Social Media Usage Guidelines: Don't moon people with cameras (or at least hide your face when you do)

Source: www.facetime.com/survey08/summary/

Yesterday, I attended a webinar about social media policies called "E-Privacy: Can You Legally Monitor MySpace, LinkedIn, E-mail, & Blogs?" electronic information expert, Robert D. Brownstone, Esq. who is the Law & Technology Director at Fenwick & West LLP (F&W), a Silicon-Valley-based law firm.  The Webinar was mostly focused on the privacy concerns and the Human Resources side of Internet/Social Media Policies.   Some of the topics addressed:

• When does an employee's personal blog become "work-related"?
• Legal implications of using technology to learn about employees and applicants
• Can an employee be fired for off-duty online behavior?

I can't share the specifics because of copyright issues, but it was informative to hear the lawyer's perspective and it has prompted some important insights for me.   One of the key takeaways was:

The Three E's:

-Establish the policy:  Determine the policy and what you want to accomplish
-Educate:  Important to train or make employees aware of the implications
-Enforce:  Less about the top down control, but the fact that you need to consistently use the policy – shouldn’t sit in a drawer

At the Packard Foundation, I've been involved in discussions about social media policy.  During the Webinar, I had copies of the Foundation's Business Conduct, Confidentiality, IT Internet Usage Policy, and other related HR policies in front me.   A lot of the ideas covered in the webinar are in the existing policies, although they don't define or mention "social media" specifically.   Maybe all that's needed is to insert the word and definition for social media.   (I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice and I'll leave that question to the legal department!)

What might be needed is a set of social media usage guidelines.  These are NOT legal, but operational in terms of personal use.  I did some additional research on Facebook to look at how different nonprofit people fill out their individual profiles.   A very smart colleague who works at a foundation helped me understand the distinction between social media policy and usage guidelines through a discussion on his Facebook wall.  Note that he was speaking as individual, not on behalf of his organization - and I haven't named either him or his organization.

Beth:  Do you have a social media policy at your foundation?

Smart Colleague: Nope. .. Fact is, I am not sure that they are actually necessary, prudent, otherwise enforceable, or wise. Moreover, the foundation has its own voice and is, in fact, on twitter ;-).   Oh.. we do have information and other policies that cover things like personal use of the internet, phone etiquette, crimes against humanity, copyright, bad attitude, and ugly pants.

Beth: What about social media usage guidelines?

Smart Colleague:  Here's some guidelines.

A) Don't write stupid stuff you'll regret some day, 'cause someday you'll regret it.
B) Don't moon people with cameras (or at least hide your face when you do).
C) Avoid "Friending" your boss and any of his/her teenage children, nieces, or nephews.
D) Do your damnest to ignore posts by people that report to you... (especially if they're supposed to be working and all they are doing is twittering stupid irratating stuff all day long.)
E) Don't flirt too much with people other than your spouse.

Except for (E) [above], the majority of these things are not policy issues, but management issues. If you've got someone that is twittering all day long instead of working, it's not a function of social media.. it's a management issue.

I know, I'm being frivolous.

Social media is, IMHO, inherently personal -- use BY an organization is another thing entirely (and is a strategy question, not a policy question). An appropriate usage guidelines for an organization is to suggest/request that staff avoid the appearance of speaking for the organization when using social media personally. It is, in fact, what I do. My blog is my voice. In that venue, I do not speak for where I work.

My colleague's are funny, but they do a good job pointing out common sense.  I think social media guidelines should not be draconian rules or controlling commandments.   The guidelines should not make technology evil.  Good guidelines are simple, flexible, common sense and encouraging.   Furthermore, the written guidelines or product alone isn't enough - it needs to be accompanied by education where you discuss potential situations and discuss what to do.  This is particularly important for "off-duty" actions that are grayer than "don't moon people with cameras."  

I think the guidelines can be created or rather modified from a good models out there based on a couple of meetings where the group might look at the gray situations and discuss them. 

I've been doing some research over the past few months and wrote a comprehensive post about social media policy and nonprofits that I've been updating.  A terrific resource comes from Laurel Papworth, a comprehensive list of social media policies and guidelines drawn from corporate and government sources, with an Aussie slant.   Also, I had lunch with Charlene Li the other day who told me she is currently researching social media policies and developing an online resource that will be really useful to those who need to development guidlines.

I like the Mayo Clinic's social media guidelines:

The main thing Mayo employees need to remember about blogs and social networking sites is that the same basic policies apply in these spaces as in other areas of their lives. The purpose of these guidelines is to help employees understand how Mayo policies apply to these newer technologies for communication, so you can participate with confidence not only on this blog, but in other social media platforms.

The key points:

• Follow all applicable policies
• Write in the first person
• Disclose your relationship
• Use personal contact information
• Be respectful
• Get your job done
• Ask!

In summary, your organization does need a policy around social media.  You need to determine what that policy needs to include and whether existing policies can be revised to incorporate social media.   You might also need some guidelines which simple usage guidelines.   You need to accompany these with discussion and training.    

What do you think?

Update:  Mashable: When Does A Social Media Policy Go Too Far?

Comments

[Smarty Pants Colleague]

Argh… right off the bat, what did I do? Violated rule (A) at the very time I wrote it. We can all just be thankful that I didn’t violate rule (B) -- that would be... uhm.. well, I suppose that's best not brought to mind.

Regardless, in reading this, me thinks you're kind of right; perhaps a mention somewhere, somehow — common sense guidelines (since of course, common sense is anything but common). Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Seriously, in my tiny mind, there are three separate things to consider:

1. Policies governing the use of such tools (personal use of organizational resources). I let these fall under “Trivial and incidental personal use” and specifically allow such in our policies governing telephone, photocopying, and the internet (writ large).

2. Specific prohibitions on the use organizational resources for inappropriate stuff, such as stalking, harassment, criminal acts/illegal activities, transport of seagulls across stateliness for immortal porpoises, etc. This includes things like using your email address for political campaigns, fundraising, and, of course, lobbying in any shape or form.

3. Guidelines addressing the new grey areas that suggest people consciously separate their voice from the voice of their organization IF they are not actually speaking for their organization.

On the other hand, …
Rationally speaking, however, there has to be some rationality in all this. I think it would be inappropriate and bad for organizations to adopt policies that restrict personal expression simply because the organization is bonkers or paranoid or, well, bonkers. Mine, however, isn’t bonkers. Really, it’s quite sane.

(Maybe it’s apropos for some that are in the public eye, on-the-edge advocacy groups perchance... but that’s just wise self-preservation.)

All this reminds me of a past experience where a (former) employer tried to get me to sign a “do not compete” agreement that effectively limited my options for two years following my departure from their loving caress. A close reading revealed that I was pretty much limited in options — it was either ditch digging or, if I stretched it, prison guard. I told them to get stuffed (although I didn’t tweet it. ‘tis a shame.)

The whiter shade of pale; the disappearing line, the grayness of it all, between that which is me and that which is not, between the personal and the professional is more and more difficult; more sketchy by the day. It seems now, not only do I work all the time, and have email pinned to my hip like a blackberry tattoo, I now must curb my wayward tongue, and watch my “P’s” and “Q’s” (whatever that means). ‘tis lucky that the internets offer anonymity of a sort.

As I have often said, and am want to write, social media does not scale to the organization, nor does it fit with the organization. It is messy, casual, and often down-right rude. That’s not to say it can’t be effectively used by the organization.

Aargh.. I’m still torn.

You see, there are other parts of our lives where we don’t seem to think a “policy” is necessary. For example, there is no “Kinkos Policy” to warn us against printing up our own local newsletter and distributing it door-to-door. Nor, do we see fit to append and amend our organizational policies to cover possibly more damaging acts and actions, like:

Staff should note: It is against policy (and relatively unwise) to run through public spaces, naked, shouting epithets at your lover(s), pursued by debt collectors, while drunk.**

Frivolously Yours,
Smarty (pants) Colleague

** I distilled this rule from my first (and I thought relatively hilarious) FBI security clearance interview. It took the agent about an hour of weird and roundabout questions before I realized what he was really trying to ask. Three questions: Are you a drunk? Are you in debt or do you gamble lots? Could you be blackmailed about your sinful life? I said "No" to all three. Really.

[Laurie]

My boss is on twitter and facebook. We communicate using both. Mostly around our charity - which is on both FB and twitter, but sometimes, it's not about work, it's just a fun snippet here or there. We retweet stuff that I send out on our @alscanada account. And we also put a personal face on the organizational account and hopefully show people that we're a team that has fun and does good things.

If my Twitter use becomes a management issue, he'll let me know. He's a nice, fun guy - but he's also my boss. I'm smart enough to know that and he's smart enough and skilled enough to manage that.

Guidelines are good, but sometimes they can inhibit creativity, relationships and other good things.

I know what my job is and I know what's expected of me. If I'm not meeting the goals and expectations of my role, I expect to be fired - regardless of how much or little we communicate via social networks.

[Laura Norvig]

I'm wondering what "3. Guidelines addressing the new grey areas that suggest people consciously separate their voice from the voice of their organization IF they are not actually speaking for their organization" would actually look like.

I can see obvious stuff like not saying, "Here at Company X we believe Y," when you're actually tweeting as yourself, but for people who are passionate about their work and discuss topics related to their work, and become somewhat known in the social graph, don't things get gray very fast?