Enterprise Social Networking Opportunities

Discussion on key aspects

Discuss about the Enterprise Social Networking Opportunities.

The observation is that general outlook perceives social networking to be one of the not-so productive activities of employees, and that for employers it gives them the opportunity to not only monitor but also anticipate behavior of present and prospective employees online (Schoneboom, 2011). However, debate also arises on this outlook and many suggest it is difficult to differentiate such activities of employers from mere ‘monitoring’ to invasion of privacy. In order to get a clearer picture, focus throughout the essay is given to real world practices and their similarity or adherence to many labor industry guidelines.

The main referral point for this discussion is the case study titled ‘How Social is Your Network’ (Kramar, DeCieri, Hollenbeck & Wright, 2014). Even though the attention of the authors is primarily on the pros and cons of use of social networking by employees and employers, the reflections provided paves the way for analysis of some very important concepts. The most prominent one being the question of privacy issues for the organization and employees. It also provides the foundation for discussion on the difference between the outlook of younger employees of an organization and the use of social networking and how right (or wrong) employers are to utilize whatever information about them is available publicly. Finally, the authors’ views also warrant discussion on how both employees and employers can focus on the positive implications of social networking which can benefit the organization. In the paragraphs to follow, these points of views have been analyzed.

To start the discussion, the first aspect is closely studied. It is suggested that the best approach to the challenge of privacy issues can be through achieving a balance between the rights of the employees with the consequences for the organization. It needs to be highlighted that in reality, it is not as simple or easy as it sounds (Cross, Borgatti & Parker, 2012). This is because the most important factor in this case – the perception of employees and employers related to privacy – is bound to differ not only on the managerial context, but even within a person to person context. The main reason behind this argument is that there are virtually no guidelines in existent that defines infringement of privacy within an organization. If the legal stipulations in existent in Australia (Privacy Act 1988 and Fair Work Act 2009) do provide some guidelines on the use and management of information, there are more gaps than specific boundaries in these guidelines. For example, the Privacy Act 1988 provides some principles based on which use and management of personal information should be carried out. However, the important fact to point out here is that it is meant for organizations – whether private or government entities, profit or non-profit entities – which have an annual turnover of more than $3 million (Australian Government, 2015). It is important to highlight, and keep in mind that this is applicable for organizations which fall under the above mentioned category. The critical aspect is that of annual turnover in excess of $3 million. The question that remains unanswered is what about organizations which do not have an annual turnover which is less than $3 million? It can be easily implied that such organizations does not have to necessarily follow these guidelines. This is a crucial aspect in this discussion.

Privacy issues and labor industry guidelines

Even if organizations which do not have an annual turnover of $3 million voluntarily decide to adhere to the guidelines nevertheless, analysis needs to be done on the principals of the Privacy Act 1988. It needs to be highlighted that the principles of the Privacy Act provides obligations which entities need to follow when handling ‘Sensitive Information’. This ‘sensitive’ information is basically information about an individual’s health, ethnic or racial origin, and political, religious, philosophical beliefs, membership of political, trade or professional association, biometric information and even sexual orientation or practices (Australian Government, 2015). Definitely it implies that an organization of employment has the duty to safeguard and efficiently manage this information. However, what it does not imply is that it prevents organizations (employers) to monitor and utilize information about an individual employee which he/she willingly discloses to the public in the form of status updates or tweets on social media. Neither does it say that the provisions limit an organization to utilize information willfully disclosed on a public forum and utilizing the same to the best interests of the organization. So technically, can an organization take adverse actions against an individual on the basis of information which is supposed to be confidential and that which follows under the ‘sensitive information’ category? The answer is no, as the Privacy Act prevents that. However, can an organization take any action against an individual on the basis of information which he/she willfully discloses on a public forum like social websites? Clearly, the Privacy Act does not have provisions to take actions on the basis of that and if it is proved that such disclosure on social media is against the interests of the organization, employers can take actions against these employees and the provisions are highly unlikely to provide any relief in this case.

With regards to Australian statutory factors with regard to privacy in the workplace, the other important law to focus upon is that of the Fair Work Act 2009. Primarily, this law is aimed at preventing organizations and employers from exploiting employees. Almost all of the provisions of the law are aimed at highlighting aspects which clearly highlight stipulations for employers with regards to fair workplace practices and which are incidents or situations which can be accounted for violation of this law (Australian Government, 2016). However, this law clearly indicates that as much as it is in favor of fair work conditions for the employees, it is equally committed to the sustenance of economic growth. Almost all of the statutes of this law govern aspects of employment such as compensation, leaves, benefits, working conditions and other employment conditions. There is actually, very little provision for an employee’s support when an employer takes action against him/her based on information shared on a public platform like social media, especially if the same is proved to be against the interests of the organization.

Employer actions based on social media posts

If the implications of the above two laws are carefully looked at, it is easy to understand the fact that employers have the upper hand when it comes to privacy issues while using social networking by employees. Now, the nature of social networking websites are such that it provides the platform, and in many cases encourage individuals to share opinions and information on a wide range of aspects be it personal, or related to economical, political, entertainment aspects. Here, employers and organizations can easily avail the information, provided that the privacy settings (or lack of it) on their employees’ profiles allow it. Employers can take actions against employees based on the information they upload to social networking websites, however, they need to ensure that such actions do not violate any of the provisions of the Privacy Act, 1988 or Fair Work Act, 2009. So technically, in a situation where a female employee has her employee on her ‘friend list’ on Facebook and updates her status saying she is against any sexual harassment and sexual discrimination at the workplace, ideally there should not be any problems. However, if instead of that she gives a status update which alleges without proof that sexual harassment and discrimination by her male bosses at her organization is rampant, the employers can definitely take actions against her. The critical factor here is that discretion is the key. Now it is here that things get more complicated. Such status updates when they are visible to everyone publicly (due to inappropriate privacy settings) can very well influence the decision of future employers too. There is no law, at least none in Australia, which prevents employers both present and prospective from engaging in such scrutiny practices (Sarrel, 2010).

The factor which can be clearly derived from the above sections is that there are laws in place to protect employees against malpractices and exploitation by employers. However, there is not much of good news when it comes to action taken against employees by their employers on the basis of information about them obtained from social networking websites. To make matters worse, such actions on part of employers to access information which is publicly shared cannot be accounted as breach of privacy (Mitrou & Karyda, 2014). So, the debate gets a new direction as to what to post/share on social networking websites, and is it right for the employers to go through the same.

Importance of privacy settings and online presence

When an individual posts something on the social network, it does become visible to others publicly. The number of people who are able to see the post would entirely depend on the privacy settings of the person’s profile page (Turban, Bolloju & Liang, 2011). However, it also needs to be highlighted that the particular post, until and unless removed or ‘hidden’ from the timeline continues to be visible to others. Same goes for photos, videos or even posts in which an individual maybe tagged by another. In Facebook, a user is asked to update information about his educational and professional background as well. Even the list of friends that a person has is seen by others if the proper privacy settings are not applied. Moreover, today it is possible to look up anyone on the internet a Google search by name often displays the social network profiles of people with the same or similar name, if through the privacy settings the user does not disable linking of his page through search engines (Pi, Chou & Liao, 2013). More often than not people use these features to study and understand the individual. Hence, it is important for employees to understand is the fact that legally and professionally, it is not wrong for their employers or prospective employers to go through information about them which is publicly available on social websites. More so, when employees themselves use this feature to either find out information about an organization, or even post about them (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Further, meticulously going through the users’ timelines cannot be stated to be infringement of privacy.

Especially today’s younger generations of employees are very likely to be active users of such social networking sites and they do have a different outlook (Barsness, Diekmann & Seidel, 2012). This plays a crucial role in the way social engagement is perceived as well. Much of the socializing takes place through social networking websites and it is true that not all of the connections on such sites can be defined to be friends. Basically, anyone can be added into the friend-list and once it happens, the person added gets regular updates about the posts and status messages shared. So in a way, an individual is equally responsible for the information provided by him on a public platform (Bruning & Ralston, 2010) – and many of the young users do provide vital information about their workplaces or professional lives. If the information is publicly available, using and managing the same cannot be really called intrusion (Giannakos, Chorianopoulos, Giotopoulos & Vlamos, 2012). So, in a way, if employees do not have a problem to discuss themselves and their jobs on social networks, employers using the same platform to glean whatever information about them should not be a concern either.

Regarding this aspect it is expected that there will be different points of view on the issue. Some might consider this to be an employee versus employer case, while others might suggest elimination of social networking websites from the equation altogether. However, the real challenge lies in being able to arrive at a situation where it benefits both employees and employers (Kruger & Dunning, 2009). So, from a leadership point of view how can a progressive employer ensure use of social networking benefits everyone? These have been highlighted in the paragraphs to follow.

Perhaps the most important in this case is that use of social networking websites helps in short-listing the most suitable candidates for selection (Kuvaas, 2013). Even in this case, the method is largely that of an internal or referral format, it minimizes the trouble of higher attrition and replacements (Jones & Saundry, 2012). It is because of the fact that the chances of mismatch in terms of roles and responsibilities and attributes are limited to a great extent. Therefore, social networking websites cannot be associated with only negative impacts. Another important aspect that needs to be highlighted in this context is that when employees and employers are connected through social networks, it is easier to reach out to a mass audience easily (Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009). It also enables the organization to be able to achieve greater employee engagement as employees are more likely to feel connected and important to the organization. At the same time, as the name itself suggests, social networking websites facilitate networking in an immense fashion (Zatzick & Iverson, 2006). For example, professional social networking platforms like LinkedIn keeps both employers and employees connected to a great extent, which could not have been even dreamt of twenty or thirty years ago. It also needs to be highlighted that social networking websites not only provides benefits to the employers, but to the employees as well. One of the main aspects to highlight in this regard is that of ease in reaching out to higher authority (Smith, 2010). It also benefits the organization as when employers and employees stay connected through a common platform, it is easier to gather opinions and perspectives related to talent management within an organization, based on which decisions can be taken. Lastly, many progressive employers also promote motivation and encouragement throughout the organization by appreciating and acknowledging high performing employees on social platforms (Kenneth, 2000) which not only send good vibrations among present employees, but also within the labor market and prospective employees as well, thereby helping in attracting talent. These are some of the most common ways by which progressive employers can ensure a favorable work environment for the organization which is very much essential for optimum performance.

Conclusion

One of the key concerns which are associated with employers and employees staying connected via social networking websites is that of privacy. It needs to be mentioned that almost all of the social networking websites provide preferred privacy settings to employees. Simply, if an employee does not want particular information to be shared all he/she needs to do is ensure it is not publicly accessible. However, blaming social networking websites is seen to be not justified from the above mentioned facts and information. It is further supported by the fact that employment laws in Australia do not view this as infringement of privacy – what is meant to be private, cannot be shared on a public platform. On the other hand, social networking in a professional setting has more advantages than limitations to employees, employers and organizations. Just like any resource, it all depends on the way it is managed.

References

Australian Government. (2015, November 29). Australian Privacy Principles. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from Office of the Australian Information Commissioner: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/privacy-act/australian-privacy-principles

Australian Government. (2016, July 1). Fair Work Act, 2009. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from Federal Register of Legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00785

Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A. and Seidel, M. L. (2012). Motivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 401-419.

Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2010). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining the influence of key public member relational attitudes on behavioral intent. Communication Research Reports, 17(4), 426-435.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P. & Parker, A. (2012). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25-46.

Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A. & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and family: A measure of work/non-work interference and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), 441-456.

Giannakos, M., Chorianopoulos, K., Giotopoulos, K. & Vlamos, P. (2012). Using Facebook out of habit: Behaviour and information technology. Oxford: Taylor and Francis Group.

Jones, C. & Saundry, R. (2012). The Practice of Discipline: Evaluating the Roles and Relationship between buyers and sellers. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 252-266.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

Kenneth, T. W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work—Building energy and commitment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kramar, B., DeCieri, N., Hollenbeck, G. & Wright, M. (2014). Human Resource Management in Australia. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill Australia.

Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (2009). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 11-21.

Kuvaas, B. (2013). Work performance, affective commitment, and work satisfaction: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 365-385.

Mitrou, L. & Karyda, M. (2014). Employees’ privacy vs. employers’ security: Can they be balanced? Telematics and Informatics, 23(3), 56-59.

Pi, S. M., Chou, C. H. & Liao, H. L. (2013). A study of Facebook groups members’ knowledge sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1971-1979.

Sarrel, M. D. (2010). Stay safe, productive on social networks. Journal of Workplace Rights, 27(7), 12-16.

Schoneboom, A. (2011). Sleeping Giants? Fired workbloggers and labour organisation. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(1), 9-13.

Smith, M. (2010). Getting Value from Exit Interviews. Association Management, 52(4), 22.

Turban, E., Bolloju, N. & Liang, T.P. (2011). Enterprise social networking opportunities, adoption, and risk mitigation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21, 202-220.

Zatzick, C. D. & Iverson, R. D. (2006). High-involvement management and workforce reduction: Competitive advantage or disadvantage? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 999-1015.