Social Media Dangers and Responsibilities as Employers - Research Paper Example

Social Media Dangers and Responsibilities as Employers The use of social media websites, such as Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace (to name only a few), creates a rather unique human resources issue in terms of whether to allow employees to actively engage in social media networking while on the job. From a legal perspective, how much protection does the Australian employee have in terms of their rights to indulge in social networking sites while being expected to comply with job role obligations? This is something which many companies equipped with Internet access at employee job locations should be considering prior to launching a campaign against this practice, thus making the HR function more of a strategic company ambition or what is referred to as strategic human resources management (SHRM). “SHRM takes the identifiable functions of HRM and ensures that the individual policy areas are consistent and aligned with business objectives” (Sheehan et al 2005, p.42). The use of social media outlets provides employees with the opportunity to create negative publicity against the firm, an element of strategic planning and development. If a business is going to regulate or monitor use of social networking on the job, the company must consider the long-term strategic damage which can occur in the process. Frauenheim (2009, p.7) identifies the danger with Twitter for today’s human resource professionals by stating “(the) danger with Twitter is the way loose tweets can torpedo firms or individuals”. Twitter is a social networking site which is limited in terms of the volume of information which can be posted in one session. For this social networking site, the maximum characters allowed per message is 140 (Frauenheim). The author is attempting to highlight that social networking sites, even with their limited capacity for text messages, can manage to spill out trade secrets or potentially even create negative buzz about the internal culture of the organization. In this hypothetical situation, the long-term damage could be problems with recruitment and retention if these social networking messages are left with a negative tone against the company. Therefore, those who might argue against the employee use of social networking sites while on-the-job might highlight that this is an effort of self-protectionism for the business in order to remain competitive and avoid transfer of key company information. It would seem that even in the most limited space, such as the 140 character limits at Twitter, the aforementioned loose tweet could potentially be a strong business liability. The idea of social networking sites being business liabilities is supported by Winterford (2009) who describes the HR environment at Telstra where employee use of social networks is being forbidden through a variety of strategic business policies. These agreements are described as having clear patterns of discipline for breaching the policy, including termination at a certain level of the offense (Winterford). The argument in this situation is being proposed from the legal end of human resources much in the same fashion as the argument proposed by Fraunheim as a business protectionism method. There is likely no measurement tool available which can accurately predict that employees will not be feeling hostile due to internal organizational conflict and post something derogatory. (As one potential example of mood affecting judgment). In this situation, the employee could be jeopardizing company reputation and harming the firm’s image, especially if image is a popular or costly business objective at the senior strategists’ level. For companies which are experiencing such high volumes of social media network usage that it is affecting routine business, the outlook about training employees to unlearn these behaviours is not promising. There is a new trend in Australian business in which training is being abandoned more readily in favour of other business pursuits. Becker et al. (2006) identify that the amount of expenditure toward training in business has gone down. The authors further suggest that this is due to the termination of the Training Guarantee in the mid-1990s which somewhat led to a cultural transition in businesses where training was no longer the focus of good business. It is important to identify these statistics because the lack of emphasis on business training represents a challenge to HR professionals in getting employees to unlearn this activity. If few formalized training programmes exist at the company, getting senior level approval for the expenditure of unlearning these negative business behaviours would likely be quite difficult. The HR professional would have to justify costs and expected outcomes in order to develop a training system to prevent disruptive use of social media sites. Blyth (2009, p.16) offer the risks of having social networking availability at the business: “You cannot control the conversation”. Blyth is describing a situation involving U.S.-based Glaxo SmithKline and Blue Cross which offered web chats for organizations to ask questions about health care information online. The major concern was that these publicized question and answer sessions would receive questions which could embarrass the reputation and image of these health-involved companies. It is probably because of these major issues that companies have begun the process of disallowing employees from using social media network sites. Brodkin (2008) offers that this is commonplace business activity in some overseas, developed countries. In the United States, only eight to 10 percent of companies spotlighted in a survey of over 200 HR leaders encourage the use of social networking for marketing purposes (Brodkin). These are very low numbers which could suggest that many companies in that area consider the risks to outweigh the potential gains of social networking as a promotional tool. One in four firms in the U.S block social networking sites altogether (Brodkin). However, monitoring employee activities while using online sites is regulated at both the federal and state levels in Australia (Bevitt et al. 2007). This means that there are high volumes of regulatory parties, such as the Privacy Commissioner, which consistently are available should employees feel that they are being monitored in a way that infringes on their rights as an employee. This again represents a potential risk to the company when creating policies similar to the aforementioned Telstra because if the company’s HR team is not well-versed in regulations, they run the risk of creating costly legal disputes for failing to comply with Australian labour laws. It is a concern because businesses need to examine current law related to internet privacy laws and employment before creating a well-publicized disciplinary policy against the practice. The short term gain of ensuring employees do not reveal any negative information about the company might not be worth the effort in the face of multiple employee grievances. Further, it is common sense to consider that employees, if they feel strongly enough against the company, can post this information anonymously and use vague implications about the company being described in the information, thus making it considerably difficult to prove liability on behalf of the employee. Cieri et al. (2008) offer that due to current changes in legislation in Australia, some workers who have been covered by state legislation in regards to labour but now find themselves classified as federal employees. In this situation, the employees are governed by new federal guidelines. The largest concern to HR professionals is the impact of new legislation on the business and what legal processes are in place at each level of government which could cause significant business disruption. Though not all companies in all industries in Australia are completely blocking access to these social networking sites, recommendations and internal efforts to do so could lead to long-term problems in the legal environment and its relation to the human resources function. If employees may potentially be covered by new regulatory parties and systems, it would highlight the importance for HR practitioners to understand how current labour laws affect liability. For companies which employ a great deal of knowledge workers, such as those involved in information technology systems, there is a large concern from the HR perspective. Parker (2006) identifies that many knowledge workers are not very good at explaining their labours and should be discretely observed by a trained third party to ensure they are complying with various expectations for job role function. Knowledge workers generally have superior expertise, over that of their generic employee colleagues, in a specialized field of knowledge. Because of this, knowing whether these employees are engaged in social networking chatter might be quite difficult to assess. Parker again identifies that knowledge workers provide certain creative aspects to the business and self-perceptions about status begin to emerge in this employee group. Therefore, any effort to improve knowledge worker tasks should be handled with considerable care because of their status perceptions (Parker). If a business were to begin creating policies which regulated the online freedoms of knowledge workers, especially important in an IT-related environment, the end result could be problems in turnover with this specialised group or poor management/employee relationships. Sexton (2007) offers that recruitment and the retention of quality employees has become the largest challenge for businesses in Australia. A recent Leadership, Employment and Direction Survey (LEAD) identified that some companies are even experiencing a 100 percent increase in turnover of existing employees and have not been able to find successful methods to motivate employees. If employees are dissatisfied in their organization and are actively seeking work, this poses yet another legal risk to the business in the event that employees begin advising current job seekers to look elsewhere in the social networking environment. Such a high volume of negative changes in turnover would seem to paint the picture of the Australian work climate as largely dissatisfactory to many employees. Legal experts might offer that this is too much of a dangerous, research-supported problem that could potentially harm recruitment efforts and provide the company with inferior-skilled workers. There are many companies which are currently using pay-for-performance systems as a means to motivate positive staff behaviours while at work. Scott (2008, p.741) offers that one success measure for these systems is to give credit to participants for their positive performance in a way that “fosters population-based perspectives”. What this essentially means is that credit should be given for participation publicly so as to unify the entire internal culture to adopting these behaviours by being witness to the publicized performer employee. One key concern for the HR professional is that when building a policy that forbids or restricts certain social networking access in the workplace they must consider how to reward compliance to make this become adopted as the cultural norm in the business. Internal positioning strategies, such as getting employees focused on professionalism as an HR campaign, might positively accomplish this goal and satisfy employee social expectations. The legal problem, however, could stem from employees who feel they are being unfairly discriminated against for not being recognized for their individual contribution to avoiding social networking, creating yet another series of potential legal consequences for the business. Clearly, the impact of socialization and group rewarding would be an issue within a firm where social networking represents a liability and the process needs to be restricted with a rewards programme attached for complying with the policy. Now that the concerns from the HR and legal practitioner have been identified, it is important to understand how one real-life organization has chosen to manage their internal internet policy. Because HRM issues impact all types of organizations in many different business sectors, the large conglomerate DuPont was chosen to spotlight in relation to the company’s existing employee internet policy. The company very clearly states, in its corporate code of conduct, “company assets include internet access and employees must safeguard these resources and protect the important company data stored on these systems” (Kullman, 2008, p.19). From the legal standpoint, this business views internet usage as a company asset which would tend to fall within the jurisdiction of the company in terms of ensuring it is used effectively and without risk to the business at the strategic level. The company further identifies that employees should not expect privacy when using company assets (Kullman 2009, p.30). This means that the business has created a strategic HR policy which clearly identifies the consequences of using Internet systems at the company as they will be monitored to ensure they are being used appropriately. Therefore, in this company, there is no lack of clarity about the scope of the company’s policy in this matter. Searches of company property can also be an outcome of suspected abuse of these systems (2009, p.30). This makes the process much easier for the HR professional in this company as there is a clearly-defined set of rules and obligations of employees related to legal liability. Breaches of this policy can then be disciplined according to the acceptable disciplinary structure at DuPont so long as it fits within the law as it applies to this company. The company’s code of conduct also seems to be able to create a unified culture around the firm’s internet policy by offering warnings for employees to be on the lookout for DuPont brand abuse on the internet stemming from colleagues (2009, p.20). In social networking sites, if a colleague witnesses negative comments which could impact company reputation, then they are not only authorized but promoted to bring these issues to the attention of leadership. This would seem to apply to out-of-work, personal internet usage of social networking sites as a matter of protecting copyright information, other intellectual property, or public image. This would point toward DuPont not having to create any blockages to certain websites or provide password data to authorized personnel as there is a concise set of consequences outlined for use of company internet assets. Failure to comply with these efforts will likely eventually meet with negative consequences through the monitoring process of these electronic systems. If a disgruntled employee in this business environment were to place a negative set of online blogs about the company, they run the risk of being reported for brand abuse by colleagues. If they use the company assets to place these messages, they run a similar risk of being chastised by internal information technologies police. Clearly, DuPont is prepared with a variety of HR outcomes and implications to protect the business’ rights and ensure that employees do not become a social networking liability to the business long-term. The strategic HRM system strongly monitors employee internet usage at this company to protect its legal property. In the case study involving DuPont, achievement of policy objectives would seem to be rather straight-forward: The business induces compliance to these objectives by identifying internet as the company asset and provides absolute knowledge that these systems have no privacy attached. Achieving results, on the psychological basis of potential job loss or other HR form of discipline would seem to drive high levels of compliance. However, from the legal perspective, DuPont is a large, multi-national conglomerate of businesses with diverse brands, therefore intellectual property and business reputation would be of monumental concern. In a highly competitive business environment, branding and positive buyer sentiment about the company drives long-term business stability. An HR professional in an environment like this would be dealing with such a high volume of employees that such a business-wide policy against internet use and abuse would be necessary to ensure company trade secrets, information and reputation. Though not a performance-based model relating to internet usage, it is a consequences-based model which likely drives the desired results against social networking abuse. DuPont’s sheer size as a multi-national business exposes employees to a wide variety of different technological business scenarios. In just one business segment, logistics, an internet portal named TransOval is provides the ability for: “DuPont’s businesses, customers and suppliers (to) use this information in a variety of ways. Ultimately, that information will increase transport security, reduce inventory levels, decrease freight costs, improve operational efficiencies, and deliver superior customer service for more than one million worldwide shipments each year” (Cooke, 2002, p.41). Such high levels of employee exposure to online systems which provide customer service tools will involve high levels of communication between business representatives and multi-national clients. Regulating these systems as a means of protecting business interests could only seem to be accomplished through strong focus on consistency in policy and by monitoring to witness whether social networking abuses are occurring. With this business being focused on logistics efficiency and costs, while providing superior customer service, risks to not creating such policies could cause harm to the business and relationships with suppliers or third parties involved in the routine operations of the organization. From the HR perspective, this is accomplishing results and gives the HR manager a template to regulate internet usage. However, there are risks to choosing this method for ensuring that people are complying with internet policy in terms of how this could impact socialization between colleagues and managers. Many large companies, such as DuPont, create various HR programs which focus on flexible scheduling and coordinating work life with family life. These programs can include flextime or family leave in the event of a family issue. When an employee becomes accustomed to an organization which provides these flexible HR benefits, it tends to familiarize employees and managers in a social way as it opens the floor for discussion of personal lifestyle. Creating a solid HR policy which is much more rigid and maintains certain potentially-dire consequences, such as job loss, for failing to adhere to these rules sends an inconsistent message about company culture. In some areas, the business might appear to be choosing protectionism over employee interests while promoting a more familiar and family-friendly work and social environment. This could potentially lead to further, strategic trust issues with the business, especially if they were witness to the termination of an employee colleague who, other than breach of internet policy, had always maintained a solid work record of top performance. The most interesting part of this DuPont case study involves the elements of interpersonal relationships between coworkers and how the internet policy restrictions might impact these. It was identified that the company’s code of conduct clearly identifies the internet as having no privacy rights associated with it for employee usage. It is likely that a company as large as DuPont consulted with various legal experts in the field of labor laws and HRM prior to outlining implications and consequences in this policy. Outside of the workplace, however, is where the socialization element is of considerable interest. Since it is promoted for at-work colleagues to monitor potential brand abuse in the online environment, this could create negative outcomes for HR professionals in the business. Assume, in a hypothetical scenario, that one employee is browsing through MySpace pages and discovers negative comments stemming from a coworker. These comments may insinuate that the culture is poor or that certain managers perceived to be unacceptable. Believing this to be brand abuse, the monitoring employee reports the online messenger to the HR department for causing potential liability to the DuPont brand. This could create negative social relationships between staff members, thus impacting areas of HR concern such as productivity or group cohesion. This unified culture toward employee monitoring of business interests in the online environment could also be a liability in terms of productive, interpersonal relationship-building, which is an element of HR design. Sexton (2007) again offers that in the contemporary business environment, there is even more of a need to build stronger, effective interpersonal relationships within the business than ever before. Companies such as DuPont should consider the interpersonal dimension when attempting to regulate this very strict policy on internet usage and abuse. Negative peer relationships are also a legal concern should these disputes over brand abuse allegations turn to at-work violence or business sabotage. The high popularity and advertising potential of online social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook speaks of how far these websites have gone toward being ingrained in popular culture. This adds even more difficulty for how DuPont manages their strict internet policy as this is a cultural dimension which is inviting both outside of the work place and likely provides similar emotional sensations while on the job, thus creating the temptation to use Twitter and Facebook during slower periods of job role function. It was already identified that unlearning in the organization can be a significant challenge, therefore employee motivation to be denied their usual social networking options could lead to potential motivation problems. Under Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a model used in psychology and human resources to understand the driving motivations of employees, social belongingness is one of the fundamental needs an employee must have fulfilled in order to reach their fullest potential and job performance (Morris and Maisto, 2005). Strict monitoring of these activities, or denying access, would impact the individual’s needs for social fulfillment and perhaps make them feel as if they are detached from popular culture. One need only pick up the newspaper or watch the television to hear regular social comments on the enjoyment of social networking sites. Denying employees access to these materials could be a long-term strategic problem in areas of retention or in motivation of job performance. Having such a strict compliance versus non-compliance set of rules about the use of Internet and the somewhat-watchdog organizational culture is designed to secure the legal rights of the business to ensure proper use of its company assets. Involving human resources in this function ensures that disciplinary procedures are considered for breach of these policies, thus again reinforcing the strategic importance of HR for companies like DuPont. Being at risk of job loss due to the posting of brand abusing comments in social networking environments, for this type of industry, seems to be the most appropriate method of controlling and observing employee behaviors online. Taking a more flexible approach, such as posting a vague memo about respecting the internet, would likely invite this conglomerate’s many diverse employees to take advantage of the liberal internet policy. It is likely that any number of social scenarios could occur as well as potential comments which wrongly expose the business in a negative public relations spotlight if such a strict policy was not in place. There are clearly many different reasons why today’s businesses must be concerned with workplace issues and respecting the privacy rights of their employees. Online social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter provide ample opportunities, despite some of their character limitations per posting, to create brand abuse and this is why companies like DuPont work to consistently monitor their usage. Legal practitioners in the field of HR study are also responsible for securing the positive brand image of businesses and identifying all potential risks in this area. Therefore, monitoring employees seems to be a responsible business practice. Limiting their individual access (or denying it) during times of regular business unless the specific job role demands it is simply brand or company protectionism. To the credit of DuPont, the company’s clear stand on internet usage and business property rights are clearly outlined and offer clear consequences and outcomes for failing to comply. It was highlighted that from the strategic viewpoint, long-term damage can occur to a company’s reputation or impact their supplier and partner professional relationships if negative social networking information is posted online about the company. Long-term relationships can be impacted if the business promotes an internal organizational culture where colleagues are promoted to be watchdogs for protectionism and turnover ratios could be impacted as well. Failure to comply with social needs toward belonging by restricting internet access to social blogs is yet another business risk worth considering. The largest concern, clearly, is the ability of loose comments being posted online to be used in a manner which projects a company negatively within a well-publicized online environment. Monitoring employee use of these systems would seem to be a natural evolution of business and the ever-changing technological environment, and perhaps other companies should benchmark the DuPont model by emphasizing a sort of zero tolerance environment. References Becker, K., Hyland P. And Acutt, B. 2006, Considering unlearning in HRD practices: An Australian study, Journal of European Industrial Training, Bradford, vol.30, iss.8, p.608. Bevitt, A., Waldmann, M., Basile, T. and Milner, G. 2007, Monitoring employees: Striking a balance, viewed 31 July 2009, http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/12953.html Blyth, Alex 2009, Webchats – The dangers of loose talk, Personnel Today, Sutton. 17 February, pp.16-19. Brodkin, Jon 2008, One in four firms block Facebook, Network World, vol.25, iss.28, p.20. Parker, Derek 2006, Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers, Intheblack, Melbourne, vol.76, iss.8, p.77. Cieri, NAME. DATE. The Legal Content for Human Resource Management. Cooke, James A. 2002, DuPont’s global vision, Logistics Management, vol.41, no.11, pp.41-44. (online ProQuest). Kullman, Ellen 2008. DuPont Code of Conduct: Ensuring a sustainable future, viewed 1 Aug 2009, http://www2.dupont.com/Social_Commitment/en_US/assets/downloads/ code_of_conduct /DuPont_CodeofConduct_English.pdf Morris, A. And Maisto, M. 2005, Psychology: An Introduction, 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. Scott, Ian A. 2008, Pay for performance systems in Australia: A need for guiding principles, Australian Health Review, Sydney, vol.32, iss.4, pp.740-750. Sexton, Grant 2007, Relationships as the key to attracting and keeping people, Australian Journal of Career Development, vol. 16, no.1, p.66. Sheehan, C. And Scafidi, A. 2009, HR world not immune from Twitter craze, Workforce Management. vol.88, iss.4, pp.7-9. Winterford, Brett 2009, Telstra staff given rules on use of social networks, viewed 31 July 2009, http://www.itnews.com.au/News/142866,telstra-staff-given-rules-on-use-of-social-networks.aspx Read More