Tag Archives: Employee privacy

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he  is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Relationships and Thin Slicing: Why the Other Person Knows What You’re Really Thinking

28 Friday May 2010

Posted by in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Book Review, Branding, Communication, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, parenting, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

You’ve been warned about ‘this person’ and now you’re being introduced to them. You smile and shake his hand and say, “nice to meet you.” Visibly, you are polite and friendly; however, inside your hoping to be able to move on because even though you’ve never met him before you are preconditioned to not like him. The introduction ends and you move on believing that went things went smoothly. He walks away knowing that you dislike him and he begins to form a negative impression of you. In less than five seconds you have cemented a negative relationship…and you didn’t even know it. What happened?

Malcolm Gladwell

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, it is called it thin-slicing and it is based on solid research. Gladwell uses many examples of how the human brain picks up seemingly unseen and unheard clues and can accurately identify what is going on in a given situation. In one example, researcher John Gottman and his team coded conversations between married couples using 14 emotional identifiers (1=contempt, 2=anger, etc.) and found that they could accurately predict whether or not the couple was heading for a divorce by the subtle clues that betrayed the inner thoughts and attitudes of each person. Most of these signals lasted a second or less, but the signal clearly indicated the inner feelings of the person and the pattern of their relationship.

Gladwell argues that in a thin-slice experience we usually do not know what we know, nor why we know it, but the evidence is conclusive, we do know it. It is often described as a ‘feeling’ and people usually cannot explain it to others, so it is usually dismissed as being oversensitive. Gladwell‘s research suggests that the feeling is real and that our unconscious mind is the source of the analysis that creates a tangible, and accurate feeling and/or assessment of the situation.

Conversations Are Never Just Casual

Based on the information in Blink one can conclude that when someone has a dislike for someone, or when people discuss someone else behind their back, the attitudes felt or expressed privately will be exposed in subtle hints the next time we meet the subject of the gossip. We are taught as children to not gossip about others, which was a valuable lesson based on what we now know; however, in the business world people often discuss work performance of subordinates with their peers or superiors. Those discussions then shape our attitudes about the subordinate, which are then revealed in our next interaction with the worker. The same can be said of any relationship, whether it be a superior/subordinate, peer/peer, Club member/member, parent/child, spouse/spouse, or any interaction between two people. Simply put, strong attitudes and opinions about another person can and will be read by that person at the next meeting.

But what is worse is once a negative relationship is formed it is almost impossible to revert it to a positive relationship. Gladwell says that if a person has contempt or other negative attitudes towards someone, even a kind or reconciliatory gesture will be misread as manipulation or motivated by a hidden agenda. That idea is reinforced by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that once we have an opinion or belief about something we will reject evidence that contradicts our opinion or belief and will even go so far as to manufacture evidence or examples to support our version of the truth.

Do We Have to Like Everyone?
Certainly we don’t have to have a positive relationship with everyone, but negative relationships tend to expend more of our energy and time. This is especially true for people in positions of leadership. Consider the time spent on emails, meetings, phone calls, and emotional stress that involve interactions with people who we have an adversarial relationship versus the support and positive reinforcement we receive through friendly relationships. It is obvious that a negative relationship that is based on our preconditioning to dislike them is not only counterproductive, but also an unnecessary waste of time and emotion.

The first step in avoiding the downward spiral of negative relationships is to recognize that our internal dislike for someone is not hidden from that person. Our actions, behaviors, and responses will be picked up and will, in turn, dictate their response to us. Gossip, whether it is causally done with friends, or professionally sanctioned as part of ‘assessment’ of subordinates is dangerous to our relationship with that person and will ultimately make our life more difficult. Most of us were taught at some point to never say anything about anyone unless you are prepared to say it to their face….it is a good rule in the home, at work, or anywhere else.

Rotary's Four-Way Test

Rotary has a Four-Way Test that is a guide to any relationship. It is meant to take Rotarians to a higher standard in business and in life. The ‘test’ is as follows:

  • First, is it the Truth?
  • Second, is it fair to all concerned?
  • Third, will it build goodwill and better friendships?
  • Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Great words that can help us to build great relationships…even when sliced thin.

More articles

Social Media 2020: Keep it Personal

19 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in Branding, Human Resources, Information Technology, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Tom Peters

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Part of the challenge in learning new things is getting enough information until you can hit that magic ‘A-HA!’ moment when the information starts falling into place.  Most of my ‘A-HA!’ moments occur when listening to someone who has insight on the topic AND they can frame the information in such a way that it makes everything else I’ve learned fall into place.

For over 20 years many of my A-HA! moments have come after reading Tom Peters, but recently my A-HA! moments on Social Media have come from listening to people like Dr. Bret Simmons.

(www.bretlsimmons.com)

He is well ahead of me on the learning curve of Social Media, but I am finding my course in the digital jungle easier by the path he is blazing for the rest of us common fools.  He has a unique perspective that I appreciate, and it doesn’t hurt that we both share a mutual distaste for archaic human and public relations management practices.

A few months ago I listened to him talk to a group of young professionals. During the talk he caused an A-HA moment for me.  He said, “use your name” in the Social Media arena. That seems terribly simple, but it is a foreign concept to many.  He went on to say that the message that a person conveys to him by not using their real name is that they don’t value him enough to share his or her identity.

(Listen to Dr. Bret Simmons talk about Personal Branding)

I go farther than Dr. Bret, because when someone doesn’t use their own name..full name..I wonder what they are hiding.  I can certainly understand situations where using a full first and last name may be a personal security issue; however, if you’re in the business world and you want to build your individual brand then you must use your real name.

My father’s generation expected to work for one or two employers during their career. In the past 40 years that concept has died.  What has replaced it is an attitude by employers of a one-way contract.  They want the employee to pledge complete loyalty, but in return they have no obligation of offering the employee job security. Building your personal brand is the only job security you have in today’s market.

In today’s environment your name should be the address for your website, the title of your blog, and identify you on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Your resume is not what you have on paper, it is what you have out on the Internet and the quicker you accept that fact, the faster you can start working on developing your public image and engage in the today’s market.

Does that mean you risk embarrassing yourself?  YES!  Get over it.  With each embarrassment you will become a little better at self-monitoring, both online and face to face.  We are human beings and if you don’t get a job because of something you said two years ago then you have dodged a bullet.  Any employer who is looking for the perfect employee is going to be staffed with people who don’t risk failure and that is not the company to be associated with in today’s world.

You owe it to yourself and the rest of the world to create your own personal brand. If you don’t then expect your tag line to be, “would you like fries with that, sir?”

Other Blogs about Social Media and Public Relations


Is monitoring your employee’s Facebook page a liability?

15 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Management Practices

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - CEO of 2020 Enterprise Technologies, inc.

A recent study indicated that 70% of employers surveyed said that they use an applicant’s personal social networking page as a factor in deciding whether to hire or not.  It is no secret that many employers check out their employee’s social networking sites and in some cases base employment decisions on what they find out about their workers, but is the employer increasing their liability by this practice?  A manager or human resource person who goes to a social networking site and looks up an applicant’s (or an employee’s) webpage may believe they are acting in the best interest of the company; however, researching someone’s private life may result in expanding the company’s Duty to Care responsibilities, which could open a new door of accountability if the employee commits a criminal or civil offense that might have been indicated beforehand on his or her social networking page.

Duty to Care versus Big Brother
Every employer has an obligation to abide by the doctrine of ‘Duty to Care’.  While each State has its own standards to define an employer’s Duty to Care, in general terms, it is the responsibility of the employer to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that an employee would not cause harm or injury, and if an employee does cause harm or injury that the employer could not have reasonably foreseen the employee’s potential to act in such a manner.  Some may think that this is limited to an employee’s actions on the job; however, under certain conditions, the employer may be liable for harm or injury caused by acts performed while off-duty.  Because of the Duty to Care responsibility many employers perform criminal background checks, credit checks, and drug testing on their employees to insure that they have made a reasonable effort to maintain a safe environment for their customers, employees, and the general public.  Monitoring an employee’s Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or other social networking page might seem a natural extension of the Duty to Care obligation, but is it a good policy or does it expand the Duty to Care to an unlimited monitoring and assessment of an employee’s potential to cause harm?

A Fictional Example
An employer (Better Widgits, Inc.) checks an applicant’s (Mark’s) current Facebook page and sees nothing unusual and based on the qualifications of the applicant and seeing nothing negative in the criminal background checks, Mark is hired.  Eight months after being hired Mark is fired for poor work performance.  Two months later Mark returns to Better Widgits, Inc. and shoots two people.  Attorney’s for the victims discover that six month’s prior to his employment Mark had written about his admiration of a murderer who went back to his former employer and killed three people.  If the attorney’s for the victims know that Better Widgits, Inc. had a practice of checking an applicant’s Facebook page, isn’t it plausible that they will try to build a case that the employer should have reasonably known that Mark had the potential to be violent based upon his Facebook writings?

In the above example the attorneys may still attempt to make the same case even if the company forbid managers and human resource staff to review applicant and/or employee personal social networking sites.  The difference is that the question of ‘reasonable’ knowledge may be limited if an employer takes the stance that they cannot be held responsible for potential acts of violence based solely on the person’s writings on a social networking page when the employer has no legal responsibility for such an intrusive examination of an applicant’s/employee’s personal life.  However, by voluntarily researching Mark’s Facebook page they may be obligating the company to take action on what they find, or in this case, should have found even if it occurred six months prior to Mark’s hiring.

O Brave New World of Employment
We are still in the early phase of understanding the legal ramifications of how social networking sites will impact employment law and it may be years before standards can be developed that will define the best practices; however, each employer should understand the potential liability of monitoring personal social networking sites.  There is risk even with a decision to not monitor the personal Internet writings of an applicant or employee.  Case studies have shown that a violent act in the workplace is often foretold in the writings of person days, weeks, months, and even years before he or she commits a criminal act, so it will be no surprise if individual States eventually enact legislation to require employer’s to research an employee’s private life, including social networking sites.  However, until it is required by law an employer should consider a policy that defines and limits the company’s responsibilities for researching an applicant’s or employee’s background.  It is suggested that an employer seek the advice of their attorney before they begin monitoring applicant or employee personal social networking sites and understand the potential legal responsibility social network monitoring may create for the organization.

More blogs

NOTE:  Paul Kiser is not an attorney and this blog should not be considered to be legal advice.  An attorney should be consulted for all legal issues and opinions regarding proper employment practices and policies.  Paul has over 10 years of Human Resource related experience in HR and management and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.