Find SMinOrgs on
Learn about Our Sponsor
Check out our Sister Community
Contact Us
312.225.3365 (office)
312.752.7418 (mobile)
1530 S State St #925
Chicago, IL 60605
A couple of months ago I was asked to share my insights about social media for the January 2012 issue of HR Matters magazine. The full article is embedded below, or you can access it directly on SlideShare. The uploaded copy is a little blurry, so feel free to message HRmag@sminorgs.net if you would like me to send you a copy.
As always, your feedback is welcome!
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
"What do you think are the main barriers for organizations in embracing social media practices and what ideas do you have for overcoming them?" This is the question at the heart of a public research study being conducted by Silverman Research, which uses a social research methodology rather than a survey format to capture and develop collective insights on important questions. Everyone is able to view and evaluate the responses from others, in addition to contributing their own perspective.
===//===
As the Founder of the Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community, I am pleased to offer my support to this project. I learned about the study when Michael Silverman posted an invitation to participate in the SMinOrgs LI group. Obviously, the question is one that is near and dear to my heart, but I am also very impressed with and intrigued by his approach to building a dataset and representing the results.
I invite everyone to enter the Garden, take a stroll through the responses shared by others, and plant a bloom of your own!
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
Study Overview and Invitation
The Social Media Garden is an open-access research project that has been designed to generate insight about the barriers organisations face in adopting social media practices – and solutions to overcome them. This new approach to online research eliminates unmanageable lists of comments and uses data visualizations to help participants navigate the conversation and develop their understanding. Algorithms then rapidly filter insightful comments based on input from other participants. Here’s a screenshot of a typical page:
Of course, there is already a mounting body of research on the use of social media in organizations. However, none of these studies have been conducted using social media methodologies. When one considers the opportunities provided by social technologies to share information, develop ideas and generate insight, I find it immensely frustrating that so much social research is still conducted using surveys. For all the big consultancies, research agencies and academics espousing the benefits of social media, it’s unfortunate that they have stuck to a standard survey approach. This is one the few research studies on social media in organizations to employ a social media approach. We therefore expect to produce many new insights that would not be possible using traditional survey approaches.
The study is being sponsored by Unilever to help push forward the social media agenda in organizations, and to build on their efforts to “social mediatize” employee research across the company (see below for more information on the methodology). The Garden will be open throughout February 2012 and has already received over 450 participants. A full report of the overall research findings will be publically available towards the end of March 2012. All participants will be emailed a copy of the report (containing a combined text, sentiment and statistical analysis), which will also be available on the Social Media Garden website. Please click here to enter the garden and plant your bloom.
A leaderboard of the top authors will be posted in the Garden towards the end of the project. Currently, the top author is ‘philwoodford,’ who wrote:
The two biggest factors preventing organisations embracing social media are: (1) Difficulty in measuring return on investment (2) Fear of loss of control Using social media successfully requires an investment of time and human resources. If organisations cannot see or quantify an immediate and obvious return, they get nervous. Social media is profoundly democratic. This takes power away from managers, marketers, HR professionals and others within the organisation that might be expected to sponsor its growth. Both of these factors will become less of an issue with each passing year, as social media becomes more and more embedded in the fabric of business and society as a whole. Business owners and managers who are resistant to change probably won't be convinced and there's little that can be done to shape their attitudes. The world will simply change around them.
Methodological Background
Despite their prevalence, surveys are riddled with problems. The most serious of which, and the one that is most often overlooked, is that they are incredibly boring for participants and consistently fail to provide participants with a compelling and engaging experience. The fact that participants complete surveys in isolation provides people with a very solitary experience. Worse still, a valuable opportunity is missed to capture the insight that comes from measuring what people think of other participants’ comments. This is where surveys really fall down. If participants knew their comment would be available for others evaluate, they would not only be more likely to write a response, they would also be more likely to write a thoughtful and considered response.
In addition, if participants are able to evaluate others’ comments, it becomes possible to identify the authentic voice of that community and see what themes are achieving consensus. Text analysis software is great, but we often forget that we have an even more powerful text analysis tool than any computer – the combined wisdom of our brains. I like to think of this as a form of crowd-sourced text analysis.
However, linear lists of comments that are used in traditional discussion forums and message boards are difficult to navigate and soon become unmanageable as the number of participants increases. This means that many comments never get read. Coupled with the widespread use of over-simplistic binary thumbs-up or five-star ratings, lists favor early birds or those with extreme views and conceal the real diversity of opinion.
Unilever was one of the first organizations to employ this approach internally, using a pre-cursor to the Social Media Garden called “Opinion Space” (see screen shot below). This project engaged Unilever’s 1,800-strong international assignee employees in providing feedback and suggestions to improve its policies for this community. The project won two HR industry awards and has led to the adoption of this approach to employee research and collaboration in different parts of the business.
In addition to providing new insight into the use of social media in organizations, we also hope that the Social Media Garden will raise awareness of new ways of generating insight and facilitating mass collaboration.
Michael Silverman is Managing Director of Silverman Research, a company specializing in applying social media principles to social research. A psychologist and organizational research specialist, he was previously Global Head of Employee Research at Unilever.
For more information please contact: michael.silverman@silvermanresearch.com
In this SMinOrgs S.M.A.R.T. Blog guest post, Jerry Carducci offers his thoughts on the future of the social workplace. Building on the ideas in the latest S.M.A.R.T. News Digest – Social Media and the Workplace - What’s In Store for 2012? – he anticipates the impact of new digital technologies on organizational culture, employer branding, consumer listening, and organizational policies.
===//===
As a follower of social media in the workplace, one thing remains clear: many organizational leaders are still apprehensive about social media’s potential to enhance operational effectiveness, increase stakeholder value and engage employees.
We’ve seen how the global community used social media to connect and gain support for humanitarian and political issues. What if your organization could generate that same strength of internal community to enhance its value propositions for current and future stakeholders? What if your organization could unleash its hidden talents and creativity through an open, engaging and collaborative environment that increases value and competitive advantage?
Looking at 2012 and beyond, more organizations will start using social media as a way to optimize the power of consumer-based networks to increase productivity, communications and collaboration. We should see changes in four core areas:
(Editor’s note: for more on social media and recruiting, see Recruiting in the Digital Era: Updated Guidance for Employers, Recruiters, and Candidates).
(Editor’s note: for more on social media policies, see Social Media Policies: Necessary but Not Sufficient).
The term “Value” has evolved to represent the total experience for consumers and employees alike. And creating value in today’s environment is a strategic imperative, requiring organizations to be continuously connected, engaging and transparent in ways that generate loyalty and a positive experience. Social media provides the means to establish the necessary formal and informal connections.
However, understanding how social media can change the way an enterprise does business and engages employees is a complex undertaking. Leaders must fully understand their culture, mission and value system – and how their organization really works. Most importantly, they must select the right social media platforms to support and achieve their organization’s objectives.
===//===
Gerald E. (Jerry) Carducci is the President of Carducci & Associate,; an organizational consultancy that helps small and mid-sized businesses energize their workplaces through a supportive culture and progressive people practices. He is a widely published author and guest editor for the Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) S.M.A.R.T. Blog, where he explores the use of social media as a means to enhance internal communication, collaboration and processes. He is also a frequent guest on WGN Radio.
As the Digital Era progresses, technological capabilities continue to outstrip our willingness and ability to address the opportunities and challenges they present. In this post from the Digital Era Thinkers Blog, I offer 12 hopes for 2012 that are rooted in the psychological challenges we face and are built on our willingness – both individually and collectively – to tackle them in thought, word, and deed. As always, I welcome input from others.
Click here to read the post.
via www.gcdel.org
This post links to a presentation deck on SlideShare that highlights how social media and other digital technologies are impacting organizational functioning beyond marketing. The presentation also highlights the implications of new technologies for job and career options, as well as career management for employees of all types.
===//===
On November 11, 2011, I participated in Social Media Immersion Day at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. In addition to administering and debriefing the SMQ (Social Media Quotient) Quiz, I gave a presentation that highlighted:
I have made my presentation deck, which also includes many resources for further reading, available on the SMinOrgs SlideShare channel. You can view it below or directly on SlideShare.
As always, I welcome your comments and questions.
- Courtney Hunt
PS – One of the other speakers was Geoff McHale, a Vice President at comScore. I have also uploaded a white paper he referred to – The Power of Like – to SlideShare. Click here to access it.
Targeted primarily to “social recruiting” rookies (both individuals and employers), this post provides an overview of how employers can and should incorporate social media and other digital technologies into their talent acquisition processes. Questions and comments, especially from recruiting professionals, are welcome.
====//====
This summer I wrote Social Media and Recruiting 101: Overview and Recommendations, which was an extension of some earlier pieces I had written on the topic of “social screening” (see this post, as well as this white paper). In it, I recast the “recruiting funnel” to reflect how social media and other digital activity can and should be considered during the hiring process.
After participating in SIOP’s Leading Edge Consortium on the Virtual Workforce, and attending HRMAC's Social Media and Recruiting - It's Not Just About LinkedIn, I was inspired to update the “social recruiting funnel” I had created and expand the discussion beyond my initial focus on candidate evaluation.
Like the first piece, this post is intended to be a primer of sorts. Targeting individuals and employers who don’t have a sophisticated understanding of how social media activity can be incorporated into recruitment and selection processes, it focuses on providing a high level overview and basic best practice recommendations for both hiring organizations and job candidates.
I don’t purport to know how all employers and service providers (e.g., third-party recruiters, screening companies, software vendors) are leveraging social media and other digital technologies in their talent acquisition processes. I can, however, offer my understanding and insights on how social media can and should be incorporated into these processes. And I invite others – especially recruiting and HR professionals – to join me in developing a set of resources and guidelines for Digital Era recruitment practices that enable employers to hire the best possible candidates in the most appropriate ways.
Please let me know of any content I may have missed and/or any additional recommendations you may have. Questions are also welcome. Thanks!
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
Disclaimer: I am neither an attorney nor a professional recruiter, and I have no connection to any of the companies mentioned in this post.
A Few Reminders to Start
It’s important to reiterate at the outset that there is no single set of practices, platforms, tools, or techniques that can satisfy every employer’s recruiting objectives. The best approach will be determined by an employer’s unique talent management requirements and circumstances, including:
Although it’s tempting to jump on the social media bandwagon, each employer needs to think carefully about which social media investments are likely to produce the best returns for them. Some employers may even find that the benefits of leveraging new technologies are not justified by the costs, particularly in terms of the human capital required to make them worthwhile.
Employers who decide to incorporate more digital technologies in their hiring processes should benchmark against the efforts of earlier adopters and learn from both their successes and failures. There are lots of examples and plenty of information and guidance available, so there’s no need to repeat other people’s mistakes.
Finally, employers shouldn’t try to do everything at once. At the HRMAC event, for example, the representative from Nalco talked about their “crawl-walk-run” strategy, and the fact that they took a deliberate, phased approach to enhancing their recruitment efforts. A strategic and methodical approach is probably better in the long run. To ensure employers work smart, not just hard, they should:
For more on leveraging social media smartly, see Part 7 of the Social Media Primer: The SAPLING Approach to Leveraging Social Media.
How Recruiting Goes Social
Most people are familiar with the recruitment and selection “funnel.” I’ve created a version that illustrates how social media can be incorporated into the overall process (click to enlarge):
In the sections that follow, for each stage in the process, I provide a brief overview as well as information about the types of jobs for which the activity is relevant, who typically engages in the practice, how the process is conducted, and recommendations for employers. In reviewing this information it’s important to remember that although cyberspace adds a new dimension to the recruitment and selection process, the rules are generally the same as before. It's incumbent upon the employer to ensure that the criteria they're using to select candidates are job relevant, non-discriminatory, and legally defensible. For more information on these responsibilities, please refer to the original social screening white paper and my previous post.
Social Recruitment
Social Sourcing
Social Advertising
Social Referrals
Social Assessment
Social Screening
Additional Recommendations for Employers
Digital Era recruiting involves more than just social media platforms and activities. There are many other tools, technologies, and applications employers can leverage to enhance their talent acquisition efforts, including:
In addition to incorporating social media platforms and other digital tools into their ongoing efforts to identify and evaluate candidates, employers should also do the following to enhance their overall effectiveness:
Recommendations for Individuals
My basic recommendations for individuals are laid out in the original social screening white paper and in this post about the Digital Hall of Shame. To these I would add the following:
For more on digital due diligence, check out this LinkedIn poll. Please feel free to vote, add comments, and share the poll with others in your networks. The poll closes November 18.
This SMinOrgs News Digest focuses on how social media can be used to develop a supportive, engaging and community-oriented culture. Selected articles illustrate the importance of corporate culture and how it impacts results, as well as examples of how organizations have been effective in using social media in building and managing their culture.
Most of the discussions about social media and organizational culture seem to focus on the values and norms that must exist (e.g., egalitarianism, openness) before an organization can successfully leverage social media technologies internally to create/promote a 2.0 Enterprise. I've argued that rather than expecting cultural change to precede social media adoption, it makes more sense to begin with the culture as it is, and work toward change via the increasing use of new technologies (see, for example, this post).
Jerry's latest News Digest reinforces my argument, by providing ideas and examples of how social media can be used to build and reinforce organizational culture. He plans to follow this post up with a piece in which he interviews the founders and employees of one Chicago area firm about the role social media plays in maintaining and growing their powerful, engaging, and results-producing culture. I'm looking forward to reading it!
– Courtney Hunt
Please feel free to share your thoughts on the items in this News digest directly via the blog, or join the dialogue on LinkedIn. We especially welcome other examples of the links between social media and organizational culture. We also appreciate your bringing items on other topics to our attention via LI, Twitter, or FB, or by emailing a link to news@sminorgs.net. Thanks!
If you'd like to receive a notice each time a new post is published, you can subscribe to the SMinOrgs S.M.A.R.T. Blog by clicking here or on the link on the right side of the website.
====//====
Introduction
At one time or another in our careers, we have been part of an organization that can’t decide who it is, where it’s going and continually spins its wheels. Yet the company next door seems to excel with every challenge put in front of them. How do they do it? What’s their secret? How can we copy it?
Well it doesn’t “just happen.” That high performance organization next door outperforms because there is an “energy” that permeates each individual. As I’ve asserted in prior posts, we are now in the “Talent Age,” where value is created through people and culture represents the fuel for employees to generate value.
Social media has brought about a dramatic shift in the way organizations communicate, reinforce and align employees with their values, mission and vision, and create an “internal brand” that conveys their culture and work-life expectations.
Corporate culture by definition represents shared values, traditions, philosophy and policies of an organization which project a professional atmosphere that influences behavior and performance. Corporate culture is the organization’s personality, its DNA, and represents the way it does business, how it conducts itself and employees' beliefs and expectations of work. To this end, social media provides the ability to continually communicate, share and reinforce this value system, assure consistency with the vision of the organization in a form that people are accustomed to using, and create a supportive and inclusive environment throughout the organization.
Culture is the most overlooked and misunderstood aspect of an organization and how it influences results. A supportive, nurturing culture engages and energizes employees, “WOWs” customers and ultimately is reflected in bottom-line results. Conversely, a negative culture permeates an organization like a cancer, destroying everything in its path.
Social media has primarily focused externally in communicating an organization’s vision, mission and value system to customers – external branding. But do employees know, understand and share in this system? Do they feel included and live it daily? Is it reflected in their work products?
If corporate culture is so important to an organization’s existence, then why don’t organizations spend more time cultivating and developing a positive environment? And why aren’t organizations using all the resources available to build it?
This S.M.A.R.T. News Digest focuses on the importance of corporate culture and the role social media plays in creating a nurturing environment.
Categories: applications, best practices, challenges, enterprise 2.0, human resources, internal communication, leadership, opportunities, strategy
For additional articles that address related issues, click on terms of interest in the category cloud on our website.
=============================================================================
Title: Social Media & Corporate Culture: Strategic Tools for Change Management.
Source: Social Media Today
Author: Jennifer Johnston Canfield
Lead Paragraph: Organizational culture reflects the vision of a company's founders and leaders. Strong cultures help companies operate efficiently and effectively because individual behaviors and interactions are aligned with organizational values. On the other hand, in firms with weak cultures and little alignment between organizational values and behaviors, culture is nothing more than a bureaucratic barrier to effectiveness.
Brief Commentary from Jerry Carducci: Culture represents the heart and soul of an organization – the DNA that defines how a firm operates, serves internal and external customers and behaves. Communication is the critical component in managing and/or transforming culture.
Social media provides the vehicle to communicate, listen and create community. Again, we are in the “Talent Era” where people are the drivers of value. High performance organizations out-perform because the core values, beliefs and mission create an environment and energy that permeates each individual to their core and influences all aspects of their professional and personal lives.
=============================================================================
Title: Social Media and Corporate Culture
Source: Tee Dubs BI Thoughts
Author: Tee Dubs
Lead Paragraph: How do you think social media and social networking have changed us, as individuals? How has it changed our business lives? I explored this topic at AIIM last month, and want to reprise it here with a little more depth.
Brief Commentary from Jerry Carducci: Social media enables an organization to create an environment of transparency, collaboration and rapid information sharing. From the perspective of organizational culture, social media therefore is the perfect tool in creating an open, entrepreneurial environment that encourages innovation and competitive advantage.
=============================================================================
Title: The Impact of Corporate Culture on Social Media (IBM’s Case Study)
Source: Adam Christensen
Author: Adam Clyde
Lead Paragraph: I’ll be brief in this synopsis, since you can peruse through the slides yourself. But here’s the main point: That culture is, in my view, the most overlooked, underestimated factor determining whether social media succeeds or fails in a company. And when corporate culture and social media are pitted against each other, social media will always fail. Always.
Brief Commentary from Jerry Carducci: Again, the impact of corporate culture on results is the most overlooked and misunderstood component of a firm’s business model. Like individuals, no two organizations are alike. That is why trying to emulate the success model of others generally results in failure.
=============================================================================
Title: Corporate Culture Adds Social Media to the Mix
Source: The Star-Ledger (New Jersey)
Author: Abby Gruen
Lead Paragraph: Corporate America’s executive suites have been infiltrated by the blogosphere. The blogosphere, that chattering world of bloggers and social media networks that has become a generally accepted barometer of public opinion, has become a force that businesses cannot ignore. Now, even public companies, who traditionally limited access to their corporate information to credentialed journalists and research analysts, are realizing they need to embrace this new channel of information to their customers, investors and other stakeholders.
Brief Commentary from Jerry Carducci: This article illustrates how organizations in different industries have embraced social media to extend the reach of their culture externally to convey and create a sense of community with customers and other stakeholders.
Beginning with a discussion of a recent Missouri law restricting communications between public school employees and students, this post offers a broader perspective on why both individuals and organizations should support limits on social networking interactions between adults and minors, as well as among other people whose primary connection is professional rather than personal. It also proposes an alternative approach to managing the inherent risks and creating new potential benefits: Private Digital Networks (PDNs).
====//====
Recently there have been a number of news stories and blog posts about a new Missouri law that allegedly prohibits teachers and other public school staff from interacting with students on social networking sites. Here are some of the pieces I read, listed in chronological order:
Like many stories about social media and digital technology – especially those that appear to be connected to individual rights such as free speech and privacy – it seems that there was a selective focus and slant to the coverage that incited strong emotional reactions and passionate comments decrying governmental overreach, civil rights abridgement, and a litany of other “Big Brother” type evils. The titles of the first, second, third and sixth pieces above, for example, are patently false. The law does not “ban” or “outlaw” friendships between students and teachers. In fact, it doesn’t even come close to that. Similarly, some writers have claimed that the law requires communications between teachers and students to be completely transparent or public, which is also not true.
Focusing on the Facts
Proper management of cyber interactions between teachers and students – as well as those between other adults and minor children – is an important Digital Era issue that needs to be carefully considered and handled responsibly. But people can't engage in healthy debate of the issues unless they're well informed. I always find it helpful to go to the original sources rather than relying on second-hand information/interpretations. The site below includes a link to the final version of the bill that was signed into law.
Legislative Detail: MO Senate Bill 54 - 2011 Regular Session
Although many reports give the impression that the restrictions on digital communications between teachers and students is the primary crux of the law, it is a relatively small but critical component. The law is generally focused on child sexual abuse, with some emphasis on sexual misconduct by teachers and other public school staff. The section on student communications covers just over a single page of the 35-page bill. Here is the relevant text:
162.069. 1. Every school district shall, by January 1, 2012, promulgate a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communication. Such policy shall contain at least the following elements:
(1) Appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with or included in any policy on sexual harassment; and
(2) Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, with an element concerning use of social networking sites no less stringent than the provisions of subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
2. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Exclusive access", the information on the website is available only to the owner (teacher) and user (student) by mutual explicit consent and where third parties have no access to the information on the website absent an explicit consent agreement with the owner (teacher);
(2) "Former student", any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated;
(3) "Nonwork-related internet site", any internet website or web page used by a teacher primarily for personal purposes and not for educational purposes;
(4) "Work-related internet site", any internet website or web pages used by a teacher for educational purposes.
3. No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a work-related internet site unless such site is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian.
4. No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting a teacher from establishing a nonwork related internet site, provided the site is used in accordance with this section.
5. Every school district shall, by July 1, 2012, include in its teacher and employee training, a component that provides up-to-date and reliable information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and danger signals of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults. The training shall emphasize the importance of mandatory reporting of abuse under section 210.11540 including the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandated reporters, and how to establish an SCS SB 54 16 atmosphere of trust so that students feel their school has concerned adults with whom they feel comfortable discussing matters related to abuse.
My observations:
In my view, the policy standard set forth in this law is far less restrictive than the general interpretations that are being bandied about, and generally reasonable. It doesn’t preclude teachers from interacting with students on social networking sites, or even connecting with them directly (e.g., friending them on Facebook), as long as there is a degree of transparency to those interactions/connections. I don’t see why any parent, public school employee or student should have an issue with that.
Taking a Broader View
As noted above, the Missouri law is focused on child sexual abuse, with an emphasis on sexual misconduct by public school employees. But there are many other valid reasons for restricting – or even prohibiting – interactions between teachers/staff and students on social networking sites. These restrictions could also be extended to interactions with parents and between supervisors and subordinates as well.
Furthermore, I would argue that similar restrictions should be considered in any organization that involves relationships and interactions between adults and minor children, including private schools, churches, sports teams, charities and other non-profit organizations, health care providers, and private social clubs. I would even recommend them for higher education institutions, especially those that have large undergraduate populations with traditional-aged students (i.e., under 21).
Related Resource: Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient
Some people have attempted to compare social networking interactions to phone calls and other digital interactions such as email and texting. But they’re hardly the same. Phone calls, emails, and texting are all forms of direct communication that are specifically focused. Social networking sites, however, are full of “indirect” communications (e.g., status updates, photos, videos), from both people to whom we are directly connected as well as those in related networks (e.g., friends of friends). Given that, the complexities and risks of connecting on social networks are far greater than in other channels.
Since Facebook is the largest social network currently, I’ll focus on that in offering my rationale for restricting relationships and interactions. I’ll further concentrate on teachers and students; however, similar arguments can be applied to other adult/minor relationships outside the context of family and friends, as well as relationships between adults whose relationships are primarily or exclusively professional.
Privacy and personal/professional boundaries. Mark Zuckerberg has famously said that privacy is no longer a ‘social norm,’ and many other social media advocates support the notion of blending our personal and professional lives. I don’t share their enthusiasm. We all assume different roles in our lives, and we act differently in these various roles and in different contexts. Boundaries are important in managing our different roles and maintaining a necessary sense of time and place.
For most people, Facebook is a space to interact personally, sharing details of their private lives as well as private thoughts and feelings with a network of family and friends. It is not a professional network. When teachers and students connect on Facebook, they almost instantly take their interactions outside the professional boundaries of their relationship by giving each other access to their private lives. In addition, they also give each other access to the other people in their private networks through the “friends of friends” connections.
Some people will make the argument that teachers should be able to interact with students on social networks like Facebook because they have to connect with them “where they live,” but I think that’s the wrong approach. Rather than indulging students by doing what’s easiest for them, teachers should help them understand the importance of creating and managing boundaries, as well as their digital identities and activities. Doing so could be considered an important civics lesson.
Risks. Most of the activity in which people engage on Facebook is widely shared with everyone in their networks. Although Facebook allows for selective sharing, the management tools are very cumbersome, and very few people take advantage of them. In addition, many people have not set up proper privacy controls to ensure that people to whom they’re not connected can’t access their information or activity.
The limitations in how people manage their Facebook activity increase the likelihood that a teacher or a student will see something they do not want to see or should not be exposed to. For example, teachers who friend their students may have access to conversations about illegal activity (e.g., underage drinking, drug use) and/or inappropriate behavior (e.g., bullying, harassment, violence), both directly and indirectly. Given their roles, they may have a duty to report that activity. They – and their school systems – could also be accused of negligence for not responding appropriately to information obtained via social networking activity.
Teachers are also vulnerable to negative consequences based on their own activity and that of their friends and family. In addition to the risks associated with displaying poor judgment (e.g., saying negative things about students, parents, and/or coworkers; sharing inappropriate photos), information can be taken out of context, jokes can be misunderstood, and their own past youthful indiscretions can come back to haunt them.
Simply put, the risks of crossing personal/professional boundaries by connecting on social networks far exceed the potential benefits.
Options for managing boundaries. It is possible for teachers and students to interact on Facebook without friending each other*, but the three main options each have their limits.
Some people have advocated setting up separate Facebook accounts for their professional interactions, but doing so is a violation of Facebook’s terms of service. In addition, although doing so may protect a teacher’s privacy, it doesn’t offer similar protections for students with whom those teachers connect.
*Facebook changed the groups feature this year, and it’s unclear whether an individual can add people to a group without being friends with them first. This brings up another important limitation of Facebook: the lack of control over its features, and the general inability to prepare for changes to those features. Being dependent on an unpredictable platform creates a whole new set of problems that can defeat the intent of using it.
A Better Alternative
Rather than trying to leverage public social networks, school systems (and other similar organizations, as noted above), should consider creating their own Private Digital Networks (PDNs). In addition to the risks articulated earlier, it is not in an organization’s best interests to permit private (organization-based) interactions to occur in what are effectively public spaces. Leaders need to start thinking about cyberspace and digital interactions in the same way they do physical spaces and traditional interactions (e.g., face-to-face). As I noted in 10 Digital Era Truths, digital technology is an integral part of the world in which we live, and we need to think more seriously about how we operate there. There are many best practice approaches for our non-digital activities that can and should be applied to cyberspace as well.
PDNs don’t have to be super costly or cumbersome, and even financially-strapped organizations can find a way to fund them if they’re a strategic priority. Managing risks is certainly a significant incentive, but there are many benefits as well. PDNs, for example:
Conclusion
Although this post is primarily focused on digital interactions between adults and minors outside the context of family/friend relationships, the ideas can also be applied to interactions among adults whose relationships are primarily or exclusively professional.
I believe PDNs are the wave of the future for organizations of all types. In addition to better enabling organizations to manage the risks associated with cyber interactions, they can produce a host of benefits that increase efficiency and effectiveness. In a future post, I’ll offer a guide to getting started with Private Digital Networks.
In the meantime, as always, I welcome your comments and questions.
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
There is a lot of confusion and concern over the growing practice of reviewing job candidates’ social media activity during recruitment and selection. Targeted to social recruiting rookies (both individuals and employers), this post provides an overview of how people’s digital activity can and should be considered during the hiring process. Questions and comments, especially from recruiting practitioners, are welcome.
====//====
Earlier this week I wrote a post entitled “Social Screening of Job Candidates: Focusing on the Facts,” which built on the ideas I first shared last fall in a white paper entitled “Social Screening: Candidates – and Employers – Beware.” Both pieces have generated a lot of interest and some really thoughtful comments in the various groups and communities where I shared them. Based on some of the feedback I’ve gotten, I decided to provide additional information that helps people put this practice in perspective within the context of the overall hiring process.
This post is the first cut at a primer of sorts. Targeting individuals and employers who don’t have a sophisticated understanding of how social media activity can be incorporated into recruitment and selection processes, it focuses on providing a high level overview and basic best practice recommendations for both hiring organizations and job candidates.
I don’t purport to know how all employers and service providers (e.g., third-party recruiters, screening companies, software vendors) are conducting social searches, and I agree with the concerns shared by many about the unethical – and possibly illegal – practices that some engage in. What I can offer, however, are my thoughts on how social media activity can and should be incorporated into the recruitment and selection process. I invite others – especially recruiting and HR professionals – to join me in developing a set of guidelines for Digital Era recruitment processes that enable employers to hire the best possible candidates in the most appropriate ways.
How Recruiting Goes Social
Most people are familiar with the recruitment and selection “funnel.” I’ve created a version that illustrates how social media activity can be incorporated into the overall process:
In the sections that follow, for each stage in the process, I provide a brief overview as well as information about the types of jobs for which the activity is relevant, who typically engages in the practice, how the process is conducted, and recommendations for employers. In reviewing this information it’s important to remember that although cyberspace adds a new dimension to the recruitment and selection process, the rules are generally the same as before. It's incumbent upon the employer to ensure that the criteria they're using to select candidates are job relevant, non-discriminatory, and legally defensible. For more information on these responsibilities, please refer to the original social screening white paper and my previous post.
Social Recruitment
Social Sourcing
Social Referrals
Social Selection
Social Screening
Recommendations for Individuals
My basic recommendations for individuals are laid out in the original social screening white paper and in this post about the Digital Hall of Shame. To these I would add the following:
Conclusion
I appreciate help from folks in fleshing out the details of how social media activity can and should be used in the recruitment and hiring process. Please let me know of any content I may have missed and/or any additional recommendations you may have. Questions are also welcome. Thanks!
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
Disclaimer: I am neither an attorney nor a professional recruiter, and I have no connection to any of the companies mentioned in this post.
There have been dozens of news stories and blog posts about the Federal Trade Commission's recent decision regarding a company called Social Intelligence and the practice of pre-employment screening of job applicants based on their digital activity. Many of these pieces are misleading, and most of them are misunderstood. This post strives to correct errors of both omission and commission and promotes a fuller understanding of this important Digital Era practice.
====//====
I first wrote about the topic of social screening last fall, in a white paper entitled “Social Screening: Candidates – and Employers – Beware.” The paper was inspired in part by Social Intelligence and a couple similar start-ups I learned about at the HR Technology Conference. If you're not familiar with the practice of social screening, the white paper will help put this post in context and will further enhance your ability to draw informed conclusions about its implications for both candidates and employers. I encourage you to read it first.
DID YOU HEAR...?
Have you heard that a company called Social Intelligence (SI) has received approval from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to dig into all your Facebook activity for last seven years to find dirt on you on behalf of a prospective employer? Or that SI is creating a database they can dip into whenever you apply for a job to look for past indiscretions? Or that employers are hiring SI to find reasons to reject candidates for all kinds of legally-indefensible and morally questionable reasons?
Yeah, it’s not true. None of it.
If you do a quick search on “federal trade commission social intelligence,” you’ll find dozens of news stories and blog posts published over the last couple of months, most of which stem from a letter the FTC wrote in May regarding their investigation of SI. Many of these pieces have dramatic headlines that may entice readers but do very little to inform or educate them. In fact, the headlines are often misleading, which – combined with poor and/or incomplete reporting of the facts and their implications – tends to promote fear mongering and rabble rousing rather than thoughtful reflection and discourse.
Here are five pieces that came across my desk in the past month, in the order in which I received them:
The accuracy of these pieces varies widely. The NYT article was well researched and is the most factual/least sensationalistic. The Forbes post was initially full of inaccuracies, but I give Kashmir Hill credit for going back and setting the record straight. The Chronicle post is the most egregiously wrong.
Errors and misrepresentations in pieces like these is more than a little bit disturbing, especially given that they’re in widely read and generally respected and trusted media outlets. On the presumption that the publishers have high content curation and/or editorial standards, most readers assume the writers have done their due diligence and take their words at face value. When those words – either through omission or commission – convey false impressions, the result is emotional, knee-jerk reactions, exaggerations, and the spread of misinformation that further fans the flames of hysteria.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe we should focus on facts and have reasoned discussions about important topics that have serious implications for both individuals and organizations. I don’t see much value in being provocative simply for the sake of provocation. And perhaps I’m naïve, but I’d like to think that bloggers and other thought leaders can hold themselves to higher standards and avoid tabloid journalism. If your goal is to initiate a public dialogue, I think you have a responsibility to make sure you lay a truthful and accurate foundation for that dialogue.
But perhaps I digress. Getting back to the topic at hand…
FOCUSING ON THE FACTS
Here is a summary of the key facts and their implications with respect to SI and the recent FTC decision. This summary is derived from my own knowledge of pre-employment background screening and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the FTC’s letter explaining their decision, and Social Intelligence’s website. I also exchanged emails with Geoff Andrews, the COO of Social Intelligence, to get clarification on a fact presented in the NYT piece I wasn't sure about. Some of these facts are accurately stated in various articles/posts, but they seem to get lost in the presentation and ensuing discussion. Others, though critical to a complete understanding, have generally been omitted.
As noted above, I've written a white paper entitled “Social Screening: Candidates – and Employers – Beware,” which provides additional information and recommendations for both individuals and organizations. I’ve also written several related blog posts about the relative rights and responsibilities of individuals and employers, which are listed at the end of this post.
Understanding the Risks
FACT 1: The practice of social screening is not new, and it’s certainly not limited to companies like Social Intelligence. There are many studies indicating that employers and third-party recruiters have been “googling” candidates and checking out their digital activity for years.
FACT 2: The risks to individuals based on their digital identities and activities exist regardless of whether employers and companies like SI engage in social screening. Information about us is shared publicly in cyberspace all the time – both by ourselves and others. It is incumbent upon all of us to monitor our digital identities and take appropriate action to manage them (e.g., fixing our privacy settings, using strong passwords, deleting inappropriate content, abiding by the rules of civility).
FACT 3: For most job candidates, social screening is generally a later-stage activity, depending on the recruitment processes used. Because it is resource intensive, it usually occurs when the pool of candidates has been narrowed down significantly, and often just prior to an offer. By that point the candidates have already been screened on traditional criteria (e.g., skills, experience, cultural fit) and employers are focused on identifying factors that can create significant risks for them (e.g., engaging in illegal activity, disclosing confidential information). Minor indiscretions and lapses in judgment are unlikely to impact an offer decision.
Understanding the FCRA and the FTC’s Decision
FACT 4: With respect to pre-employment background checks, the FCRA only applies to companies who are hired to conduct these checks on behalf of employers. It does not apply to employers who do their own screening or (as far as I know) third-party recruiters.
FACT 5: There was no FTC “ruling,” and it hasn’t “approved” Social Intelligence or given it “permission” to do certain things. Although Social Intelligence has always declared itself to be in compliance with the FCRA, the FTC decided to launch an investigation to determine whether that was indeed the case. In the letter discussing the conclusion of their investigation, the FTC
Nothing in the letter should be construed as an endorsement or approval.
FACT 6: The FTC’s decision only relates to Social Intelligence’s pre-employment screening activities, not its employee monitoring activities (which are likely not subject to the FCRA).
FACT 7: Here are the main compliance elements of the FCRA from a hiring perspective (click here for a fuller explication, or read the statute itself):
What does this mean for candidates?
Understanding Social Intelligence
(and similar companies that are FCRA compliant)
FACT 8: Social Intelligence’s searches are not indiscriminate, unfocused, and exhaustive; rather, they are specifically focused on criteria defined in advance by an employer, based on job-relevant and legally-defensible factors (click here for details):
FACT 9: SI does not create a database of results that can be accessed for future searches. Each social screen is conducted independently, based on a specific employer’s criteria. To comply with the FCRA, SI does keep search results for 7 years, in case of disputes and/or legal action, but that data is not available for any other purpose.
FACT 10: Though it’s easy to vilify companies like SI, the risks for both individuals and employers may be much greater when social screenings are not conducted by an FCRA-regulated third party. When employers conduct background checks on their own, there are likely to be fewer checks and balances and a much greater risk of discrimination using legally-indefensible criteria and inaccurate/unverified information. Background screening companies offer disciplined, systematic processes that insulate employers and produce relevant, verified results. In addition, from the candidate’s perspective, the process is transparent, with built-in accountability and the ability to address negative results.
CONCLUSION
Regardless of how some individuals feel about it, the practice of social screening is more likely to increase than decline. FCRA-compliant companies like SI may not offer perfect solutions, but they are a viable option for managing pre-hire employment risks, and may even provide more legally-defensible approaches that better balance the interests of both candidates and employers than employers conducting these checks on their own.
But we’re still in the early days of the Digital Era, and we’re still determining the proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals. It's incumbent upon all of us to evaluate the ramifications of digital technologies in reasoned and reasonable ways to determine where the lines should be drawn and the best ways to move forward.
Please let me know if I’ve missed or misrepresented something. I also welcome questions and encourage exploration of and reasoned debate on the subject of social screening. Thanks.
- Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD
NOTE: this post was updated to reflect the results of my email exchanges with Geoff Andrews, COO of Social Intelligence. It's also been revised to respond to some feedback I got from Chris Poirier about how the lead-in may have been a bit misleading (thanks Chris).
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I have no connection to Social Intelligence.
RELATED RESOURCES
Social Screening
Social Media and the National Labor Relations Board
Other resources
Share this post
| Sign up to receive SMinOrgs Community updates |
