Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

Don’t Just STOP SOPA: Fix It!

The issues related to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) are not as simple or black-and-white as many individuals and organizations are portraying them. There is consensus that online piracy is a problem that must be addressed, as well as general agreement that some kind of law is necessary. There are substantive – and important – differences, however, with respect to what the law should include and how it should be enforced. Rather than engendering unproductive hysteria through grand standing, dramatic (but hollow) gestures and rhetoric, leaders in both the private and public sectors would better serve their stakeholders (and themselves) by working together to develop a viable solution.

This post in the GCDEL Digital Era Thinkers Blog shares my initial formal thoughts on all the SOPA hullabaloo that's been brewing and erupted yesterday. Since so many people are posting anti-SOPA sentiments, I wanted to offer a different point of view. I will write a follow-up Digital Era Food for Thought post as well.

Click here to read the complete post.

via www.gcdel.org

Can We be Friends? In Cyberspace, “No” May be the Right Answer

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:

• Missouri Bans Students and Teachers from being Facebook Friends
• New Law Says NO to Teachers Friending Students on Social Networks
• Missouri Outlaws Student-Teacher Facebook Friendship
• Social Media Between Students and Teachers Restricted in Missouri
• Should Teachers Be Allowed To 'Socialize' With Students After School?
• Why Missouri's Ban on Teacher-Student Facebook Friendships Is Doomed

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:

• The law requires school systems to create (or update) their communications policies; it does not directly prohibit or restrict interactions between adults and students via digital channels.
• The new/revised policies must address all forms of communication, not just digital communications. I suspect digital communications are highlighted because they're relatively new, and - more importantly - because they can escalate and intensify much more quickly than other means.
• The law defines a minimum standard for the policies, which allows the school systems to create more restrictive rules if they choose.
• The key term in the minimum standard seems to be "exclusive access," which is defined to be only between the student and the teacher (for example). If the communication is accessible by a parent, guardian, and/or administrator, it may be permissible (depending on the policies developed by each school system).

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.

• Pages: Teachers can set up fan pages in which they share relevant information and interact with students, but the communications are limited in three key ways:
  • Teachers can’t compel students to like their pages.
  • All pages are public by definition, which can have a chilling effect on students. More importantly, they can create unnecessary risk and exposure for minor children.
  • Teachers cannot message students as a group.
• Groups: Teachers can establish groups for specific courses, and communicate with students through them.* Although groups can be set up to be semi-private (i.e., visible only to group members) and allow teachers to message all group members directly, they can still have a chilling effect on students. In addition, because they are unofficial and operate outside a school’s firewall and policies (possibly), they can still create risks for both teachers and students.
• Messaging: It is possible for teachers and students to message each other through Facebook, but both parties must have their profiles set up properly; access is not automatic. Alternatively, teachers may be able to email students via their Facebook email addresses using their own school email accounts, if they know the correct email address to use. As with groups, however, if these communications take place outside the school’s systems, that can create risks.

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:

• Enable organizations to create a digital community/space to correspond with their physical community/space. Rather than having relevant digital interactions spread out through a variety of channels, they can be contained in a shared space.
• Can be designed to allow all stakeholders to congregate and interact in the shared space. With respect to a school, for example, PDNs can include not just teachers/staff and students, but also parents and volunteers.
• Create and respect proper boundaries between personal and professional interactions, as well as specific interaction contexts.
• Allow organizationally-related interactions to occur in an official, sanctioned, private environment.
• Promotes better communication and collaboration all relevant stakeholders by enabling them to interact in various ways (e.g., wikis, blogs, chats, forums) in addition to direct messaging.
• Maximizes flexibility for both individuals and the organization, in addition to offering more control over the digital platform through which community members interact.

 

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

Social Media and Recruiting 101: Overview and Recommendations

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

• Overview: Employers can use social networking platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter) and digital communities (e.g., talent communities) to share information about their organizations as well as career opportunities, specific jobs, etc.  Objectives include enhancing employer branding, offering realistic job and culture previews, sharing job postings, and developing a pipeline of potential candidates. Third-party recruiters can also use these networks to identify candidates for the positions they’re trying to help their clients fill.
• Job types: All. Different platforms may be used for different job types (e.g.,  retail, IT) and to target different groups (e.g., recent college grads, experienced candidates).
• Initiators: Internal HR/recruiting staff, hiring managers, third-party recruiters, and maybe external communicators like marketing.
• Process: Information sharing and interactions are usually handled individually, to reinforce the human element, but some aspects can be automated (e.g., announcing new jobs via Twitter using a tool like HootSuite).
• Recommendations for employers: Resist the urge to casually “check out” people who’ve connected with your organization on public social networks, especially if they’re likely to become candidates. Although managing their digital identities and privacy settings is their responsibility, the risk and responsibility shifts to the employer once representatives start to dig deeper into an individual’s activity. Employer representatives should also resist the urge to connect with candidates individually via personal social networks like Facebook or even Twitter. Professional connections via a network like LinkedIn are generally acceptable, but even those connections should be made with care, especially by internal recruiters.

 

Social Sourcing

• Overview: Employers and third-party recruiters can search the internet and/or social networking platforms (e.g., LinkedIn) using specific key words (e.g., accountant, CPA, joint venture, Brazil) to find individuals who meet pre-defined job criteria, regardless of whether they are currently on the job market.
• Job types: Generally hard-to-fill positions, or those for whom the candidate pool is fairly small.
• Initiators: Internal HR/recruiting staff, hiring managers, and third-party recruiters.
• Process: The searches are often conducted manually, but they can be automated or facilitated by software (e.g., a tool like eGrabber).
• Recommendations for employers: On any site that’s professionally oriented (e.g., a blog by an IT professional about cyber security), the content is likely to be fair game, but on sites that are likely to contain personal content (e.g., Facebook), sourcers should conduct searches only if they’re vital to filling the position and are focused on job relevant information. As with social recruiting generally, sourcers should limit their review of the digital activity they discover and should avoid connecting with candidates on personally-oriented networks.

 

Social Referrals

• Overview: Usually in conjunction with an employee referral program, current staff are encouraged and/or given incentives to share job opportunities with their social networks and refer potential candidates for specific jobs.
• Job types: Can be any.
• Initiators: Any current employee.
• Process: The referrals can be made using individual communication channels (e.g., email) or facilitated by software (e.g., tools like those offered by Jobvite and SelectMinds).
• Recommendations for employers: Make sure employees understand the practice is optional. If sharing is done manually, provide clear guidance regarding preferred channels, timing, presentation, etc. If a referral tool is used, employers should reinforce that using it doesn’t compromise any privacy settings they may have on their personal social networks, or the privacy of their connections.

 

Social Selection

• Overview: The quantity and quality of a candidate’s digital engagement are evaluated based on his/her public activity.
• Job types: Those for which digital engagement is relevant (e.g., marketing, communications, business development, some IT and HR positions).
• Initiators: Internal HR/recruiting staff, hiring managers, and third-party recruiters.
• Process: The searches are usually conducted manually, based on information and links provided by candidates.
• Recommendations for employers: As I discussed in the original white paper and reiterated above, job relevance is the critical factor in determining whether to engage in social selection. The nature of the engagement that is relevant to the position should be clearly defined in advance, and the review should be based on information provided by the candidates. Employers should resist the urge to conduct independent searches. Sound criteria for evaluating the engagement should be developed in advance and consistently applied across all candidates.

 

Social Screening

• Overview: Once the pool has been narrowed and the final candidates identified, a search of their public activity in cyberspace can be conducted to reveal any potential risks they may create for the employer.
• Job types: Can be any.
• Initiators: Internal staff who are not involved in the hiring decision, or a third-party service provider (which invokes the FCRA).
• Process: The searches can be conducted manually or via software algorithms (e.g., the proprietary method employed by Social Intelligence).
• Recommendations for employers: Generally speaking, this process should not be conducted by a hiring manager or someone involved in making the final decision. If an employer is going to do the searches in house, they should designate an independent group to conduct the searches and evaluate the results. The searches should focus ONLY on publicly available information. Employers should NOT ask candidates for their login credentials for their social networking accounts or ask them to log in during an interview and share their activity in person. For a host of reasons, which I articulated in my previous post, it may be better to use an FCRA-compliant third-party screening service and incorporate social screening into the regular background checking process. Even if a third party is not used, employers should provide candidates with advance notice and have them formally agree to the search. They should also consider creating a process for verifying negative results and giving candidates an opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken. 

 

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:

• Remember that you are always on the job market, even when you’re gainfully employed with no intention of leaving. Especially if you have a unique set of skills that are in high demand, you are always fair game as a passive candidate. And as many people can attest, you can involuntarily become an active candidate at any time.
• Do not provide a prospective employer your login credentials for any of your social networking sites. The only activity they should be concerned with is that which is publicly available. If they wouldn’t expect unfettered access to your home, photo albums, personal correspondence and diary, they don’t need to see your private digital activity.
• Similarly, you should respectfully decline to log in during an interview and share your activity in person. Even if you are willing to share your accounts with them, the people in your networks haven’t agreed to have you share information about them without their knowledge/consent. With your social networking activity, it’s not just your privacy that’s at stake.
• Don’t connect with people from prospective employers/recruiters on your personal social networks. For that matter, you should limit your personal connections with any people you only/primarily know professionally (e.g., bosses, colleagues, clients). It’s best to have a high threshold for allowing a professional connection to become a personal one.

 

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.

Social Screening of Job Candidates: Focusing on the Facts

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:

• How Embarrassing/Job-Threatening Facebook Photos Are Part Of Your Job Application (Forbes)
• Social Intelligence Corporation Can Keep Your Social Trail for 7 Years (Social Media Today)
• Background Check Companies Scrutinize Your Online Presence (Tech Republic)
• Social Media History Becomes a New Job Hurdle (New York Times)
• Your Employer Knows Everything (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

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

• Indicated that SI does meet the definition of a “consumer reporting agency” and is therefore subject to the FCRA;
• Asserted that they found no evidence that SI was noncompliant with the FCRA; and
• Concluded that “no further action is warranted at this time” while reserving “the right to take further action as the public interest may require.”

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):

• Job candidates must formally agree (i.e., in writing) to a background check in advance.
• If any negative information is found, the third party must undertake steps to ensure its accuracy.
• If an employer intends to take an adverse action against a candidate based on negative information that’s been discovered, it must provide the candidate with a copy of the third-party’s report, along with a statement of his/her FCRA rights, and allow the candidate to respond and/or dispute the decision.
• Any information that is determined to be false after the fact must be deleted from the search records and the report.

What does this mean for candidates?

• They’re given fair warning that a prospective employer is going to conduct a digital search, which gives them plenty of opportunity to conduct their own digital searches for publicly-available information to see what information/activity might be attached to them.
• If the official search produces negative information that they believe is false or misleading, they have the right and the opportunity to address those findings. There’s also a well-defined dispute resolution process they can follow if an employer decides to take an adverse action that they believe to be unfair.

 

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):

• SI only searches for PUBLICLY available information. They do not access information that is private (e.g., password protected and/or not generally available on the internet).
• Information that doesn’t correspond with the pre-defined criteria are removed from the search results, as is information that is legally protected at both the federal (e.g., gender, age, religion) and state (e.g., sexual orientation) levels.
• Although initial sweeps are automated, negative results are carefully screened by human beings and verified to ensure their accuracy before being included in a report.
• In conducting their searches, SI can only go back 7 years, per the FCRA. Any information they find that's older than 7 years is not included in their results.

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

Social Media and the National Labor Relations Board

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

Other resources

• Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient
• Social Media Data Ownership: Recommendations for Employers
• More Nominees for the Digital Hall of Shame – and How to Avoid Becoming One Yourself
• Social Media and Human Capital Management: Resources for HR and Other Leaders

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

 

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 Experts: Yes, they Exist. Yes, You Should Hire Them. But Do Your Due Diligence.

This post is a response to the criticisms Peter Shankman made in his recent diatribe against “social media experts.” It offers a different perspective on his arguments, articulates the need for social media expertise, and provides guidance for hiring individuals and organizations (consultants, contractors, and employees) to help with social media initiatives.

 ===//===

A couple of weeks ago, Peter Shankman (PS) wrote a dramatic post decrying what he considered misplaced emphasis on “social media experts.” His commentary generated lots of cyberheat, with high levels of sharing and prolific, passionate responses in the form of both amens and eyerolls. Here are links to the two primary copies of Peter’s post, along with a few key metrics as of May 29, 2011:

• I Will Never Hire a “Social Media Expert,” and Neither Should You (on Shankman.com)
  • Shares: Almost 2,000
  • Facebook likes: 2,000
  • Comments: Over 300
• Why I Will Never, Ever Hire A "Social Media Expert" (on Business Insider)
  • Reads: Over 200,000
  • Shares: Almost 13,000
  • Facebook  likes: 11,000
  • Comments: Almost 600

Obviously, he struck a nerve. Perhaps tiring of social media mania, the commensurate bandwagon effect, and the proliferation of hucksters selling “snake oil,” many people appreciated his speaking the “truth” as they saw it. But because the aspersions he cast seemed to disparage all social media professionals, many people took umbrage.

Shankman’s latest salvo wasn’t the first time the “social media expert” question has been raised. People have been engaged in the debate on-and-off for several years. Peter himself co-wrote a similar post back in 2009, and a month or so ago Paul Segreto started a comparable discussion in the Social Media Today LinkedIn (SMT LI) group (which, with its thoughtful commentary and useful resources, offers a reasoned, civil discourse that stands in stark contrast to Peter’s post and the comments it inspired/provoked).

 

Methinks They Doth Protest Too Much

It seems PS was trying to be deliberately provocative to make a point, but in his responses to the comments and questions on his own blog, he stuck by the tenor of his post and his dramatic declarations. Given that he chose to take such an extreme stand, I couldn’t help but notice several ironies in his harangue, as well as many of the supportive comments he received:

• Shankman himself is often referred to as a “social media expert,” and his professional success is due in large part to his social media expertise (see the bio page on his website for details, or search on his name).
• PS advocates transparency but didn’t practice it in this post. Because he’s a “rock star,” he may assume people know his social media history, but he probably should have offered some kind of disclosure to help readers put his comments in perspective.
• Many members of the “amen chorus” make their living by selling their social media expertise and/or by leveraging social media technologies. Few if any of them are buyers. In fact…
• The people most likely to need/hire a social media expert – the rookie majority – will never read these posts. Most will never even know they exist.
• PS demonstrates the limits of his own expertise by confounding the underlying technologies (social media) with one of their applications (marketing). He writes, “social media is just another facet of marketing and customer service.” In reality, social media is much more than that, and its potential applications go beyond not just marketing and customer service, but other external applications including public relations and sales (see Part 2 of the Social Media Primer, updated here, for details).
• Peter (implicitly) advocates humility, and listening and empathy, but the post demonstrates little of any of these.

Provocations and ironies not withstanding, PS is right that too many people convey false impressions of their social media expertise, presenting their knowledge and skills as being more comprehensive and/or in-depth than they are. I regularly encounter people who are

• Overly enthusiastic about new digital technologies;
• Lacking depth of understanding of today’s technological changes and their implications;
• Content to think in narrow, shallow and simplistic terms;
• Too eager to follow fads and try/promote every new thing that comes along; and
• More tactical than strategic.

But most of the advocates I’ve observed and interacted with do understand the rules of the game have changed and that social media is not about putting old wine in new bottles (see this post for more of my thoughts on that). Plus, I don’t know very many people who label themselves as experts and/or claim to ONLY be social media experts.

In fact, it’s the quite the opposite: many people who are deserving of the “expert” label demur and/or avoid it because of negative connotations. “Expert” has become a four-letter word, especially in the context of social media and other new digital technologies. The collective consciousness has decided that we need to hold social media to a higher standard than other professions, functions, and areas of expertise, offering arguments such as:

• It’s too new. False. The underlying technologies have been around for almost 20 years, longer if you consider some of their digital precursors. And the core characteristics – such as user-generated content and social sharing – date back to our earliest days on the planet.
• Things change too much and too often. That’s true, but the truth isn’t unique to this set of technologies and/or related disciplines. Professionals in many areas will quickly attest to the dynamism in their own fields, companies, and industries.
• Only a small elite can claim expert status. If we define expert in very narrow terms as a pinnacle achievement, then yes, only a few people can claim it. But if you look up the definition of the term and rely on its denotation, you’ll find it applies to a much broader group of people. Plus, I think it’s important to recognize that it’s a relative, as well as absolute, label. I may know a lot about employment law, for example, but I would defer to a labor law attorney as an expert in the field.
• It’s not just about the tools. Of course it’s not, but understanding how the technologies, tools, and platforms are used is critically important to success in using them. There are countless people who are “experts” in their core disciplines but would fail miserably in 2.0 spaces because of their lack of social media expertise. More on that in the next section.

More often than not, when people make sneering references to social media experts and/or disdain the use of the term, what they’re referring to is the proliferation of charlatans in response to the dramatic growth of digital social media in the past few years. This proliferation may be unfortunate, but it’s hardly surprising and hardly unique to the Digital Era. Charlatans, swindlers, hustlers, hucksters, quacks, frauds, snake oil salesmen, and mountebanks are endemic to the human condition.

But swindlers and fakes prevail because buyers are too eager to find a quick fix, a silver bullet, a simple, one-size-fits-all solution. In their efforts to delegate and/or outsource, they often end up abdicating their own responsibilities to themselves and their organization’s stakeholders. Both in Shankman’s post and in most of the comments I read, I saw very little discussion of the ways in which buyers and social media rookies have contributed to the problems they perceive. But I’ve noticed that as more organizations explore social media’s potential, there’s been an increase in attempts to (mis)apply 1.0 approaches in 2.0 spaces. I also regularly have discussions with prospects who politely listen to my best practices suggestions but are inclined to ignore them. I may be able to convince them I’m right, or I might choose not to work with them, but I can imagine many social media professionals who would accommodate their wishes due to a lack of confidence, lack of power, and/or financial pressures - not just lack of expertise.

 

The Need for Social Media Expertise

Regardless of whether we use the “expert” label, there are many reasons why organizations should invest in people with social media expertise:

• The road to social media hell is paved with ignorance. Cyberspace abounds with stories of social media failures, often by people who should have known better: experienced journalists and public relations professionals who “tweeted without thinking;” a CEO who set up a fake blog to disparage a competitor; a teacher who blogged disparagingly about her students; community managers who fanned the flames of a Facebook attack; marketers and advertisers who underestimated the social media backlash to their companies’ campaigns or actions, or who created fake social media-based commercials and/or endorsements; human resources and legal professionals who developed overly-broad social media policies; hiring managers who engaged in unethical practices using social media. I could go on, but the point is that contrary to Shankman’s core argument, social media isn’t “just” anything. Yes, it’s a set of tools and technologies, but it’s a very powerful set that can cause significant harm if used incorrectly! Rather than using a hammer to extend the tool analogy people often use, it’s much more accurate to refer to tools like chainsaws and tablesaws. Or to refer back to Peter’s analogy, it’s not about arrows or a quiver, it’s about flamethrowers and heat-seeking missiles.
• Simple doesn’t mean easy. It takes less than a minute to set up a Twitter account. And perhaps another few seconds to send the first “is this thing on?” tweet. But the simplicity of the user interface hardly ensures one’s effectiveness in using the channel. There’s a new language and norms to learn, as well as hazards and mistakes to avoid. The same is true for other public platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Flickr, and tools like blogging and wikis and videocasts and podcasts. Social media rookies regularly underestimate them, often to their own detriment.
• Strategy trumps tactics. The ways in which an individual or organization can leverage social media are virtually limitless, but the ways in which they should leverage the technologies need to be driven by goals and objectives, industry and stakeholder characteristics, and a host of other factors, including a sophisticated understanding of whether and how social media would be more effective than traditional tools.
• Change is hard. For most rookies – including organizational leaders – social media is threatening, intimidating and discomfiting. Bringing about the necessary changes to leverage social media successfully requires in-depth understanding of the technologies and their applications and implications, as well as the ability to translate that understanding into language lay people can understand and the ability to help them connect the dots.
• Even when it’s your mountain to climb, having a Sherpa can help. I’ve been immersed in social media for over two years, not just as a practitioner, but as a student and teacher. I can say with confidence that it’s impossible for someone just getting started to quickly match the knowledge, skills, and understanding of someone who’s been intimately involved with new digital technologies for some time. More importantly, these “experts” can help rookies climb their learning curves more efficiently and effectively and provide guidance to increase the likelihood of success and minimize the risks of failure.

It’s important to recognize that there is no single definition of expertise and no “one-size-fits-all” model to leveraging that expertise. The most appropriate expert for a given purpose in a particular organization will depend on factors like the organization’s:

• Strategic goals and objectives, both short term and longer term
• Industry and client characteristics
• Level  of technological sophistication
• Financial resources
• Employee skill levels and capacity

In his excellent response to Shankman’s post, Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz provides a chart that offers a nice starting point for understanding different levels of social media expertise. I would argue that we can distinguish different levels of social media professionals the same way we might professionals in other functional areas: coordinators, analysts, managers, designers, planners, strategists, and advisors.

 

Hiring Due Diligence

Generally speaking, an organization’s approach to hiring social media professionals should be the same as the approach it would use to hire professionals in other disciplines like accounting, finance, law, human resources – and yes, marketing too. Hiring best practices dictate that buyers should engage in the necessary due diligence to ensure:

• They avoid charlatans who claim to have expertise they don’t really possess.
• The people they hire have the social media know-how they need.
• Social media expertise is complemented by other relevant expertise, including
  • Specific functional areas (i.e., marketing, human resources, knowledge management, project management)
  • Skill sets (e.g., writing ability, community management)
  • Industries (healthcare, non-profit, consumer products, manufacturing)

This due diligence is necessary whether an organization is hiring a consultant to provide advice and counsel, an individual or firm to outsource work to, or an employee.

Here are some questions buyers can ask during the interview process (and what to look for in their answers):

• Q: How would you define or describe social media to a novice?
  • A: Can they describe the underlying technologies – not just the most popular platforms – in easy-to-understand terms?
• Q: What are the main public social media platforms and tools? What are some I may not have heard of?
  • A: Can they name platforms besides LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube?
  • A:  Are they familiar with less well-known sites like those I include in the Social Media Quotient (SMQ) Quiz, and tools like HootSuite and NetVibes?
• Q: How would you describe (pick a platform) to me? Does that platform make sense for our organization to use? Why or why not? What platforms should we be using and why?
  • A: Can they provide a cogent assessment of what tools are best for your organization and why
• Q: How long have you been using social media and in what capacities? What have you learned from your experiences?
  • A: Have they been intimately involved in creating and/or managing a digital presence, either for themselves or an organization?
  • A: Can they describe their own growth and development, recognize their increasing sophistication, and acknowledge they’re still learning?
• Q: Tell me about some social media failures and mistakes (either yours or others). What can we learn from them?
  • A: Can they quickly provide examples?
  • A: Can they explain what happened and how the mistake reflects the risks and hazards of social media?
  • A: Can they identify the best ways to respond to and/or prevent these problems?
• Q: How would you measure social media success in our organization?
  • A: Are they able to put common metrics (e.g., number of followers/fans, Klout scores) in proper perspective?
  • A: Can they describe the differences between short- and long-term measures of success?
  • A: Do they talk about alternative measures for evaluating success (e.g., relative improvements over time)
• Q: What are your go-to resources for social media? What books, bloggers, and/or websites do you like best?
  • A: Do they recognize they’re still learning and that staying current via reading (not just doing) is critical?
  • A: Can they quickly rattle off resources in each category?

The specific questions buyers should use will depend on the type and level of expertise they’re looking for. Buyers don’t need to know the answers to these questions themselves to judge the responses effectively. What they should look for is how the candidate responds, the same way they would for other technical jobs they may not completely understand. In addition to the tips above, here are a few general things to look for:

• Tempered rather than unabashed enthusiasm for new technologies
• Recognition of how different technologies can be used to meet goals and objectives and the importance of integrating them with other initiatives
• Respect rather than disdain for social media rookies
• Understanding of the challenges to social media success (e.g., resistance to change, political issues, resource constraints)
• Lessons learned from experience (theirs or others), as well as recognition of the need and a commitment to continuous learning.

 

Conclusion

Once again, a post I intended to be a brief treatment on a topic ends up as a treatise! But once again, believe it or not, I’ve only skimmed the surface. As always, I invite people to raise questions and offer additional insights and resources. More guidance on assessing and hiring social media experts would be particularly useful for social media rookies. Thanks!

-  Courtney Hunt

 

Is the NLRB Turning up the “Social Media Heat” too High? No… Not Yet

Recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) offer additional insights into their position and intended actions with respect to employer social media policies and provide additional impetus for employers to ensure their policies enable them to manage Digital Era risks appropriately.

 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the independent federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), has been pursuing a pretty aggressive agenda in recent months, and it shows no signs of slowing down. A key focus of their recent activity has been employer social media policies and related disciplinary actions.

I’ve previously written about the “Facebook firing” case, which created a lot of buzz after it was first filed last fall, and continues to be a matter of concern to employers and attorneys practicing employment law. Last month a new case hit the headlines, when the New York Times (NYT) reported that the NLRB planned to file a complaint against Thompson-Reuters for its response to a tweet from an employee.

 

The Thomson-Reuters Twitter Case

Here are the basic facts of the case, from the NYT article and this piece from The Wall and this Poynter post:

• A Reuters supervisor (Managing Editor Betty Wong?) invited employees to share their thoughts about how to make Reuters a better place to work via Twitter.
• In response, Deborah Zabarenko, the head of the Newspaper Guild (a union) at Reuters, tweeted:  “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members.”
• Zabarenko received a phone call the next day from the bureau chief, who allegedly told her that her tweet was in violation of a company policy that prohibited saying anything that would “damage the reputation of Reuters News or Thomson Reuters.”

In the she said/they said that followed:

• Zabarenko stated in an interview that when the bureau chief called her, “I felt kind of threatened. I thought it was some kind of intimidation.”
• Reuters indicated they were surprised by the complaint because there was no disciplinary action against Zabarenko, and their social media policy was “straightforward” and similar to those at other organizations.
• NLRB’s position is that the supervisor’s “reprimand,” and the policy on which it was based, violated the NLRA by prohibiting Zabarenko from criticizing management and discussing working conditions.

As a non-attorney business person with expertise in human capital management, there are four key considerations for putting this case in its proper perspective:

• Context is important.  This case didn’t come out of the blue. The Guild and Reuters have been in negotiations since the old contract expired over two years ago, and they have been at a virtual stalemate for over a year. There has been a fair bit of acrimony and accusations of unfair dealings for a while, and Zabarenko’s tweet likely reflected that. The NLRB was planning to include it in its complaint against Reuters, but it wasn’t the entire basis for their complaint.
• The law on protected speech is pretty clear. One could argue that Zabarenko’s tweet showed poor judgment, but her actions were still protected by law. This is especially true given that input was solicited by management and her comment was made in a forum that could have easily generated responses from co-workers about working conditions.
• Reuters management overreacted. Some people, like Brian Hall in this post, think Reuters overrected, causing more damage to their brand than Zabarenko’s tweet could have done by itself. According to my review of Zabarenko’s original Twitter account, which only has 31 followers, that’s likely true. Even her new account only has 340 followers. And Could the tweet have gone viral? Maybe. But nothing in her profile or the tweet drew a clear connection to Reuters, so it’s highly unlikely.
• But that wasn’t Reuter’s first mistake. As Gordon MacMillan implies in his assessment of the case, Reuter’s decision to use a public platform like Twitter to discuss essentially private employment matters is questionable at best (and curiously, the @Destination RTRS account no longer exists…). I discuss this faux pas in my post on Twitter “worst practices” (it’s #8).

Recently Reuters and the Guild settled their differences and came up with a tentative agreement (click here for details). As in the “Facebook firing” case, part of the settlement was an agreement by Reuters to “negotiate a new social media policy that would include language protecting employees’ speech and right to engage in other concerted activity about working conditions, as provided under US federal law” (click here to access Reuter’s current policy).

 

What Else is on NLRB’s Agenda?

At the end of April, Jonathan Kreisberg , the NLRB’s Hartford Regional Director, spoke on a panel for the Connecticut Bar Association. Blog reports from Philip Gordon of Littler-Mendelson and Daniel A. Schwartz of Pullman & Comley, do a nice job of summarizing Kreisberg’s comments and the handouts he shared, which provide several insights into the Board’s intentions. Here are my take-aways from their assessments:

• The NLRB’s definition of “protected concerted activity” is pretty broad.
• They are continuing to pursue other cases involving social media, and their perspective on the ways in which “protected concerted activity” can manifest itself seems to be similarly broad.
• Policy disclaimers can be useful in managing risks related to potential NLRA violations, but there’s no “one size fits all” approach to what those disclaimers should say or how they should be incorporated.
• The NLRB is undertaking an effort to reverse its December 2007 decision in the Register Guard case, which allowed employers to place broad limits on the use of email for “non-business” purposes. The reversal of this decision could have implications for employee use of social media.
• Signaling the importance of social media cases to the NLRB, the Office of the General Counsel has included them on the list of issues that require his approval.

 

What does this Mean for Employers?

Given the history of animosity between labor and management, and particularly in light of the dramatic conflicts that are taking place this year (e.g., battles in states like Wisconsin and Ohio over public sector unions, the ongoing rift between NFL owners and players), it may be tempting to blow the NLRB’s actions out of proportion. But from my perspective, their targets so far have been easy marks and the issues, once understood, are not particularly murky.

Here are my basic recommendations for employers who want to steer clear of trouble with the NLRB and avoid violations of the NLRA (real or perceived):

• Don’t assume that because you don’t have any union employees the NLRA doesn’t apply to you. It applies to both union and non-union employers.
• If you have a social media policy, make sure it’s not overly broad. More specifically, do not let your efforts to protect your company brand and reputation effectively prohibit employees from discussing working conditions.
• If you don’t have a social media policy, you need to develop one. As I state in this blog post, if you employee people, you should have a social media policy. More importantly, you need to review/revise ALL your policies to ensure they enable you to manage Digital Era risks appropriately.
• Communication, training, and sound discipline practices are critical. Once your policies are updated, you need to communicate them clearly to employees and provide training to be sure they’re fully understood. Managers should be given separate training so they understand the right ways to handle challenges and issues that may arise and are able to provide appropriate discipline when necessary.

Though it may not seem like it, the NLRB is actually doing employers a favor with these cases by providing additional impetus for them to do something they should be doing anyway. The cases are effectively a shot across the bow, giving fair warning about the NLRB’s position and their expectations, which are not that difficult to accommodate. That may not continue to be the case, of course, so their actions bear continued monitoring. Of particular interest is any effort the NLRB may make to reverse its position in this December 2009 Advice Memorandum regarding Sears Holdings’ social media policies, as well as its actions with respect to the Register Guard case mentioned previously.

To learn more about social media policies and how to manage Digital Era risks, please read, “Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient.” And feel free to contact me if I can help you in any way.

-Courtney Hunt

 

Social Media and Human Capital Management: Resources for HR and Other Leaders

SMinOrgs Founder Courtney Shelton Hunt has created a number of resources that address some of the connections between social media and the management of human capital in organizations. Listed below are links to the pieces available as of March 2011, organized by primary topic. 

 

Human Resources Applications

• Social Media Primer (Part 2): The Juggernaut is Bigger than You Think
• Social Media Primer (Parts 1 & 2 updated): Revisiting the Fire & the Juggernaut

Human Capital Management Considerations

• Social Media Primer (Part 6): Human Capital Management Challenges
• Managing Human Capital in the 2.0 Era
• Social Media and Integrated Talent Management: Opportunities & Challenges

Recruiting Considerations

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

Legal/Policy Challenges

• Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient
• The NLRB “Facebook Settlement:” Let’s Focus on the Facts (follow up to earlier post: The NLRB's Recent Action: Separating Fact from Fiction - and Unfounded Fear)

New content gets added to the Community regularly, and human capital management (HCM) is a primary area of focus. You can stay current by joining us on one of our platforms (see links in the left-hand column of our website) and/or subscribing to the SMinOrgs S.M.A.R.T. Blog.

Leaders who want to increase their understanding of social media and its implications and determine the best way to provide direction for their organizations should also check out the SMinOrgs Social Media Primer.

Embedded below is a flyer that lists the pieces available as of March 2011. Downloading the flyer from SlideShare will activate all the hyperlinks.

Through her consultancy, Renaissance Strategic Solutions (RSS), Courtney Hunt can help your organization meet its social media challenges. Visit the RSS services page to learn more and contact her for a free consultation.

If there is a specific social media topic you'd like to see addressed in greater depth via SMinOrgs, and/or you'd like to suggest addtional HCM-focused resources, please let us know.

Click here to access the email blast associated with this post.

 

SMinOrgs Social Media HCM flyer 03 15-11

View more documents from Courtney Hunt