I have been working on creating a set of social media guidelines for a corporation, and as a result, I am examining social media policies across the business spectrum. They range widely in quality, from the relatively liberal policy at Intel to the draconian Associated Press policy that not only demands that you watch what you say on social media, but asks that you also delete any postings by friends that may violate the policy. As a general rule, I have found that the existing social media policies address two areas: First, guidelines for what to do when you are representing the company in an official capacity, such as blogging on a corporate website, and second, guidelines for personal social media activities such as facebook, blogging, etc.
It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact in the best interest of all involved, to have a clear policy for how to behave when blogging on a company website, tweeting using a company twitter account, or posting on a company Facebook page. These are clearly all actions that you perform as a direct result of your employment with the company and the company has every right to tell you how to behave. Where I have a problem is when these policies attempt to dictate what you can and can’t do on a personal blog, website, social networking site, twitter account, etc. I am pretty sure that the company does not own its employees, as I recall there is a Constitutional Amendment that makes that illegal.
Even Intel, which many see as an example of a progressive company when it comes to employee participation in social media, includes the following in their social media policy:
If you publish to a website outside Intel, please use a disclaimer something like this: “The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Intel’s positions, strategies, or opinions.”
I cannot accept their requirement that employees, on sites that the employees own and operate, take time and energy to put up a disclaimer at Intel’s command. If this is the way Intel views their total hegemony over their employees’ lives, what is to prevent them from demanding that employees post signs at their doors stating “The opinions shared over beers and hot dogs at backyard barbecues are not those of Intel” or, even worse, would Intel forbid their employees from, in their personal capacity, writing letters to the editor about controversial topics such as gay marriage or abortion?
I think this is a classic case of discrimination against new media. Yes, new media and user-generated content can allow ideas to spread more quickly to a wider audience, but it is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Employees are people with opinions. Whether they express those opinions at a condo association meeting, church prayer group, family picnic, or on a blog, employees have a right to express themselves without the need for an imprimatur from their company’s legal department.
Bravo. Were is the line drawn? I think companies just need to get over themselves.
Two great examples at the end, letters to the editor and chatting over dinner. The Intel temple while it makes sense, would mostly seem to draw attention to the fact that this person works at Intel, which may not be obvious in any other way. … The disclaimer at the end of biz-related individual posts would seem like a good idea, however.
Mentioning your company frequently on your own blog would seem like a bad idea in any case. Develop initials or a different name for it. Why? Of course, because of SEO. Sure it may not matter at a huge company such as Intel, but if you work at the coffee shop down the street (or whatever) and your posts about the clientele are the first to come up – not smart.
temple = template, ironically doh!
Great post! Hopefully these companies get over their fear soon.
Temple- You have a point about constantly referring to one’s employer in blog posts, and expecting people not to connect you with them in some official capacity; likewise, I would presume that a letter to the editor on a political topic would not make reference to one’s employer. The main issue I see is the overall idea that they have a right to force their employees to disclaim all of their personal communication.
Good stuff Chad. Companies & people for that matter are always resistant to change. Social media is a change that large companies for the most part don’t have policies in place for. Since they don’t understand it the initial natural reaction is going to be to pull in the reigns as tight as possible unless they have someone writing the SM policy that is SM savvy that can convince their legal dept otherwise. Unfortunately with SM their are no specific laws that I know of that dictate what employers can or cannot put into policy. It would seem that a bigger company like Intel is less dependent on making the policy employee friendly compared to smaller companies that are in the growth phase of their existence. With that said I agree that companies should not put in place policies that oversee non company related communications. However, each company has to decide which side of the line they are going to sit on based on their best interests and in many cases in the best interest of shareholders. Inside information via SM is also a new can of worms that the SEC & all public co’s will have to address at some point in the future.
mserven
Jeff Moriarty and myself are trying to do a SXSW presentation on a variation of this topic. It is amazing how much trouble you can get into for doing things on a”public forum”
“How I Lost My Job Through Twitter…Again” http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/4494
@Mike There aren’t any specific laws about SM, but CA, for example, forbids an employer from punishing an employee for lawful activities during non-work hours. I agree that it is important for people to be aware that they could disclose confidential/protected info, but that is the same with discussing it over dinner or at a baseball game.
@Austin Hmmm…sounds like I need to go to your forum. You know Pam Slim says to leave before you have to.
Interesting timing of this story came out today. Precedence is being set.
http://mashable.com/2009/08/19/google-identity-blogger/