On ‘Disrepute’ and the birth of Social Media confusion (I mean.. Policy)
It’s a big thing in Corporate policy. Even Premier John Brumby conceded the agreement to be signed by principals before the roll out of the Computers in schools program required revision in the face of it’s interpretation as a ‘gag order’.
So what does disrepute mean, and how does it apply to Joe Average employee?
Well, that’s kind of the problem – no one seems to really know how to further clarify the statement – ‘thou shalt not bring X company, project, it’s partners, clients, vendors, products or restrooms into disrepute’.
It’s something employers need to work closely with their employees on (notice I didn’t say: Outsource to experts? That’s because there are none, just people keeping track of trends)
Making matters worse is the unknown scope of such a clause. I mean, clearly the ability for a company to protect it’s interests has become necessary in today’s world of swift web – savvy media who can Google any given company and get hits for hundreds of negative comments.
A trend in customer sentiment can easily become fodder for mainstream media , and should one or more of the commenters happen to be an employee of said company then there is provided openly ‘in house insight’ to the ugly side of that business’ management, service or gameplan, that realistically can be found within any company, large or small.
As an example, if a principal had signed the agreement mentioned above, and then put up on Facebook or Twitter ‘Windows sucks, Linux rocks!’ and the project is using Windows for their OS – are they bringing the project into disrepute, risking their funding, or worse, their jobs?
It’s an ugly word, disrepute, and I think companies need to think about removing it from their legal vocabulary.
Social Media policies in corporations have flogged this clause with the recent exploitation of sites like Twitter and Facebook as potential marketing arenas.
Where in recent years businesses have plugged fingers firmly into their ears at the mention of an employee advising their friends on the best deal, the why’s and how’s of their industry, the fastest way to get through the phone queues etc, now employees are encouraged to voice their opinions.
Provided of course, those opinions are positive. And can’t impact shareprice or bring on a flood of lawsuits. Oh, and we’ll need you to identify yourself as an employee if you mention the company (I don’t envy the insurance agents or banking staff). And make sure you make it clear that your opinion is your own, so if there is a lawsuit it lands on your head, not ours.
From a legal standpoint, I can see how these safeguards need to be in place. (As can nervous public affairs dudes and dudettes across the globe just waiting for the next Mrs. MI6 I’m sure) But it seems that this necessity for corporate security comes dangerously close to impeding upon the intellectual freedoms of employees bound by such clauses, which of course, neither side is to thrilled about given the potential for internal strife. (Well, the Unions and lawyers might be a little excited at the idea.).
So where is the line between ‘personal opinion’ and ‘company info’ when it comes to the wide world of social networking and media? There seems to be a few key elements echoed in many of the Social media policies coming to light (that is, those that don’t adopt the ‘speak not of thy company lest ye be sacked approach) and a few things for both employ ‘ees’ and ‘ers’ to consider.
Accuracy
‘The truth shall set you free’ doesn’t necessarily apply in cases where your product sucks and you let your buddies in on a better deal from a competitor.
Employees:
need to be careful with this one, as it may fall directly into the ‘disrepute’ category – particularly if it gets picked up on by the media or some helpful goon on twitter with half a million followers.
Employers:
Need to concede that sometimes the truth is ugly. And perhaps if that ugliness starts to show up in your employees @ tweets, then consider using it as an opportunity for improvement, rather than lashing out because of a superiority complex.
Identifiability (is that even a word?) or transparency
Many companies require employees to identify themselves as such if commenting on or referencing the company. (I wonder if terrorist hunting would be easier if we could get them to adopt a SM policy?)
Employees:
Need to understand this is purely business. Take for example the ruckus caused by the Aussie April fools day joke implying Telstra would be going ahead with Operational Separation – it hit the US a day early (timezones can be a real pain) and the potential for real stockmarket impact was huge.
Employers:
Need to understand not all of their workers have a business degree, and may simply not understand the impact ‘hiding’ their identity and potential stakeholdership (or should that be stakeholderism?) may have. Work with your employees to foster such an understanding, rather than beat them into metaphorical submission to a mandate that will be misunderstood as ‘coming out of the closet’ regarding the nature and place of their employment.
Propietry Information
Thou shalt not disclose sensitive company info, customer details or stuff the public does not already know. Most larger companies will already have this covered by their privacy policy, however many seem to feel the need to reiterate it when adopting SM policies.
Employees:
Duh – it’s stupid to let out company sensitive info, don’t do it.
Employers:
Make sure your staff are aware of what is and isn’t koscher in this regard, and provide some sort of easily accesible means for employees to check when in doubt. Plug this facility, and plug it fiercely. Then, if they mess up, fire at will.
Disrepute:
Thou shalt not speak ill of or in any other way impair the reputation of the company, it’s partners, clients, etc etc..
Employees:
Depending on your company and/or your industry, this can be a pretty wide range of things you need to check yourself on. Don’t be afraid to engage your employer with suggestions to clarify what you can and can’t speak freely (read as negatively) about, and don’t be disheartened if you receive a ‘read the policy, it explains all’ type response – keep at it, and do so in a way that show you get your employers point of view.
Bottom line is, most of this stuff is pretty new, and everyones a noob. Do some research, make dolid points and you may even find yourself becoming an ‘expert’ – in which case you can then be the fallguy for your co-workers when they claim you said it was cool to call the CEO a ‘Bald little knob with no business sense’
Employers:
Much the same, although in reverse. Talk to your employees extensively about their concerns – and again, look upon any negative feedback as the potential for positive change. How else are you going to get your staff to be happy little PR agents?
Comments, queries, qualms? Leave a comment or Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think!