In this week’s readings, we learn that organizations and individuals must strike a delicate balance between setting overly restrictive—even ultimately illegal—social media policies, and leaving themselves open to numerous dangers in the social media world. Dangers include loss of proprietary or personal information, damage to reputation by disgruntled individuals, and criminal predators.
Perhaps the single best way to handle social media policy is to allow it to reflect a broader overall conduct policy. Scott (2015) says in his book “The New Rules of Marketing and PR,” “Work with your managers and your organization’s legal team (and perhaps the human resources department as well) to create guidelines that you can operate under. Your company’s guidelines should include advice about how to communicate in any medium, including face-to-face conversations, presentations at events, email, social media, online forums and chat rooms, and other forms of communication” (pg. 413).
In human terms, if you wouldn’t say it to your CEO in person, don’t post it on Facebook. If you wouldn’t leave your purse full of cash in an unlocked car with the windows open, don’t leave a trail of personal information that can be compiled and used to steal your identity online. Setting broad policies that deal with conduct overall also helps avoid potential legal battles in terms of workers’ rights to free speech—as well discussed in the 2012 National Law Review pieces we read this week.
The ways in which we can think about navigating social media so that we protect individuals and organizations are well illustrated in Tracy Mitrano’s (2006) example about sending her child off to camp with the advice to “maintain personal safety; explore all the opportunities the camp had to offer; and remember the golden rule—treat others how you want to be treated.” She then offered this: “The essence of this message is as relevant to students using Facebook, other social networking technologies, and the Internet as it is for my boy attending summer camp. Might not the same three principles serve national law and policy on communications technologies as well? Criminals will always appropriate technology for their misbegotten purposes. That pattern, as old as civilization itself, is no reason to quash innovation. Why deprive law-abiding people of socially advantageous uses of technology? Law enforcement must get smarter, on a continuing basis, about investigating the criminal uses of technology, but no new legislation may even be needed” (Mitrano, 2006).
As a news reporter/anchor, I (Allison} have to watch what I write on social media, how I write it, and always maintain a level of privacy. It’s difficult, at times, to strike a balance of being open with people, but also remembering to think about safety and how my words could influence others. I want to be open and free with all thoughts, but at the same time I know I am a “public figure.” I always stay appropriate, polite, and never negative, plus I stay me and who I am when I am on social media!
Also, my company expects more from us and has rules in place if we do not follow “camp” guidelines. My company only wants us to represent ourselves and the company in a positive light. Almost every company I have worked for has a social media policy. Broad and vague at times. All have one goal: to make sure we are being appropriate.
Not all employees agree with social media guidelines. Though we do have our free time and our right to free speech (and non-work sanctioned accounts), do we still have to think about our employer in our off time? More importantly, our security and safety?
In a recent Rolling Stone article, 6 HSBC employees this past summer were fired for posting on Instagram a mock ISIS beheading. Interestingly, those fired pointed out, “In their defense, the video was reportedly made during a work-sponsored team-building exercise” (Halper, 2015). This is probably something, obviously, the company didn’t look upon to fondly.
In a recent Rolling Stone article, 6 HSBC employees this past summer were fired for posting on Instagram a mock ISIS beheading. Interestingly, those fired pointed out, “In their defense, the video was reportedly made during a work-sponsored team-building exercise” (Halper, 2015). This is probably something, obviously, the company didn’t look upon to fondly.
There is also the prison guard in Maryland who posted this on his social media accounts and tagged his boss and the place he works, “Visiting the prisons... haven't been groped this much since the flight on the honeymoon... and this is just the guards” (Halper, 2015). His boss told him to remove the post and he was fired.
While frowned upon on many levels, do you think, on your personal accounts, you need to think about your employer? Were these people appropriate in their posts? Should companies be able to take action?
I wonder what rules HSBC and the prison’s rules were as it pertains to social media?
Does your company have any social media policies? If so, what are they and how do you think they aim to keep the company safe and their employees safe?
Does your company have any social media policies? If so, what are they and how do you think they aim to keep the company safe and their employees safe?
References
Halper, K. (2015, July 13). A Brief History of People Getting Fired for Social Media Stupidity. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/a-brief-history-of-people-getting-fired-for-social-media-stupidity-20150713
Mitrano, N. (1 January 2006). A wider world: youth, privacy, and social networking technologies. Educause Review. Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/a-wider-world-youth-privacy-and-social-networking-technologies
Scott, D. M. (2015). The new rules of marketing and PR. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
