I was asked to comment yesterday on the controversy surrounding the updated employee policies for Williamson County, Texas, regarding personal use of social media that would require a disclosure if the employee discusses any county issues or business.
News8Austin.com: Williamson County institutes social media policy for employees
I find it interesting and, frankly, odd that such a stink would be raised by a policy that helps protect employees from misunderstandings. Then again, I’ve been in the corporate world for many years now.
When I worked at Dell, it was made very clear to all employees that we represented Dell at all times, whether we were at work or not, “on the clock” or off. Without being asked, I put in the disclaimer that “opinions expressed are my own and not my employer’s.” While I knew this would not protect me if I expressed any truly vile opinions, whether they be about my employer or about any other topic, I figured it best to make it very clear that nothing I was saying was to be taken as speaking on behalf of my employer.
I believed then and I continue to believe that this does help protect the employee. What I was getting at in the above snippet within the TV news story was that it is a rather tenuous protection because sometimes it may not be obvious to oneself when one is “crossing the line” in stating an opinion. Sometimes it isn’t even about the opinion itself but about the way one may choose to express that opinion, if it is done in a disrespectful or hurtful way.
In the end, the best advice I’ve heard on this topic is this: “Don’t say anything your mother wouldn’t feel proud reading you said in the newspaper.” Others have stated this as not saying anything you wouldn’t say to your mother, but I find that I don’t talk to my mother about things I talk to other people about in public. Another expression (also from a 2009 BusinessWeek article) is simply “Don’t be stupid.” Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes anything but common, and a guideline that is easier to interpret than that seems necessary to me.
Hence, I assume public speech that will get back to my mother and my test of my words is to ask: will my mother be proud of me or will she be disappointed or upset at me for having said this? If it’s the latter, I probably shouldn’t say it… or at least not publicly!
(Thanks for the catch, on saying William County in the first paragraph, Dave Evans! corrected to Williamson County now. =)
Keep up the good work Ricardo – I appreciate all your help. My business is already benefiting from your expertise.
Cheers,
Paul Reddam
Awesome, Paul! Thanks for the comment & all your support. =)
Ricardo, nice to see this site and congrats on your tv appearance.
As with most news coverage of complex issues, the piece raises more questions than it answers. It is unclear about whether the rules apply only to county matters or all expression by employees. Requiring employees to follow confidentiality rules is of course essential, but if the bit about “any personal blog started by a county worker should identify that person” is really that broad then it’s extremely intrusive. Furthermore, such a requirement could have exactly the opposite effect of its intention – if an employee starts a blog on some sensitive political or sexual topic, do the authors of the policy really want the blog to turn up in Google searches for “Williamson County”?
As for the Dell policy that one is always representing one’s employer, I would find that intolerable as an employee and I would think that Dell would see it as opening up a huge new area of liability. What if an employee commits libel toward some third party on a matter unconnected to Dell? Could Dell then be sued because, according to its own policy, the employee was speaking for the company?
I don’t see the Williamson County policy itself online anywhere. If they publish it in full, I hope you’ll let us know.
Thanks, Prentiss. I will try to follow up with this and update the entry when I find out what’s up.
I understood it to mean “if the employee blogs/uses social media to discuss a Williamson County topic, they should disclose they are an employee.” That seemed sensible to me, but I totally see your point if they just want disclosure no matter what the topic. That would seem too heavy handed to me also.
On the Dell stuff, I may not be using the right language. It’s not that I always “represent” my employer even when I’m away from the office. It’s more like my actions and behaviors reflect upon my employer. Honestly I don’t have the employee guidelines anymore since I don’t work at Dell. What they really meant to imply – in my own opinion – was that you should feel proud of working at Dell and should reflect that pride in all activities. Something like that. “Represent” is too strong a word and does get into the quandary you bring up. In fact, when I was a Dell employee and got the opportunity to present at some conferences and such, I always had to disclose that I was still Dell employee but that I did not speak on behalf of the company and that I would only share publicly-available info in my presentation. I usually specifically added, “Please don’t get me in trouble. Please don’t say ‘The Dell Guy’ just said something; please feel free to say ‘The Stwittergy Guy’ just said…” I had permission to represent my own company and disclose public information, but not to pass myself off as a “spokesperson” for Dell. Hope that helps clarify! =)