Companies Want to Monitor Workers on Social Networks

Should employers have a say in workers' etiquette on social networking sites? This is a real doozie, Rachael!

I don't think an employer should be able to tell workers how to comport themselves on social networking sites, BUT I think workers should accept full responsibility for how they represent themselves and the companies they work for in those spaces.

That means an employer can take action if they feel it is warranted since brand reputations are SO easy to ding these days.

Twitter is completely public (except for those with private accounts...which I still don't understand) so if I post something negative or derogatory about a company I work with on Twitter, they should be able to reprimand me. Ultimately, if I have a beef, why am I airing out my dirty laundry where it could negatively impact them?

Facebook, with all of its public/private toggling options, is a bit more firewalled with content, but just as "public" since it seems impossible to know just where one's feed is going and by whom it is being viewed.

Goes back to old-fashioned advice that if you don't have something nice to say about someone/something...

Should employers be able to give me rules for social networking? No. But I think I should take full responsibility for what I say in these very public spaces.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Todd. I agree that workers should take responsibility for how they represent themselves and their companies on social networking sites. The tricky part is defining what that should include. We might all agree that it's not prudent to say anything bad about your employer on Twitter or Facebook. But what if a young 20-something employee has too many drinks at a party and photos that others took appear on Facebook? Is that considered misrepresenting your company? Before the advent of social networking sites, it's likely the employer would never have known what happened on a Friday night.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

If executives think its OK to snoop on what I'm doing, then I have every right to know the names and addresses of said executives' salaried whores. You don't like what I do in my personal life? Get over it. Your wife may not like what you do with yours. We are watching.

On both Twitter and Facebook there are privacy options which allow a cautious person to select who can and cannot see their updates. It makes sense that if you'd like to keep your personal life separate from work, which I do, you would not list your real name on Twitter, or maybe even on Facebook. There are many popular "Twitterers" who choose not to disclose their name.

My thought is that as the internet breaks down barriers of communication, people should be aware that posting information about themselves makes them a likely target for identity theft, and exposes them to potentially nasty work-related situations.

In my humble opinion, unless your job is to promote your company [and possibly even then] don't allow colleagues access to your account. If you are a promoter or PR person, create a separate account for promoting your company.

The point is, there are ways to ensure that you, and your company, do not tarnish your image online. Doing so can be very costly to fix. Lastly, there is always common sense, and it should be exercised vigorously when presenting yourself online, or anywhere else.

I have a hard time imagining a justification for the position some employers may attempt to take on this, it is a clear intrusion.

What possibly constitutes "dinging" a companies image? How do we define the limits of privacy and company property? How are these limits to be handled when tested?

There are so many things wrong with monitoring social networks. It's the virtual form of monitoring actual communities.

I say this is still america, and a job is a job. The company I work for doesn't own me, and quite frankly if they were the sort of company that got all uptight about something I did on a friday night I wouldn't work for them anyway. We'd all be a lot happier if, corporations couldn't get to big, the gov't and the boss stopped paying attention to what I do, and worry about what they do.

Hi Rachel, nicely posted.

In a world of "branding" and "imaging" and "marketing," it's often hard to identify what I consider the most important thing: substance. When there is a divorce between these two areas concerning a specific company, which happens much too often in my opinion, I consider it inevitable that this truth will come out - regardless of how rigorously the public image is "managed."

For the insightful reader, this could possibly be obtained from published quarterly financials (i.e. drops in sales due to inferior product or service), identifying the rafts of former employee lawsuits (alluding to poor human resource management), or online through employee social networking. Or for that matter, some of the other many consumer- or employee- oriented review sites.

But if certain companies make themselves feel better by extending their image-management tricks to employees' social networking sites, as opposed to focusing on creating the type of company employees truly *enjoy* working for ... well, I suppose that someone must employ all the marketing and branding consultants out there.

Rachael,

Let's think things through in terms of setting precidents. If we let companies look at our Facebook profile and decide that because we "look drunk" in a couple pictures, we should be fired, then we might as well expect companies to eventually be given the green light to check our DNA before we start work to see if we have genetic risks for cancer. If they step into our personal lives, they aren't going to step out.

We already give our employers at 8-hours a day. What we do on our own time is our business only. If our performance at work is suffering, then we should lose our jobs based upon good performance metrics, not "proof" from Facebook that we're partying too much.

This reminds me of when I was in a fraternity. We were told by the university that every time two of our brothers was at the same event, it technically was a fraternity event and if anything happened, we could be held liable. That was and still is outrageous because that would mean, every time we go grocery shopping together it's a fraternity event.

That translates to this. If I'm at the Irish Pub on a Thursday after work for happy hour with some co-workers, I guess that means it's a work event and we are thus representing the company. If I do something stupid... it is apparently not just my fault, but the companies fault, according to lawyers.

Excuse me??

Character matters and reputations are valuable.

Every person and every business is judged by what is done, what is said, and who you associate with. Given our current environment it is important that every person and business is viewed in the most favorable and ethical light as we are judged by the company we keep. A spoiled reputation is not easily repaired.

While we would like to think we can separate our "professional" lives from our private lives the reality is that we can't. It is unrealistic (immature?) to think that others will not look at your whole personna (public and private, presonal or corporate) to determine what kind of a person or company you are and then to make a judgement as to what kind of relationship they will have with you.

As with all things in life, our actions have consequences. If you are foolish enough to engage your mouth (or text or video) without first engaging your brain, let it be on your head.

Unfortunately these are just evidence of more destructive trends in our society.

I don't think the companies should monitor what's going on on social networking sites. It's an invasion of personal privacy, and everyone seems to be OK with this. I, for one, wouldn't tolerate my employer suggesting me what to write, what not to write on my personal Facebook page or my personal wordpress blog.
If companies want to control their image, they ought to change their behavior. A company that does the right thing with the right people won't have to worry about the image on Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress or MySpace.
But it seems that it is just a beautiful utopia...

I believe in full freedom of speech whether or not the company likes it. People getting fired for having their status on facebook as 'bored at work' is outrageous! Companies need to understand what people post on the SNS are usually taken with a grain of salt. If I saw someone write my boss is a jerk and they worked for Deloitte I would not be less likely to apply for a job there. These executives should not be so sensitive and need to grow up!

The notion that people (and these are people we're talking about) must not say anything that "bad" about their employer is contrary to all of the freedoms that make America great. If I am in a position of fiduciary or national security trust. My behavior on and off the clock, rightfully has an impact on the holistic picture of my character. But to now say that employers have some exceptional right to control the off clock utterances of their employees is preposterous. What's next, my employer has someone follow me to make certain I never question their strategies in conversations with my family? Ultimately that is the place that this goes to. The companies that are most concerned, are the ones where their internal behavior and practices don't match the external image they've cultivated. My grandmother called this "lying". This multiple personality behavior is a substantial part of what has gone wrong with a number of now failing financial firms. Do one thing behind closed doors and use Madison Avenue to convince the world that they are really not "like that". If companies align their behavior with the image they wish to cultivate, they won't have to worry about the rare employee that "spills the beans". Allegations that are outlandish and from a single disgruntled employee will be seen for what they are. Dozens of employees complaining about the unethical behavior of management on the other hand should be surfaced for the owners (stockholders) rights to be protected. What you are advocating is a further setback for American civil rights and the rights of investors to the level of transparency necessary to avoid a continuing succession of scandals at Amercian corporations.

Word of mouth is word of mouth. Be it through a social network or in person, both sources can lead to damaging reputations and cannot be monitored to an absolute state. It's up to the individual not to misrepresent their employer in any setting. Additionaly, companies that have more transparancy will have less to worry about. Accountability has to come from both parties.

If the information being posted in a public area is a trade secret or a confidential issue that can effect the company and is not life threatening then if the said employee publizes this then that is an issue for punitive actions against the employee.

If an employee has issues about policies and attitudes or treatments by the company and does not have any of the restrictions denoted above then it is opinion and only opinion therefore if the company takes actions against said employee it is in the wrong.

If the employee is in a high profile position most have to sign letters or contracts that denote ethical behaviors and they are aware of the consequences that result from their public - let's say - antics.

If Alice is a corporate attorney and winds up on facebook drunk and in inappropriate dress or behavior this is public and therfore based on her position and the persona she must potray for the company then this must be addressed. her value to the company has been diminished as her reputation and aire of professionalism is now down the tubes.

If John the office worker does this then it is his one personal issue and no way involves any impact on the company.

One can argue that it is their personal life but you must weigh into account your position and your skill set and why you were hired and what your job is.

If your supervisor went jello wrestling and it got posted publically how effective will he be with the staff he must supervise and guide. How much respect will be lost by his staff and his mangement.

Do what you want publically but be aware there are repercussions and every action effects a reaction.

Thanks for your response, Ray. You're right that freedom of speech is an issue here. I think in certain circumstances it's imperative that employees speak up. But, I think in today's economy, many workers simply want to keep their jobs. There should be an awareness on the part of any employee using social networks that their employers, recruiters or potential employers may be watching what they say, whether they're on the clock or off.

A company shouldn't have any right to tell an employee what they do past paying hours, even if its not legal. Its none of there business. If they do there job properly then that is all that matters. We have enough internet spy's. Look they even require name and email to comment. Do they want to find out who everyone works for and tell the management peoples opinions.

Einstein came up with the following formula...

If A equals success, then the formula is

A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y is play.

Z is keep your mouth shut.

We already know that businesses increasingly check out potential and actual employees on social sites, and we've supposedly now developed some sort of self-protective consciousness about not posting our coke snorting excesses there, because that could quite reasonably be cause for axeing or not hiring us. Likewise, while I don't think companies have any right to be monitoring our online lives with a microscope, if you spend a lot of time slagging your company or your co-workers online, and ungodly numbers of people are reading or seeing it, then it seems pretty reasonable that there could be work-related repercussions, starting with being punched out at the water cooler by the guy you made fun of.

If companies are concerned employees may tarnish their brand through social networking platforms they have problems, possibly org cultural ones, that go deeper than merely monitoring employees social networking activity. Word Of Mouth is still one of the best ways to market and grow any business and who better to be doing this than your employees. The thing is how do you ensure they are saying the right thing? The brand excellence approach of using "the brand" as a strategic business driver, addresses concerns like this as it ensures all things (in/out) are aligned with the brand and brand vision. This would include recruiting (the source of such employees you now wish to monitor) and employees a touch point on the brand map often overlooked and even more time misunderstood.

*brand r+d is a LECHSAM GROUP brand

The sad truth is that we trade liberties for paychecks every day. People who blow the whistle usually get fired. Advertisers create socially irresponsible campaigns for money all the time. Companies make no attempt to accomodate a worker's desire not to work on the Sabbath. Either you work the overtime or get fired. The only real rights we have are the rights to do as we want and get fired, or the right to obey and eat. :(

As an employer, I see where an employee feels that they have the right to say whatever they want to on their free time. The employee should also understand that if the material that they post on the web for public viewing shows bad light on the company, then I have the right to seperate them from the company.

Great discussion here!

Rachael: "But what if a young 20-something employee has too many drinks at a party and photos that others took appear on Facebook? Is that considered misrepresenting your company?"

No, that's not misrepresenting your company, I don't think, because you're not posting the pictures. And if someone tags you, you can always untag it. (Haven't we all already done this for bad hair day pics and the like?)

There is a fine line here, for sure. A mega-corporation might have lawsuit-avoidant guidelines in place for questionable extra-curricular behavior whereas a smaller family company might be the ones posting the drunken pics themselves!

So we're into our shades of grey now, it looks like, where each individual company needs to know where they stand on these issues...and prospective employees should probably do a little due diligence at the time of hiring.

Life is full of choices and as one commenter asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Why would you want to work for a company that goes digging around in your personal bizniz?"

Okay, maybe life doesn't have as MANY choices in a recession, but awareness on both sides of the equation is the first order of the day.

This is slippery slope, if employers can see what you do in (non-work related) social networking site, next they will demand to see your election ballot and have you fired for voting someone they don't like.

NO, I don't believe employers have the right to dictate what employees do and do not say online.

If you are afraid someone will find out about something you are doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it. Stop doing it, before the wrong person finds out about it - and believe me, the wrong person ALWAYS finds out eventually, even if the information is never posted online. Social networking sites simply enable people to find out about your wrong-doing more quickly than they would otherwise. But, it's still YOUR wrong-doing, not the "tattletale's".

However, YES, I do believe employers have every right to "monitor" employees' posts online - because the rest of the world is invited to do the same! I might be following an employee on Twitter because I think his tweets are interesting. If someone works for me, does that mean I'm not allowed to read his tweets, no matter how interesting (not bad/wrong/threatening) I might find them? That's silly!

Freedom of speech means freedom of listening, too. People should basically understand that the things they post on public Web sites are - well - public. That means anybody can see what you post online, including your boss and your employees. Also, everybody who sees your posts WILL make judgements about you and MAY also make judgements about your subject matter based on your posts - and "everybody" probably includes your boss and your employees.

Whether you are on the clock or off, social networking sites are public amphitheaters in which content contributors are performing for the whole world. If you don't want people watching you perform, GET OFF THE STAGE.

Companies should have the ability to monitor employee communication on any technology the company owns. As for public communication, such as twitter or facebook, on an employee's personal electronic device it should not be a company policy to purposely seek out this info. It is especially not appropriate for companies to snoop into what goes on in an employee’s personal/after hours life. However, if an employee is doing damage to a company publicly and it comes to their attention, they should have the right to reprimand the employee. Every employee has a responsibility to represent his or her employer in a positive way, regardless of communication method. Employers should let their employees know upon hiring what their expectations are and the penalties for non-compliance. So, if a company allows its employees to use Twitter and Facebook with the company's equipment they should have guidelines so that they are on the same page.

The problem with many of the posters' analyses is that "publishing" on the Internet is no longer private activity. It is the equivalent of taking out a full page ad in the Times. There is a responsibility that goes along with that public activity. It's not the same as a scrapbook on your coffee table.

In addition, while you may want to hoist a few after work with your friends at the Irish Pub, if you turn around and puke on your employer's best customer while wearing the lovely polo shirt embroidered with your company logo, there may be consequences.

The extent of the liability for this non-work related activity also increases the higher your level of responsibility within the company increases. The actions of a clerk in a mailroom may not have the same effect as the same actions by a senior account executive.

Use common sense.

Online Reputation is a major consideration, for both corporations and individuals. As such, both parties should be working to monitor their online reputations in order to maintain a positive online image.
http://www.milestechnologies.com/PublicPages/CS-Reputation-Management.aspx

While it's probably _wrong_ for companies to fire people for how they conduct themselves in their off time or what they choose to post online, it's also probably perfectly legal. The only gray area I could imagine is among government employees, as only the government is truly bound to respect freedom of speech, and even they make exceptions. If you call your boss a jerk either in the office or after work at the bar, the results are probably going to be the same.
I would hope, though I'm not optimistic, that the courts at least would make some distinction between online behavior directly harmful to a company or employer (posting "MY COMPANY SUCKS," harmful speech specifically aimed at the company) opposed to indirectly harmful (posting "I LOVE TO TOKE," simply presenting a harmful image of the employee, and the company only by tenuous association).