Tag Archives: Management Practices

Death of ALL Salesmen!

29 Thursday Apr 2010

Posted by in Branding, Consulting, Information Technology, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Dear Mr. Webster:

Please remove the following words from your dictionary:  ‘Sales‘, ‘salesman‘, ‘salesperson‘, ‘selling‘, ‘advertise‘, ‘ads‘, …oh, and while you’re at it, remove that word, ‘metrics‘.

My reasons are as follows:  While there are still gullible people who can be manipulated into buying something they don’t need, ‘selling‘ is an illegitimate word for today’s socially interactive, connected, and informed world.  It can be eliminated.

The same is true for ‘advertising‘. The idea of annoying people while they are involved in an activity like reading, watching TV, or listening to music has forced people to find alternatives to being inflicted with a sales pitch as payment for doing something they enjoy. In a social interactive world we don’t need to be assaulted.  People will discover good products and services through mass personal communication, therefore, advertising can also be eliminated.

As for the irksome term ‘metrics‘, it makes people giggle when some pompous fool uses it, so ….wait, nevermind ….keep ‘metrics’, it helps me identify our village idiots.

Thanks so much.

Sincerely,

Paul Kiser

Attention Must Be Earned!: Don’t Sell, Educate

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

Selling is a term that implies aggressiveness and manipulation.  It gives business owners the mistaken belief that if customers aren’t buying their product or service that it must be the fault of the ‘Sales’ team.

Here’s a thought: If people aren’t buying what you’re selling, maybe it’s because your products or services SUCK!

If a person doesn’t need a product or service, ‘selling’ them it will only lead to buyer’s remorse/regret and make the customer irritated at the company that manipulated them. Selling is the act of a desperate person who doesn’t believe in their product or service, but still hopes that they can find a sucker to bite. Selling something a person doesn’t need is a scam and it should be reserved for companies that have no honor or dignity.

The only time a product or service should be purchased is when it is needed by a customer and/or when it will improve the customer’s life.  Usually, a customer is not aware of all the products or services that can improve their life and that is an opportunity to educate, not sell.  Education is a service that makes the customer smarter.  It is not aggressive, nor desperate and it leads to a stronger bond between the customer and business.  Education is offered by a consultant that has his or her customer’s best interest in mind.

To educate a customer requires that the consultant know the client/customer.  The consultant should not be working for her or his company, but rather for the client. What is on the line is the brand, not of the company, but of the consultant.  A person who ‘sells’ damages his or her reputation and the person who educates becomes a valuable resource.

Educating rather than selling is a simple concept, but so few businesses seem to grasp it.  Why?  Because too many business think in the short-term – “What are our sales this month?” It’s a bad way to do business and it leads to pressure to ‘make a sale’. If revenue is down there are three possibilities.

  1. The customer has been well-taken care of and doesn’t need anything else now.
  2. The customer doesn’t realize that your company has a solution that they need.
  3. The customer knows your products/services suck.

If the situation is the first reason (a satisfied customer), then the consultant has done his or her job well!  A consultant can only take action if the situation is the second reason (needs more education.) However, if business is down because of the third reason (inferior product/service) then it is the business owner’s fault, not the consultant’s.

It is time to stop abusing customers. Start treating them with respect.  Kill your sales staff (well, not literally) and all terms that suggest manipulating the people who keep you in business.  It is a win-win for everyone.

More blogs

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


Social Media 2020: Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010

13 Tuesday Apr 2010

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A lot has changed in the last nine years in regard to the world of Public Relations.  In Part One I compare the fable presented in the Late 1990’s book, Who Moved My Cheese by Spencer Johnson to the reaction towards today’s new world of Social Media.  In Part Two of this series I compare how we looked at Public Relations in 2001 versus how we look at it today.

Paul Kiser

(Read Part One of this series – Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?)

Public Relations 2001:  The Power of Third-Party Media

In 2001, Public Relations was more distinct.  A person could easily identify the roles and responsibilities. Publicity was defined as earning the attention of third-party media of an organization through free media channels. Promotion described the use of paid third-party media advertising (newspaper, radio, TV, phone book, mail, etc.) to gain public attention.  It was easier to define Public Relations in 2001 because it consisted of three distinct roles:  1) The organization seeking publicity/promotion, 2) the third-party media, and 3) the target audience.

Of the three roles, the third-party media was considered a deity.  The goal of PR professionals (and non-professionals) was to gain favorable attention of those key people in the third-party media so that they would talk about you to their audience.  You could buy your way into the hearts and minds of the media, but the goal was to seduce the media and gain their favor.  Journalists, newspaper editors, television news directors, and other media professionals had the power to make or break the public image of company and/or influence customers purchasing habits.  The people in the media were the gatekeepers to the public.

In 2001, the Internet was not new, but it was still primarily a place of email and websites.  PR professionals were promoting websites as another tool in their arsenal to reach the public, but many organizations still had their doubts about the importance of how a website could increase their business.  A few could see beyond the existing uses of the Internet.  Some of those gifted few might have imagined a world where junk mail and the yellow pages would become obsolete, but the idea of masses of people in continuous connection to each other was hard to fathom by almost everyone, especially PR professionals.

The New Cheese: The Individual

Tom Peters - author of Re-Imagine! New Business Excellence in a Disruptive World

One person who saw something brewing in the early part of the new millennium was Tom Peters.  In his 2003 book, Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age, he devoted a chapter to Individual Branding.  He suggested a future where the skills and experience of the individual would be key to ‘New Business’.  A world where a person isn’t swallowed up as a commodity in the belly of a corporation, but rather as an independent professional that companies would compete to have on their team.

(Go to Tom Peters Re-Imagine! website)

In 2003, it seemed hard to imagine how an individual could become relevant in a business world that often captured employees and then made them sign non-disclosure, non-compete, we-own-you agreements.  The ability for someone to market themselves was severely restricted, if not, banned outright by the corporation that made no promises of job security, but demanded total loyalty.

Perhaps Peters could see that the blogging sites of 2001-03 were signaling a new age of individualism; perhaps there were trends in place that Peters could project in the future; or perhaps (and this is my theory) that Peters has the ability to travel in time; but with the development and massive growth of Social Interactive Media in the last five years, Peters accurately predicted a new world of branding of the individual that is now a reality.

The Individual Trumps False Corporate and Media Gods

The rapid growth of Facebook and Twitter are two of the significant factors that changed the world of Public Relations.  Facebook made Social Media acceptable to millions.  Social Media allowed an individual to connect with hundreds of other people without the approval or denial of a third-party media deity.  Ideas, opinions, and knowledge were now being shared and it all bypassed the traditional gatekeepers.  It is hard to say what was the critical mass flash point that pushed Social Media into the mainstream, but once Facebook exceeded 100 million users there was no doubt that the Age of the Individual had dawned.

Twitter’s contribution to the age of the individual was two-fold.  The 140 character limitation for Twitter messages created a need to link to blogs, articles, and websites to fully convey new information and ideas; therefore, the practice of embedding links into a Tweet became commonplace.  That spurred a new connectivity of an individual’s ideas and opinions to the rest of the world.  Prior to Twitter, a blog was primarily found via a Google search, but a Tweet brought more attention to the general public without relying on a deliberate search, AND, the Tweet put new information out to an audience that was already interested in the topic.

The second impact of Twitter was a continuous flow of connectivity.  As a Social Media tool it put people in touch with each other 24/7/365.  While other Social Media tools could make a similar claim, Twitter encouraged users to stay connected and placed a priority on real-time interaction.  This was a pace of communication that corporations, with layers of control and approval, were not equipped to handle.  The corporate practice of running every statement or concept by a Public Relations professional before it goes public was not possible in the world of real-time information.  Twitter was designed for communication of individuals, not corporations, which is exactly the way users wanted it.

A Different Flavor of Cheese

Nobody will deny that Public Relations is still not a viable function in today’s world, but the old concept of the worship of third-party media like newspapers has been lost.  Discussing the Internet and Social Media when a newspaper professional is in the room is like discussing a new girlfriend in front of someone who used to date her and got dumped.  Public Relations is no longer an effort to make the best possible impression with the public as it is about being genuine.  Users of Social Media can spot a fake PR effort and anything that smacks of a corporate sell job is rejected…permanently.

To survive in a world of ‘Social Media Relations,’ corporations no longer can hide behind the perfect façade of Public Relations.  A business will be judged by the sum of its individuals and that means less control and manipulation of its employees.  The successful company will unshackle its people to dazzle its customers with their expertise of the business, and their competitors will tremble in fear.  It’s a new world, but not for those who don’t adapt and adopt.

Tom Peters world of New Business is here and Public Relations can no longer hide behind the curtain in New Oz.

Other Blogs on Social Media and Public Relations

Publishing Industry to End 2012

Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?

Fear of Public Relations

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!

Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Not so Greats are Killing American Business

10 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Relations, Rotary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Tom Peters is one of the most annoying people in the world.  I say this because people are usually annoyed by a person who is always right and Tom Peters is almost always right.  For decades he has been scolding business, mocking those who excel at mediocrity, pointing out companies that are doing it better, and generally being relentless at not accepting the status quo in the corporate world.  Sure he gets paid big bucks to chastise organizations and industries to their face, but that doesn’t mean they like him.

Tom Peters book, Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age

After almost 30 years of spelling it out for executives and business leaders that they are doing it wrong, he still makes a great living from ranting at the corporate world.  The reason is simple.  It’s not because it is difficult to take his advice.  It’s not because Peters asks the impossible.  It’s not because the corporate world consists of stupid people (well, maybe a few).  The reason Tom Peters is able to continue his assault on business is because he offers the perfect commodity:  Common sense in a nonsensical world.

The problem is a fear of Greatness.  Most people seem to be comfortable doing good work and live in terror of risking failure by going for greatness.  Case in point:  Government.  Right now most State, County and Municipal governments are operating under the assumption that they have failed and the only thing they can do is plan for more failure.  You can’t do great things when you have decided you’ve already failed.

Jim Collins book, Good to Great, talks about how great companies have a realistic view of the challenges they face AND at the same time those companies are absolutely certain that they will succeed.  Taking the lessons learned from Collins research, greatness involves; 1) great AND humble leadership, 2) getting the right people in the right positions AND getting the wrong people out, and 3) confronting the facts, no matter how stark, AND believing that success is possible.

Tom Peters has shown repeatedly that we fall into traps of mediocrity and that’s the alpha and omega to squandering a great opportunity.  I am constantly amazed at how many people have never read Peters and can’t figure out why business seems so hard to understand.  I am more amazed at those that have read Peters and still don’t get that ‘good’ is never going to be ‘good enough’.

Windows Office 2010: What to Do?

01 Monday Mar 2010

Posted by in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Information Technology, Management Practices, Rotary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - CEO 2020 Enterprise Technologies

(NOTE: This blog was originally published on March 1, 2010-Microsoft released Office 2010 on June 22, 2010)

In the next few months Microsoft will officially launch the next generation of Windows Office (Office 2010, code-named Office 14) and it will create new dilemmas for many business owners, Information Technology (IT) managers and users of Windows Office. Consider the following issues:

Microsoft Office 2010

  • Windows Office commands the office productivity software market with some claiming that Windows Office has a 95% market share, or better.
  • Once available to the general public, Office 2010 will be competing with its own predecessors. Office 2003 and Office 2007 are approximately equal in the number of users.
  • Although it is over seven years old, Office 2003 is still actively used in businesses because Office 2007 introduced dramatic changes that made the product more like a new product, rather than a new version. This caused many users to stick with the 2003 version, rather than trying to learn the updated product. (As of February 2009, users of Office 2003 still exceeded users of Office 2007.)
  • There are three different versions of the Windows platforms (Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7) actively being used in the business world.
  • Microsoft conceded to business last year by delaying the ‘Stop Sell’ date of Windows XP from June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2010, but the platform will not likely receive another stay of execution.

What faces the business world is a dilemma of what Windows platforms and versions of Office should be used in their work environment. This issue will become acute with the purchase of new computers, but will there be communication and document sharing issues between old computers and new computers and software?

The issue boils down to the individual user versus IT and management. From an IT perspective having everyone on one system is more efficient in terms of training and maintenance. Management usually prefers equipment to be interchangeable and using different versions of office productivity software could lead to minor conflicts when sharing files. However, individual users (including management) of Office 2003 are often adamant about staying with what they know.

The stark reality is that with the early success of Windows 7 and positive reviews about Office 2010 Beta, the old software (Windows XP, Vista, and Office 2003) have a limited business life. It is reasonable to think that by 2012, all PC’s will come with Windows 7 and Office 2010, and prior versions will not be an option. That is certainly the road that Microsoft would prefer and ultimately they will decide when all prior versions will 1) no longer be sold, and 2) no longer be supported.

How Did This Happen?
This issue has come to the surface for several reasons. First and foremost is the success of Office 2003. The version, originally named Office 11, built on the success of previous versions and coupled with the adoption of the Windows XP platform became the productivity software of choice during the years of 2004-07. When Microsoft introduced its new Vista platform and Office 2007 (code name Office 12) it anticipated a steady transition of business users from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

Unfortunately, Microsoft miscalculated by trying to make a major re-creation of its platform with Vista and, at the same time, introducing a ‘Mac’ like look to its software that required users to re-learn the software. The bugs of Vista and the new look of the productivity software gave a bad reputation in the business world to the revised software versions. Microsoft then pushed to bring out a newer platform version (Windows 7) to overcome the perceptions of Vista, but that did not overcome the negative impression of Office 2007. Office 2010 or Office 14 (the name ‘Office 13’ was skipped for obvious reasons) is Microsoft’s hope to get most users back on one version of its productivity software. It is a major gamble because the door is open for another software company to try and capitalize on users who don’t want to be forced to adapt the new look of Office; however, most businesses have invested too much into Microsoft products to change over now.

What to do about Office 2010?
The one inescapable fact is that Office 2003 is at the end of its business life. Yes, people will continue to use it and five years from now there will be a small group of people who are fiercely proud that they still use Office 2003; however, based on early reactions to the Beta version and the reality that new computers will soon come with Office 2010, it seems plausible that Office 2010 will rapidly eclipse both Office 2007 and Office 2003. In three years it would not be surprising to see Office 2010 have 60% to 70% of the market, so logically it would make sense for businesses to prepare to make the change.

But just because it is logical doesn’t mean the adoption of Office 2010 will be accepted by business users. Some companies will take a passive approach and let individuals learn Office 2010 as they purchase new computers. This approach is not recommended for larger companies or companies that have a high degree of internal and external communications. Having staff on different versions of office productivity software can create unexpected and time-consuming problems.

Each organization will have to make their own evaluation of what will work best for their situation; however, as Windows 7 and Office 2010 begin to dominate the market, staying with older version will seem less like an option and more like a liability for the company.

More Articles

Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Club Leadership, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Rotary@105, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

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

Paul Kiser

Why Did John Quit?
In my years in management, human resources, and service club involvement I have watched many people leave organizations and periodically someone in the organization starts throwing around the ‘R’ word: Retention. What follows are committee meetings, calls for surveys, and finger-pointing. The search usually turns up discovery of a plausible single cause for the problem based upon limited evidence, followed by a shrug of shoulders because the alledged cause is almost always determined to be a reason that is out of control of the organization.

Finding the real reason for attrition for any organization is elusive because there is almost never just one reason for someone to quit. The decision to quit is typically after the person has accumulated multiple ‘dissatisfiers‘ or negative experiences that finally caused the person to make a change by leaving. Dissatisfiers can be issues about pay, benefits, or other tangible reasons; however, most negative experiences are intangible acts that weaken (or fail to strengthen) a person’s perception of belonging to the organization.

A Dissatisfier may be something small, like a person not getting thanked for his or her contribution to a special project, or something more significant, like a lack of a desired promotion. As each Dissatisfier is added the person gets closer to the decision that the organization is not meeting his or her needs.

While a group or organization may be unaware of their actions that cause a Dissatisfier for an individual, people often consciously use Dissatisfiers to drive away a member or employee from a group because it is a subtle form of discrimination that is difficult to detect and easy to blame the victim as being overly sensitive. We learn this tactic at a young age and often as a byproduct of sibling rivalry when one child torments another by subtlety annoying them until they react violently. In adults, the behavior is rarely as overt, nor does it result in violence, but can be very effective in weeding out diversity in the group.

When the Dissatisfiers are not the result of a conscious effort against a person, but rather the failure to include the person, the result can be the same. Over time the person may ultimately decide to quit for a better opportunity, or, in the case of a volunteer organization, leave for no other opportunity.

The Perfect Environment to Study Dissatisfiers
Volunteer organizations are an ideal environment to study the effect of Dissatisfiers because the issue of compensation and/or benefits (tangible rewards) can be ruled out as factors for attrition. While some may conclude that because there is no tangible rewards for a volunteer, his or her involvement is tenuous all the time; however, often an individual has a deeper commitment to a volunteer organization simply because they are involved for more meaningful reasons. That reason may be as simple as wanting to be a part of an organization that seeks to do good, but for many people who need is often more powerful than monetary gain.

Members of a volunteer organization should feel that the work they perform not only gives them a sense of accomplishment; but also gives them a sense  of worth, belonging (or friendship) and pride. For a member to leave that organization means that the group failed to provide or connect the member to the key rewards of volunteer service. Attrition in a volunteer organization is often blamed on a single external factor (a bad economy) or the person (not in the organization for the right reasons) rather than examine the Dissatisfiers that they might have been able to address that would have retained that member.

To improve retention organizations need to stop looking for the single factor for attrition, and start looking for the list of Dissatisfiers that led to the decision to quit. In volunteer organizations, a member’s involvement is to fill a need of belonging and attrition can only be attributed to internal Dissatisfiers, not external factors.

More Articles

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.