key differentiators among the courses, such as level and type of focus, the target “student,” whether the courses were offered online or in person, and the cost.  I didn’t record everything I learned because it wasn’t all relevant to my current purpose and the information was subject to change, but I made some notes and captured urls if I needed to go back and dig deeper. My primary focus, though, was on identifying course content, which I categorized as follows:

• Concept:  An idea unique to the Digital Era, or one that takes on new meaning in the Digital Era
• Tool: A specific enabling technology or application of technology
• Platform: An environment in which multiple 2.0 technologies are leveraged for a specific purpose
• Skill: A capability unique to the Digital Era, or one that takes on new meaning in the Digital Era
• Tactic: A specific means of leveraging 2.0 technologies to achieve an organization's goals and objectives
• Management: Issues and challenges related to the develop of social media strategies and plans, including the creation of online communities

I identified about 170 ideas that fall into these six categories, and I know my list isn’t complete. Given that, I’m certain there’s a substantial body of knowledge that can provide the focus for a variety of social media training and education programs.

I am happy to share the spreadsheet I created with folks who are interested in seeing the results of my research. If you’d like a copy, please email research@sminorgs.net.

 

Thoughts on Future Offerings

Although the current offerings aren’t as numerous or varied as they’re likely to become, they offer clear indications of what the future of social media training and education holds. We are likely to see an increase in courses and programs of all types, and that’s perfectly appropriate. Because we are still in the early days of the second phase of the Digital Era, many professionals in multiple disciplines will need training and education of various types.

Decisions about the kinds of programs to create/offer, the best course of action for an individual, and the kind of training/education an organization requires should be driven by the same criteria used for other disciplines. What are your goals and objectives? What’s the relative importance of doing versus leading? Do you want to emphasize strategy or tactics? There is no single solution.

Based on my understanding of digital technologies and their impact, my analysis of current offerings, the work I did to develop NEU’s program, and other related projects, here is a rough cut of my thoughts on the kinds of course offerings that we should see more of going forward.

NON-DEGREE OFFERINGS

• General training courses
  • Length: can range from 90 minutes to full days, as one-shot courses or a series.
  • Topical coverage: broad introductions and overviews (e.g., Business Intelligence 2.0; Managing Human Capital in the Digital Era; Social Learning: Opportunities and Challenges).
  • Target audience: usually social media rookies, professionals in a specific functional area that need to understand the basics of how new digital realities can and will impact their discipline.
  • Focus:  primarily on conveying information and ideas. Attendees mostly listen. They may engage in some hands-on activities during the sessions, but opportunities to practice and develop skills are limited.
  • Delivery: in person or onlne.

 

• Specific training courses
  • Length: can range from 90 minutes to full days, as one-shot courses or a series.
  • Topical coverage: narrowly-defined, tactical courses on specific subjects and platforms (e.g., how to use LinkedIn, Facebook for SMEs).
  • Target audience: usually social media rookies, professionals in a specific functional area that need to develop specific social media skills.
  • Focus: primarily on conveying information and ideas. Attendees mostly listen. They may engage in some hands-on activities during the sessions, but opportunities to practice and develop skills are limited.
  • Delivery: in person or onlne.

 

• Certificate programs*
  • Length: a series of courses over several weeks/months.
  • Topical coverage: will include a number of narrowly-defined, tactical courses on specific subjects and platforms (e.g., how to use LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, blogging;  managing digital communities).
  • Target audience: professionals in specific functional areas (e.g., marketing, public relations, human resources) that need to develop a broad range of social media skills to increase their digital effectiveness. May want the certificate credential to demonstrate the knowledge and skills attained.
  • Focus: primarily on knowledge and skill development. Courses should include lots of hands-on activities. Programs should require students to complete projects to apply knowledge and demonstrate skill development. Emphasis will be more tactical than strategic, however, and may involve no formal analysis or reflection.
  • Delivery: in person or onlne.

* Note: Although people often confound the terms “certificate” and “certification,” I think we should restrict the use of the term “certification” to designations by professional associations (e.g., ABC, CPA, PHR). From a training perspective, what we’re really talking about is certificate programs.

 

DEGREE OFFERINGS

• Individual courses*
  • Length: can range from six-week modules to 16-week semesters, depending on institution and program.
  • Topical coverage: Whether elective or required, these stand-alone courses concentrate on the application of social media and digital technologies to a specific discipline or function (e.g., public relations, commercial law, human resources, journalism). Though specific platforms might be incorporated, the courses would generally be platform agnostic, focusing more on the underlying technologies than the specific channels through which they’re applied.
  • Target audience: students in specific functional areas (e.g., marketing, public relations, human resources), at both undergraduate and graduate levels.
  • Focus: Though the depth would vary based on academic level, the general focus would be more conceptual and strategic, linking extant theory and practice with new realities. Analysis and reflection would be more heavily weighted than skill application.
  • Delivery: in person or onlne.

* Note: Eventually, stand-alone courses should be supplanted by “curricular infusion,” where Digital Era realities are incorporated into all courses rather than only being addressed through stand-alone courses. I’ll say more about that in a forthcoming post on business school education.

 

• Majors and specializations
  • Length: a series of academic courses (usually 4 to 6) that comprise a major or a degree specialization. Could also bundle a smaller set of courses into a minor.
  • Topical coverage: concentrate on the applications and implications of social media and digital technologies to a specific field (e.g., marketing, public relations, communications, journalism).* Though specific platforms might be incorporated, the courses would generally be platform agnostic, focusing more on the underlying technologies than the specific channels through which they’re applied. General focus would be broad rather than narrow.
  • Target audience: students in specific disciplines, at both undergraduate and graduate levels.
  • Focus: Though the depth would vary based on academic level, the courses would incorporate elements of all the other types of offerings: conveying basic knowledge, requiring hand-on project work, linking traditional knowledge to new realities, and analysis and reflection. At the graduate level they should also emphasize higher-level leadership abilities like strategy formulation, tactical integration, and governance.
  • Delivery: in person or onlne.

* Note: The NEU specialization I developed is targeted to professionals across multiple fields (e.g., non-profit management and human resources as well as communications and marketing), but it still part of a Master’s degree in communication.

 

Conclusion

As I noted earlier, I am happy to share the spreadsheet I created to capture my research on current social media training and education offerings. If you’d like a copy, please email research@sminorgs.net. I have many other notes and ideas that evolved from the work I did for NEU, so please contact me if you’d like to hear more about them as well.

I’d also love to hear from others. Please feel free to share your thoughts and insights about the ideas I’ve presented, and/or relevant resources. Let us know if you’re thinking about pursuing formal training and/or education, and if so where. And if you can identify any other courses and programs you’re familiar with and/or share feedback and testimonials that can benefit others, that’d be great too.

Finally, I’d love to connect with kindred spirits who’d like to collaborate on creating a body of knowledge, develop curriculum, provide thought leadership, etc.

I look forward to hearing from you, as always.

-  Courtney Hunt