A “Thin Red Line” - Guidelines for Employees’ use of Social Media and its Influence on the...

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

CRANFIELD SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION GROUP

MSc in INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Academic Year 2013

RITA AMATINO

A “Thin Red Line”

Guidelines for Employees’ use of Social Media and its

Influence on the Image of the Employer

Supervisor: EMMA PARRY

OCTOBER 2014

This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science

© Cranfield University 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may

be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner.

Executive Summary

This thesis aims to analyse different approaches to the adoption of

guidelines for employee use of social media and the consequent

influence on brand reputation. The importance of social technologies

and employer brand has been widely analysed in previous research.

Companies are increasingly expected to issue specific policies

addressing employee behaviour on social media, thus minimizing the

related risks. However, the influence of such guidelines on employer

brand has received little attention.

Given the utmost relevance of social technologies in society and the

business environment, the thesis examines the effects of this forced

exposure of businesses to the public domain, the policies adopted to

deal with the related threats and the positive and negative light that

these rules are seen in.

A qualitative methodology of research was employed, with the

involvement of two samples of interviewees, managers and

employees, via seventeen semi-structured interviews. The findings

indicate that, as well as the business advantages that it brings,

corporate engagement with social media also sends an implicit

message of trust and transparency, including where the business’s

relationships with its stakeholders are concerned. In the social media

arena the coherence between official statements and organizational

behaviours can be easily verified. For this reason, guidelines for the

use of social media are seen in a positive light by employees as long

as there is evidence of such consistency.

Table of contents

Executive Summary .................................................................... 1

Table of contents ........................................................................ 2

List of tables and abbreviations .................................................... 4

Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................... 6

Background, research context and business issue ........................... 7

The “war for talent” .................................................................. 7

The advent of social technologies ............................................... 8

Literature review ...................................................................... 10

Employer brand ..................................................................... 10

Employer brand and social media ............................................. 12

A snapshot of social media ...................................................... 13

Effects of social media in the workplace .................................... 14

A social generation of employees? ............................................ 16

Risks generated by the use of social media ............................... 18

Adoption of policies to prevent risks ......................................... 20

Research questions and assumptions ........................................ 22

Adopted methodology and participants ........................................ 24

Method of research ................................................................ 24

Participants ........................................................................... 24

Interview protocols ................................................................ 25

Data collection ....................................................................... 26

Analysis of results .................................................................. 26

The key findings ....................................................................... 28

Prominence of social media ..................................................... 28

Social media strategies ........................................................... 29

Implications of the public domain ............................................. 31

The social war for talent ......................................................... 33

Social media and employer brand ............................................ 36

The use of social media in the workplace .................................. 39

Guidelines for the use of social media and employer brand .......... 43

Discussion ............................................................................... 49

Conclusions ............................................................................. 53

Limitations ............................................................................... 54

References .............................................................................. 55

Appendices .............................................................................. 62

Appendix A – Categories of social technologies .......................... 62

Appendix B – Profile of participants .......................................... 63

Appendix C – Interview protocol for managers ........................... 65

Appendix D – Interview protocol for employees ......................... 67

List of tables and abbreviations

List of tables

Table 1 Structure of interview protocols ...................................... 25

Table 2 Structure of coding template .......................................... 27

Table 3 Categories of Social Technologies .................................... 62

Table 4 Sample of managers ...................................................... 63

Table 5 Sample of employees ..................................................... 64

Abbreviations

“EB”: Employer brand

“SM”: Social media

“SN” - “SNs”: Social network / Social Networks

Acknowledgements

Studying for an MSc in the UK has been a dream of mine for about 15

years. I would have not achieved it without the help of a large

number of people, amongst whom

those who actively contributed as interviewees, donating one of

their scarcest resources, their own time, and

and d’Amico, my employer, who co-financed the course and let

me fit time into my schedule to attend classes.

Moreover, words are not enough to thank all those have been patient

with me in the last three years. I am aware that it has not been easy.

Introduction

Information technology plays a crucial role in society and has become

an essential partner for organizations in the improvement of working

processes (Weerakkody and Hinton, 1999) and in the promotion of

corporate image with customers (Adjei, Noble and Noble, 2012) and

prospective employees (Russell, 2009).

Within the broad range of tools available, social media (hereinafter

“SM”) have indeed acquired a certain importance as a result of the

specific features of the web 2.0. The latest generation Internet

technology “enables social interaction in the digital realm, and thus

allows people to connect and interact virtually” providing “distributed

rights to communicate, and add, modify, or consume content”

(McKinsey, 2012, p.4). The advent of social tools has produced a

Copernican revolution in the traditional top-down communication flow

(Bennet, Owers, Pitt and Tucker, 2010). Any individual is potentially

an active “communicator”, making a video or writing content that can

immediately be published on line and choosing to target a specific

audience. Furthermore, SM are often equipped with a “like” or

“unlike” button or a ranking feature. Using these buttons or features

one can instantaneously raise the popularity of a certain topic, video

or picture (Li, Guan, Tang and Chen, 2012; Swani, Milne and Brown,

2013). Thanks to this instantaneous spread of information to a

considerably wide audience (McKinsey, 2012) SM have played a

“pivotal role” (Hassan, 2012, p.234) in social and political events, for

example the Arab Spring.

In the business environment SM offer the opportunity for “improved

communication, coordination and collaboration” within the

organization (McKinsey, 2012, p.9) and companies fostering this

bottom-up flow of creative energy are predicted to be more

competitive. On this point, Bernoff and Li (2008) emphasize the

“groundswell of people using technologies to get the things they need

from one another, rather than from companies” (p.36).

Whilst exploiting SM represents a considerable opportunity for

success, there are drawbacks at the same time. One of the most

significant effects is that companies and individuals are put in the

spotlight and their networks are moved to an environment in which

there is an increasingly blurred borderline between work and personal

space, between what is internal and what is external to the

workplace. In addition, whilst a business might decide not to be

officially present on SM, many of its employees will probably have a

profile on social networks (hereinafter “SNs”) where they mention

their employer in some fashion. There is a risk that this forced

exposure might prejudice the reputation of the business.

Furthermore, personal devices such as smartphones and tablets,

allow employees to interact – either during or outside working hours -

with a vast and often mixed “social audience” of both friends and

colleagues (Levin, 2013).

To an increasing extent companies are developing specific guidelines

in an attempt to ensure that their employees behave properly on SM

(Jennings, Blaunt and Weatherley, 2014). The objective of this

research is to analyse the effect of the SM on companies, their

approach to the adoption of guidelines and how such policies affect

the way that the organization is perceived in the eyes of its

employees.

Background, research context and business issue

This research has been carried out within a context that is defined by

two main factors:

the importance to businesses of remaining attractive to skilled and

talented workers,

the advent of web 2.0 technologies in society and in the business

environment.

The “war for talent”

The reason why organizations need to remain attractive to talent is,

basically, their own survival (Axelroad, Handfield-Jones and Micheals,

2002). The talent pool that businesses potentially have access to is

constantly shrinking and competition between them is even more

fierce. Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin and Micheals

(1998), who coined the expression “war for talent”, also identified

several causes of the steady decrease in the size of the skilled

workforce. One reason is a demographic factor related to the ageing

of the population in the western world (Franca and Pahor, 2012;

Wilden, Gudergan and Lings, 2010). Increased competition from

small and medium-sized emerging companies and greater job

mobility were also identified as prominent reasons and, more

recently, the attractiveness of employment opportunities offered by

emerging markets (Dewhurst, Pettigrew and Srinivasan, 2012).

In order to remain attractive, companies need to pay attention to

their own brand as an employer. A key success factor in talent

attraction and retention is to consider a “winning employee value

proposition” (Chambers et al., 1998, p.50), which according to the

authors, means “tailoring a company’s brand and products […] to

appeal to the specific people it wants to find and keep” (p.50). In the

current business environment this might imply the involvement of SM

and a consideration of the transformation that has brought about to

the employer-employee relationship.

The advent of social technologies

In 2012, over 1.5 billion social networking users spent one fifth of

online hours on SNs and 80% of internet users (on a global scale)

regularly interacted with SNs (McKinsey, 2012). In 2014 Facebook

reported 829 million of daily active users (Facebook, 2014) and the

community of LinkedIn appeared to have reached “300 million

members in over 200 countries” (LinkedIn, 2014).

Organizations seem to be following this trend. In research about the

“networked enterprise” over 80% of companies surveyed reported to

make use of at least one social and technology tool and most of them

were able to identify concrete advantages and benefits as a result

(McKinsey, 2013). New generations of employees are confident users

of technologies and for them “information and communication have

become instantaneous” (Chincholikar, 2012, p.12). They use SM tools

for either work or personal reasons and expect employers to provide

access to technologies (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2011).

What is the added value of this research for a business environment

shaped by these factors?

In a context in which social technologies are considered a beneficial

commodity and thus are increasingly used by employers and

employees, businesses need to be sure that this “Pandora’s box”

(Jennings et al, 2014, p.96) is used safely by both parties.

Uncontrolled expression in the social arena might lead employees to

reveal reserved information, to convey a message without being an

official spokesperson or to express an opinion that might damage the

image of the company (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Jennings et al,

2014).

For this reason organizations are choosing to establish policies and

guidelines in order to address the behaviour of employees. At the

same time, the employee’s private sphere needs to be protected, in

order to maintain the relationship of trust between employer and

employee (Levin, 2013). In an environment in which the borders

between personal and professional domain are increasingly blurred,

this research intends to help organizations to better understand

where the line between clarification of the rules from an employer’s

perspective and protection of brand reputation lies.

Literature review

This chapter outlines the background of the research on the basis of

academic literature relevant to the objectives set. The work of

practitioners has also been taken into account in order to deal with

certain topics not covered by academia.

The image of companies in the eyes of their employees is interlinked

with the concept of a brand. The investigations in the first two

sections extend to cover the “employer brand” (hereinafter “EB”) in

light of the new opportunities brought about by SM as an additional

channel for promoting the employer. An analysis of social

technologies follows, with a subsequent focus on the role they play in

the workplace and on the consequent expectations of employees in

this regard. The risks for businesses and employers related to 24/7

connection via multiple devices are explored in the last two sections

together with the solutions adopted by organizations.

Employer brand

The resource-based view (Barney, 1991) acknowledges that

employees are crucial in building a long-term competitive advantage,

and the success of a firm also relies on its employees (Dunford, Snell

and Wright, 2001). An engaged workforce is decisive in delivering the

brand experience, and a high quality service that is difficult to

replicate greatly influences customer satisfaction (Moroko and Uncles,

2008). Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, stated “the most

important component of our brand is the employee” (Mosley, 2007,

p.127). Leveraging the EB, businesses can attract and retain people

able to foster their competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).

The concept of EB has been borrowed from the marketing field,

where brand is considered crucial. Mosley (2007) suggests that

customers’ choices are driven by the identity of a specific brand that

makes the product/service clearly identifiable and recognizable. For

this reason, customer perspective is extremely relevant (Mosley,

2007). Kotler, Keller, Brady, Goodman and Hansen (2009) describe

the brand as “a name, symbol, logo, design or image, or any

combination of these, which is designed to identify the product or

service” (p.426). “Identity” and “differentiation” are thus key words,

as a distinctive identity brings a distinct experience (Backhaus and

Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007). When choosing to purchase an iPhone,

people are not only buying a smartphone. They are also choosing to

live the experience associated with the Apple brand (Machado, Cant

and Seaborne, 2014).

The group of stakeholders involved and influenced by corporate

brands is broader than the group made up of customers alone, and

also includes employees. In research comparing customer and

employee behaviour, Collins and Stevens (2002) conclude that both

categories are driven by analogous factors and that employees’

choices are affected by “employer brand equity”, i.e. “potential

applicants’ attitudes and perceived attributes about the job or

organizations” (p.1122). According to Ambler & Barrow (Mosley,

2007) the EB is interlinked with the benefits that are associated with

a certain employer. Such advantages are, in a broad sense, a

“package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided

by employment and identified with the employing company” (p.57).

Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) explain EB as the “process of building an

identifiable and unique employer identity” (p.502). Moroko and

Uncles (2008) add in this regard that, in order to be considered an

employer of choice, businesses need to boost a brand that is “known

and noticeable” (p.163), “relevant and resonant” (p.164) and

“differentiated from direct competitors” (p.164).

EB can be seen as a promise made to candidates (Moroko and Uncles,

2008). Once they decide to join the company, there is indeed a need

for consistency between the EB conveyed to potential employees and

the values communicated by the company to its workforce (Laumer,

Eckhardt and Weitzel, 2010). Consequently, employees expect the

promise made via the brand to be confirmed by the values of the

organization; as a result, “the employee is more likely to be engaged

and loyal” (Moroko and Uncles, 2008, p.166). For this reason it is

crucial for companies to keep the brand conveyed to potential and

current employees authentic (Martin, Reddington and Kneafsey,

2009) and consistent (Laumer et al, 2010).

Employer brand and social media

The current economic context sees businesses in fervid competition

for an increasingly shrinking pool of talent (Chambers et al, 1998),

forcing them to find new ways of approaching prospective employees

(Russell, 2009). SM, are now widely used as a tool to foster the

image and corporate culture of an organization in the eyes of external

candidates or employees already hired. Kumar (2008) emphasizes

how employers need to be visible on the media, as candidates use

them as a primary source of information. Russell (2009) adds that, in

a recession, technologies offer a low-cost opportunity to engage with

candidates and reports several examples of how the web 2.0

technologies can enhance the EB. Martin et al (2009) emphasize that

SM can help a company to preserve the authenticity of its EB by

involving employees in discussions about “what really matters to

staff” in terms of corporate values. In their view, this can help to

improve the perception that the workforce has of the EB. The 2011

Global Employer Branding Study confirms that social tools have great

potential in assisting the promotion of an EB strategy and that 44%

of participating companies are using “social media to enhance their

employer brand” (Valkenburg, 2011).

Top executives have realized the extraordinary opportunity offered by

new technologies in terms of economic performance. Koster (2013)

reports the invitation that Monika Fahlbusch, Senior Vice President at

Salesforce.com, addressed to her colleagues and peers to "pay

attention to what employees hook into in the work environment. The

world has changed so dramatically with the social revolution, so we

need to reflect what that means to us in our company" (p.28).

However, SM are not sufficient to create an EB. They are, rather, a

channel, just like many others. Research conducted by Sivertzen,

Ragnhild Nielsen and Olafsen (2013) acknowledges that social

technologies can be very helpful in building a good reputation. Job

seeking does, however, appear to be positively correlated with an

employer’s reputation itself rather than with its use of SM.

A snapshot of social media

The terms “social networks”, “social media” and “social technologies”

are used interchangeably in the literature and by practitioners. Here,

SM is used as a synonym of either social technologies or social tools

and as a category including SNs.

SNs consist of “online communities of people who share interests

and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and

activities of others” (Bennet et al, 2010, p.140). They belong to a

wider range of applications, the so-called “social media” or “social

technologies”. Given the extremely fast evolution of these tools, there

is no agreement about what exactly they include (Kaplan and

Haenlein, 2010). McKinsey (2012) defines them as “the products and

the services that enable social interactions in the digital realm, and

thus allow people to connect and interact virtually” (p.4) and

identifies the categories set out in table 3 (see Appendix A).

The concept of “social network” (hereinafter “SN”) in the sense of a

web of personal relationships, friendships and other social groups

actually existed well before the Internet era (Granovetter, 1973).

However, technology has brought about a new structure and has

tapped the potential of such networks, fostering their development

and consolidation (Lorenzo-Romero, Alarcòn del Amo and Gòmez-

Borja, 2011). A milestone in the history of SM was the foundation in

1998 of “Open Diary”, a first generation blog for online diary writers

(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Facebook, the best-known and

generalist SN, initially targeted Ivy League students (Smith and

Kidder, 2010). Many other SN have arrived on the scene to fulfil more

specific needs: professional (LinkedIn, Viadeo and Xing), for

expatriates (Internations), for corporate users (Yammer), for dating

(Meetic), etc. (Lorenzo-Romero et al, 2011). Social networking based

upon web 2.0 has made it incredibly easy to maintain and develop

personal and professional networks, an ability commonly thought to

be crucial for success (Bennet et al, 2010).

The reason for joining a SN can either be rational – related to the

professional environment - or non-rational, creating and keeping

social bonds with friends (Frazer and Dutta, 2008). Regardless of

rationale, all these applications and tools have something in common.

User interaction and participation are the specific features that mark

out social tools and make them very different from Web 1.0, the first

generation Internet technology that consisted of static pages

delivering information provided and updated exclusively by the site

owner (Lorenzo-Romero et al, 2011). These features, also known as

user-generated content, allow users to share information, collaborate

in the creation of content and follow and shape opinion trends

(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).

With SM the control and creation of information have become

widespread, with a consequent “shift in [organisational] culture from

‘information gathering’ to ‘information participation’” (Bennet et al,

2010). A piece of information can be addressed to an unlimited

virtual audience that combines friends, colleagues and even people

that one has never met in person in order to share birthdays,

weddings, pictures, work events, articles, opinions, tips on travelling,

movies, hobbies, etc. (McKinsey, 2012).

Frazer and Dutta (2008) identify five categories of SM, basing this

classification on the common element that keeps members bound to

the community:

egocentric, centred on individual profiles often used to

construct an identity or for personal creativity (Facebook,

MySpace, etc.),

community-based, grouping people with a common identity

such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. (e.g. BlackPlanet,

a website for African-Americans),

opportunistic, where membership is driven by a rational reason,

e.g. professional (LinkedIn, Viadeo, Plaxo, Xing, etc. ),

passion-centric, for people with common interests and hobbies

(Dogster, CarDomain, etc.),

media-sharing, with a focus on visual content (YouTube, Flickr,

Instagram, etc.).

Effects of social media in the workplace

In general terms, SM offers interesting opportunities for businesses

that can have an impact on both a company’s relationship with its

stakeholders, current and prospective employees and customers and

the relationship amongst employees within the company. Enterprise

2.0 is the “open enterprise that, for business goals, exchanges and

shares information with all stakeholders (customers, suppliers,

sponsors, partners)” (Consoli, 2012, p.38). This technology facilitates

an easier and less structured flow of information inside and outside

the company and can be a significant resource for the creation of

knowledge, overcoming the classical barriers in a business by

subverting the “old-fashioned vertical ways of working by

encouraging open communication and information sharing” among

colleagues who usually are not in contact (Bennet et al, 2010).

Relationships with stakeholders are also being affected. With social

tools, corporations are in a better position to interact with their

customers and obtain a more detailed and informative insight into

their preferences (Wiederhold, 2012). On the other hand, customer

complaints can easily be channelled through a video on Youtube or a

blog reaching an extremely broad audience (Bernoff and Li, 2008).

Approximately 3 million businesses have a LinkedIn Company Page

(LinkedIn, 2014) and use of SM for talent sourcing has become fairly

common and both high success rate and cost reduction are

highlighted (McKinsey, 2012). Furthermore, the social arena offer

employers an insight into candidates’ interests and personal life well

beyond their resume (Smith and Kidder, 2010). On this point,

Thompson (2012) reports research about employers’ use of SM to

screen personal information relating to prospective employees.

SM are thought to have an influence in terms of facilitating cross-

functional cooperation and interaction, which improves

communication and leverages knowledge-based organization. In

addition to this, SM can foster the sense of belonging among

employees working in branches in different locations and time zones

(Bennet et al, 2010; Landers and Callan, 2014). Beneficial effects are

suggested by Consoli (2012) and McKinsey (2012) in terms of

overcoming silo mentality and diluting the constraints of hierarchy.

The introduction of network initiatives has proven effective in

avoiding duplication in working processes (The Economist, 2010),

increased productivity and improved bottom-line performance (Frazer

and Dutta, 2008). On the other hand, SM are not to be considered a

panacea healing any organisational issue. Research by da Cunha and

Orlikowski (2008) demonstrates, for instance, that the use of web-

based tools can either facilitate or challenge organizational change. In

this regard Bernoff and Li (2008) emphasize that social technologies

are and remain mere tools that need to be fully integrated into the

broader company context and used in line with company culture and

invite companies to “stay focused on culture not technology” (p.42).

In general social tools seem to be more successful than corporate

intranets, which are still dominated by a centralised model of

communication (Bennet et al, 2010). This raises certain issues

regarding the company’s control over information. The introduction of

SM implies a certain flexibility and an awareness that the power shifts

to the people and, for this reason, things can “move in unexpected

directions” (Bernoff and Li, 2008). Frazer and Dutta (2008) believe

that this shift of power is the crucial point of SNs that, with their

horizontal structure, are challenging vertical hierarchies. “Power is

shifting from institutions to networks, from vertical structures to

horizontal systems, from hierarchies to heterarchies, from

bureaucracies to individuals, from centre to periphery, from bordered

territories to virtual cyberspace” (p.2). Introduction of corporate SM

is also thought to provide employees with a new channel to express

their voice (Denyer, Parry and Flowers, 2011; Koster, 2013).

A social generation of employees?

One element to be taken into account by employers battling the “war

for talent” (Chambers et al, 1998) is the attitude of the youngest

generations of workers towards social technologies, which, for them,

are “indigenous” (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010, p.212). The so-called

“Millennials” or “Generation Y”, born between 1982 and 2002 (Howe

and Strauss, 2002), are called “screenagers” (Kaplan and Haenlein,

2010, p.61) or “digital natives”, whereas previous generations are

“digital immigrants” (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010, p.212). As a

matter of fact, technology is a “sixth sense, and is a way of knowing

and interacting with the world” (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010,

p.213). The Internet, born in 1982, can after all be considered a

“Millennial” itself and so can Facebook, which was launched in 2004

as “Millennials” were entering the labour market for the first time

(Hershatter and Epstein, 2010).

This does not imply that the Millennials are necessarily better at using

a computer, as they were not the first ones to use the World Wide

Web (Corpedia, 2012). They do, however, demonstrate an innate and

much more developed inclination towards the immediate and

transparent sharing of ideas and opinions “across a variety of social

media platforms” (Corpedia, 2012, p.4). They find completely normal

to discuss matters openly on social platforms, moving seamlessly

between their personal and professional life and exchanging

information and discussing feelings with friends and colleagues in the

SM arena as they would on the phone or in a pub or cafeteria.

Since social technologies are perceived by Millennials as a “hygiene

factor” (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 1993), this presumably

implies that technology-oriented employers are more attractive to

this category of workers. A survey carried out in 2012 amongst

Italian University students seems to reinforce this assumption. In

fact, in identifying the key characteristics of an ideal employer, a vast

majority (91%) of respondents preferred a “technology-oriented” to a

“non-technology-oriented” company (Boldizzoni, Manzini, Nastri and

Quaratino, 2012).

Candidates seem to expect these technologies to be available in the

workplace for either personal or work reasons. Research by Cho, Park

and Ordonez (2013) demonstrates that Millennials are more attracted

to firms that do not harness the use of social media at all in the

workplace and that this has a certain influence on job-seeking

behaviour. Leidner, Koch and Gonzales (2010) reinforce this

argument, reporting the adoption of an internal social tool within a

mentorship program for a population of new Generation Y staff. The

tool was a success due to the benefits for the organization in terms of

an increased sense of belonging and creation of high morale. The

authors also emphasize three decisive factors behind the success: the

management’s support of the initiative, staff understanding that use

of the social platform during working hours was allowed and a

relaxation of the rigid distinction between life on a personal and a

work level with the introduction of social activities during working

hours.

However, this should not lead us to conclude that SM are relevant

only when dealing with the youngest segment of the workforce.

Whilst Smith and Kidder (2010) are of the opinion that members of

different generations might be actually driven by different work

values in the use of SM, evidence in the literature demonstrates that

different generations do not use social tools in a different way

(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Furthermore, research conducted by

Lorenzo-Romero et al (2011) reveals that the number of SM adult

users (aged 35-44) is greater than those in younger age groups.

Risks generated by the use of social media

Companies are indeed enjoying and becoming increasingly interested

in the positive and countless effects brought about by the use of

social technologies. At the same time, organizations are having to

deal with the risks related to:

the amount of time spent on SM by employees and the possible

impact on their job performance (Landers and Callan, 2014),

the exposure of employees to the public domain when

interacting on SM (Merrill and Tanenbaum, 2013),

the inappropriate use of corporate information (Levin, 2013),

damage to the corporate image and infrastructure (Landers and

Callan, 2014; Merrill and Tanenbaum, 2013),

the protection of employee’s privacy (Smith and Kidder, 2010)

and respect for equal employment opportunities (Zeidner,

2007),

and, in the most serious cases, criminal activity (Miller, 2013;

Landers and Callan, 2014).

One concern relates to the quantity of time spent on SM in the

workplace (Landers and Callan, 2014; The Economist, 2010).

Heydari, Danesh, Jamehshooran and Teimouri (2011) suggest the

advantages of adopting a security system to monitor employee use of

the Internet, thus preventing its use for personal reasons and

avoiding loss of productivity. Freifeld (2012) reports research

revealing that a vast majority of organizations provide open access to

SM (43%), 24% monitor employee access and 16% ban access.

Gartner (2012) estimates that the number of firms “adopting formal

programs for monitoring external SM for security breaches and

incidents” will reach by 60% in 2015. Research conducted by Landers

and Callan (2014) demonstrates, however, that “employees wasting

time with social media is not related to substantially decreased job

performance” (p.16) and that, in some cases, productivity might even

improve after “taking a mental break” (p.16).

It has to be taken into account that an “ubiquitous and constant”

connectivity (Dery and MacCormick, 2012, p.160) has contributed to

overcoming the boundaries of organizations and office hours. People

no longer need desktop PC’s to connect to the web and can now

choose from a wide range of mobile devices - laptops, tablets,

smartphones – all offering continuous access to social tools

(McKinsey, 2012). Around 75% of US employees access SM (mostly

Twitter and Facebook) from personal devices and for personal

reasons at least once a day. A significantly smaller group (19%) does

the same with corporate intranets (Freifeld, 2012).

Another risk is related to the fact that SM place individuals in a public

domain. When meeting their friends online, employees can discuss

work and express opinions about the company or their colleagues.

These conversations travel much further than chats at the coffee

machine or in the pub (Corpedia, 2012).

There are further dangers in the consequences of information

sharing, a core aspect of socialization (Levin, 2013, p.20). While

engaged in the intrinsic interactivity of web 2.0, employees might

voluntarily (or otherwise) disclose company information such as

intellectual property rights or trade secrets (Levin, 2013). Other

potential risks are poor representation of the organization,

disparaging colleagues, suppliers or customers, damaging company

computers and infrastructure with viruses, malware or spyware

(Landers and Callan, 2014; Merrill and Tanenbaum, 2013).

Sources of concern for companies are also possible criminal behaviour

or inappropriate conduct by employees in the online environment,

ranging from posting content that offends colleagues (Landers and

Callan, 2014, p.5) to defamation, harassment and discrimination

(Miller, 2013). These risks are perceived as higher in certain

industries such as the financial sector where, for this reason,

organizations have even been advised to forbid employees from

having a SM profile (Crosman, 2013).

Protection of employee privacy is another challenging aspect, as SM

are also blurring the border between personal and social sphere

(Smith and Kidder, 2010). People build a virtual identity where they

share a considerable amount of personal information and are often

unaware of the related risks (Frazer and Dutta, 2008). They would of

course prefer these personal details to be protected or at least not

used for purposes beyond their control (Levin, 2013).

Some employers, however, monitor the content of employees’ online

posts (Buttell, 2011), and checking Facebook profiles has become

common practice amongst recruiters as a way of getting a picture of

candidates beyond static documents such as resumes and cover

letters (Smith and Kidder, 2010). Embarrassing pictures or a glimpse

into someone’s private life, which should normally be beyond an

employer’s reach, can unexpectedly emerge, thus damaging a

promising career or personal reputation (Frazer and Dutta, 2008;

Smith and Kidder, 2010; Gartner, 2012; Landers and Callan, 2014).

This can be a challenge in terms of respecting equal employment

opportunities (Zeidner, 2007). Companies are sometimes also forced

to deal with a legal framework that is not uniform: whether

background checks on candidates on SM are legal can vary from state

to state in the USA (Smith and Kidder, 2010).

Adoption of policies to prevent risks

In the previous section we saw that banning or monitoring access to

certain websites might be not sufficient as employees have various

devices that connect them to SM (Dery and MacCormick, 2012).

Rather than physical access, it is the reasons for access and the

content shared on social platforms that really matter. Since the

content itself has acquired certain relevance, this implies that, when

deciding to monitor the behaviour of their employees on SM,

companies are forced to negotiate a fine line between their own

interests and the privacy of their employees (Gartner, 2012). Levin

(2013) suggests that an organization’s interest in monitoring SM

should be based on “use” rather than ownership, as SM activities

should be monitored only if the company has an exclusive and

superior interest.

Clearly businesses need to provide guidelines for workers about

appropriate behaviour on SM. In the social arena where “rules are

being developed, and the implications for workplaces are still

emerging” (Smith and Harwood, 2011, p.1), organizations have been

invited to adopt policies to address employee behaviour, clarifying, at

the same time, possible disciplinary action and sanctions (Smith and

Harwood, 2011; Corpedia, 2012), thus avoiding any ambiguity here.

Merrill and Tanenbaum (2013) argue that the policy should be an

integral part of a broader SM strategy and of the employment

contract.

The policy should remind employees that information relating to the

company’s business and services is to be treated as private and

confidential. They should never speak in the name of the firm unless

expressly authorized to do so or use their work email account on

personal websites and SM; last but not least, they should be

reminded that they are legally responsible for the content of their SM

activity (Lange and McKay, 2013). In order to ensure that employees

understand the policy in full, and, therefore, to make the policy more

effective, Buttell (2011) suggests reinforcing the policy with training

or briefing sessions. These might also present the opportunity to train

employees to use SM in a way that is also beneficial for the company

(Buttell, 2011). However, according to Freifeld (2012) only a quarter

of employees have actually “received a specific SM policy from their

employer” (p.1).

And the conflict between the interests of the company and the

protection of privacy and employees’ freedom of expression has

already led to results that fall foul of the law. After analysing a

number of social media policies, the US Acting General Counsel of the

National Labour Relations Board pointed out that attempts to prevent

discussions about working conditions and wages and warnings about

“friending with co-workers” represent an improper restriction of the

“right [of employees] to communicate with each other or third

parties” guaranteed by the Section 7 of the National Labour Relations

Act (NLRB, 2012, p.1).

Research questions and assumptions

The considerations reported in the previous sections and the current

state of the art of the literature lead us to the questions on which this

research is grounded.

Both EB and SM are key elements in business competition. The first

promotes the competitive advantage of companies in the so-called

“war for talent” (Chambers et al, 1998) and, in order to produce

concrete and long-term effects, needs to be kept authentic and

consistent (Martin et al, 2009; Laumer et al, 2010). SM, given their

versatile nature, are a working tool, a platform of cooperation within

the company and, last but not least, a way of engaging with

customers and candidates, constituting an additional channel for EB

promotion where exposure in the social arena is considered crucial for

organizations (Kumar, 2008). Employees, in the meantime, feel an

increasing and pervasive need to stay constantly connected and

exchange opinions and information and this may be not limited to the

“screenagers” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Smith and Kidder, 2010;

Lorenzo-Romero et al, 2011).

However, SM expose companies and employees to the public domain

and inappropriate use can be harmful for both. Concerns are

prompting organizations to adopt policies forbidding access in some

cases or providing guidelines on correct behaviour. Nevertheless, the

prominence of SM and the consequent need to regulate their use

make crucial to understand to what extent such guidelines can affect

capability of firms to keep their brand consistent and attractive

towards talents.

The work by Cho et al (2013) on the impact of different SM policies

on Millennials’ job-seeking approach highlighted the “high value of

using SM in both personal and organizational contexts” (p.797) for

this generation. Their research is focused on the effect of policies on

job-seeking behaviour and deals with specific Generation Y

candidates. A search conducted in the Academic databases EBSCO

and ProQuest when this research was started revealed that the

available literature had not researched the effect of SM policies on the

attitude of those who are already employed by the company.

This research intends to address this specific gap, looking at the

following questions:

What is the effect of the adoption of SM within the

organizations?

What is the effect of the introduction of rules and guidelines for

the use of social tools on employee perception of the

organizations?

Are such rules considered a good practice or are they rather

perceived as a limitation or even a boundary by employees?

Adopted methodology and participants

For the purposes of this research, data were collected using semi-

structured interviews with a total of 17 interviewees grouped in two

different samples: managers and employees.

Method of research

When the research was started in February 2013, the topic was

relatively new and the relationship between adoption of policies and

EB had not previously been analysed in the literature. In fact, the Cho

et al’s article was only published in late 2013.

This study aims at understanding if and in what measure the adoption

of policies and guidelines for the use of SM influences the image of

the company. For this reason, a method allowing a certain flexibility

and the adaptation of questions to the different situations and

organizational contexts was chosen. In light of this, semi-structured

interviews were deemed consistent with this exploratory aim

(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).

The adoption of policies and perceptions of the image of the company

involve different parties in organizations: those establishing the

policies and those who are impacted by their consequent application.

This consideration prompted the decision to analyse the perceptions

of two different groups:

managers, namely those having managerial responsibility

regarding the SM strategy of the company;

employees, including staff members without any responsibility

for the company’s SM strategy.

Participants

The 17 interviewees (9 managers and 8 employees) were selected

from the researcher’s personal and professional network. They were

required to be employed by organisations active on SM and managers

were also supposed to be actively involved in the SM strategy. An

invitation summarizing the objectives of the research, the

methodology and the expected contribution was sent via e-mail or

LinkedIn.

The managers, predominantly Italian males aged between 37 and 55,

have work experience ranging from 8 to 30 years. All held a

managerial position in the HR or Communications Department in

different industries. Their tenure in the position ranged from one to

ten years. The employees, all Italians and predominantly males, were

aged between 26 and 46 with work experience ranging from 2 to 24

years and employed in different industries. The Appendix B provides

further details on the interviewees’ profile. Anonymity has been

guaranteed and interviewees are referred to below with codes.

Interview protocols

Two different protocols (see Appendices C and D), one for each

group, were prepared. Both structured in four parts with a specific

aim (see table 1), these slightly differ in the section related to the

“use of social technologies at corporate level”, which is broader for

the managers. This sample in fact includes those directly involved in

drawing up SM strategy and who, for this reason, were able to

provide more significant insights.

# Area Objective Main topics

1 Introduction

Description and

clarification of the scope

and objectives of the

research

presentation and objectives of

the research

main definitions (social

technologies or media, EB)

general information on

research procedures (length,

confidentiality, etc.)

2

Use of social

technologies

at corporate

level

Definition of the broader

context of the employer’s

strategy

presence of the company on

SM

strategy and activities (with

specific regard to EB) *

effects on the image of the

company as an employer

3

Use of social

technologies

in the

workplace

Focus on SM guidelines

and on influence on the

employer’s image

use of SM in the workplace

(allowed, not allowed, internal

promotion, etc.)

SM policies (form, content,

enforcement)

perceptions of consistency

between SM policies and EB

attitude of employees

4 Demographics Description

of the sample

age, gender, nationality

role and work experience

(years) * Only for managers

Table 1 Structure of interview protocols

Data collection

In order to guarantee quality and consistency of answers, participants

were emailed a preliminary memo including the objectives of the

research and the key definitions and information regarding the overall

process, the main topics, the expected contribution, the

confidentiality of collected information, the procedures adopted for

data processing, etc..

In almost all cases, interviews were conducted in the native language

of the interviewees, who were predominantly Italians. This was in

order to prevent different levels of proficiency in English negatively

affecting the quality of the data gathered. Two pilot interviews

conducted did not lead to significant changes to the protocol.

However, this pilot stage revealed that the interviewees might

struggle with key definitions (e.g. EB), which have been replaced by

synonyms in subsequent interviews. The interviews, which lasted on

average 25-30 minutes, were held either face to face or on the phone

between December 2013 and September 2014 and recorded digitally.

Analysis of results

The interviews were transcribed and, after transcription, the relevant

quotes were translated into English. The analysis of the interviews

was conducted using a coding template (Saunders, Lewis and

Thornhill, 2009), where themes resulting from literature were

combined with aspects emerging from interviews (see table 2).

# Coding Subcodings

1 Prominence of SM

2 SM strategies - Experiments versus structured strategies

- Involvement of top management,

employees and other departments

3 Implications of the public

domain

- Changes in communication

- Dynamism

- A “house of glass”

4 The social war for talent - A broader pool of candidates

- Changed dynamics in the recruiting process

5 SM and EB - Positive influence on EB

- Involvement of the internal audience

- Not everybody likes SM

6 Use of SM at the

workplace

- Open access: a matter of trust

- Is productivity a good reason for

restrictions?

- Transparent monitoring of SM use

# Coding Subcodings

7 Guidelines for the use of

SM and employer brand

- Content of guidelines and different levels of

details

- Written guidelines are a first step

- Influence on EB

- Importance of communicating policies

- Informal guidelines Table 2 Structure of coding template

In two cases, the interviewees agreed to provide a copy of the policy

adopted by their company. In all other cases, the confidential nature

of such corporate documents prevented interviewees from sharing

these guidelines.

The main findings that emerged from the interviews are reported in

the following chapter.

The key findings

Prominence of social media

There was general agreement that SM are a crucial and unavoidable

element of the current business environment. All the interviewees

were employed by organizations active on SM, albeit with different

degrees of interaction and audience involvement and with the

contribution of different departments:

“SM really change your life [as an organization]; in today’s world

they’re a bit like a partner that you didn’t go out and look for but

you’re forced to deal with.” [8]

“You don’t talk about what the effects of being there are; you talk

about what the effects are of not being there.” [6]

The interviewees also suggested that entrance in the SM arena is not

only a matter of “being fashionable”. In fact, SNs appear to be fully

embedded in the life of specific businesses whose vision is focused on

innovation or whose customer base is very active on SNs. The latter

is the case of a leader in the production of professional photography

equipment that has now extended its customer base to SM users:

“We are a company that prides itself on being one of the leaders in its

market in terms of innovation, quality and products. Not having a

social presence would be totally inconsistent with this vision.” [7]

“About four years ago we realized that the market was changing.

The pool of traditional customers [professional photographers] had

started to get smaller, but another group had started to emerge, the

‘social recorders’. These are people who take a picture, usually on a

smartphone, and post it on SM […]. We saw this as an opportunity

and have started to produce accessories for them […] and now we

are completely focused on social recorders.” [8]

SM appear to be a commodity of the daily working life of an employee

in a commercial role in an Internet company. He relies on such tools

heavily in order to build networks with customers:

“The use of such tools is encouraged by the Sales Department and

Client Services Department, the aim being to build a network,

relationships, get in touch with peers […] or customers.” [11].

More traditional sectors that might seem somewhat removed from

the SM world are also enjoying the advantages. The HR Director of a

shipping company remarked how useful these social tools have

proved to be in the recruiting process:

“Until four or five years ago this sector seemed a long way away from

the traditional recruiting channels […] as potential candidates didn’t

read newspapers. […] Now candidates invite you to connect with

them on LinkedIn”. [1]

Social media strategies

Increasing levels of sophistication in the SM strategy were reported.

Contributions here came mostly from managers who have been

directly involved in SM strategy.

Experiments versus structured strategies

Four out of the twelve participating companies had just entered the

social arena or appeared to be in a trial stage with one main objective

(either recruiting, or marketing, or external communication):

“For the time being it’s an experiment, as we’ve still got to work out

how to maximize the benefits. […] This experiment started seven or

eight months ago and is mainly lead by the Marketing Dept.” [9]

The others reported a long-term approach in terms of objectives and

value proposition. Social tools appeared to be an integral part of a

broader strategy, having an internal and external target audience and

used for a combination of internal and external communication. One

manager reported an example of the use of SM in an attempt to grow

the reputation of the organization:

“Every week we have a SM meeting. We go through the events in the

coming week that we could use as a hook […], i.e. the events that we

think, reputation wise, might be positive. […] We retweet activities to

agencies, authorities, organizations that we consider might bolster

our reputation, and we use SM to circulate graphic products that we

produce, so infographics, videos, this kind of thing, and we use

LinkedIn to promote our employer’s branding, our employer’s value

proposition I’d say. So in particular we tend to communicate on the

good points, on the nice things that we’re doing, on anything ultra-

trendy that we are up to.” [6]

Involvement of top management, employees and other departments

The involvement of top management, various departments of the

business and employees in the social presence seemed to depend

upon the state of the art of the social strategy. In the companies

positioned at a “experimental” level, one department appeared to be

the main force behind the project, with one specific objective. The

cross-functional involvement of other departments and greater

commitment by top management seemed to be related to a more

sophisticated strategy.

This is confirmed by a manager’s view that it will, in the future, be

appropriate to involve more departments as the scope of the

company’s SM strategy grows:

“I think that promoting knowledge sharing [in the company’s group

on LinkedIn] would be very interesting, mostly for shipping experts.

We should involve other departments beyond HR, for instance

Chartering [Commercial] & Operations, who are closer to the

business”. [3]

Another one reported that as employees were to be more actively

involved in the SM activities in line with evolution of the SM strategy:

“At the moment we are not actively promoting what we do on SM but

once we have finished the investment that we are in the middle of

[…]. Once we have done that, we will be encouraging employees to

go there on a regular basis.” [4]

In two cases, employees appeared to be active contributors to the

marketing or external communication strategy deployed via SM:

“Over the last six months we’ve managed to get the message across.

[…] An internal audience has to be completely interlinked. So finally

we are also using SM to nurture internal engagement while before

they were just mainly an external relations tool.” [6]

“We have this television series that will be broadcasted again after a

break of about one year. A specific hashtag has been created,

everybody has been given a mask of the main character’s face and

we have been encouraged to wear the mask and post a selfie on

Facebook, Twitter and on various SM.” [18]

In some cases, projects were specifically focused on the internal

audience. One specific business had developed an ad-hoc internal

social tool aimed at increasing and promoting knowledge sharing,

cooperation and interaction within the company. Here, there was

evidence of significant commitment by top management in the

framework of a broader strategy.

“We wanted to improve our working environment, […] working on

three specific dimensions, […] knowledge sharing, cooperation and

interaction, aimed at the development of internal talents. […] We had

to develop an appropriate ad-hoc solution. [...] We have had a great

deal of support from top management, namely the CEO and “my”

Director.” [5]

Implications of the public domain

Influence on the way the organization communicates with

stakeholders, forced transparency and the need to stay active on SM

were mentioned as effects deriving from the entrance in the SM

arena.

Changes in communication

Two possible choices in this field were proposed by interviewees. The

company might choose to replicate the one–way approach typical of

other channels, the corporate website amongst others:

“The company can just present itself [on SM] without allowing

interactivity. It’s like a [….] brochure posted on a SM […]. This isn’t a

big change. The big change takes place when the company allows a

bi-directional exchange of information.” [2]

On the other hand, one manager emphasized that what really makes

the difference is a cultural change in the way the organization

engages in dialogue with stakeholders, moving from a traditional top-

down approach to a peer-to-peer style.

“Communication with stakeholders […] it’s passing from the

traditional ‘I talk, you listen’, to ‘we dialogue with each other, we talk

to each other at the same time and I have to respond to you’. And

this is what people expect. But if you don’t engage in such a dialogue,

no matter how fancy your communication is, no matter how much

money you spend on fancy advertisements, you just won’t see your

reputation grow.” [6]

Dynamism

Interviewees considered SM a dynamic tool needing to be constantly

fed and updated. Two managers even believed that a static profile on

SM is equivalent to not having a profile at all.

“These channels are not static but extremely dynamic, and if you

don’t post news and updates on a continuous basis, you risk being

ignored.” [3]

“Whilst for an individual it might be irrelevant what happens on their

Facebook profile when they don’t use it, for a business this is not the

case.” [2]

It may not only be a matter of frequent updates, but also of content.

Full awareness of what is happening in the world and in the particular

industry was suggested as a main driver of an effective presence on

SM.

“You need to be “present”, which means not only producing contents,

but also reading what your competitors are doing and what is

happening in the world. […] For instance, posting silly contents during

a global political crisis is considered rather negative. […] You can’t be

totally detached from what is happening around you.” [3]

A house of glass

The metaphors of “being in the road” or “opening the window of your

house” were used by managers to explain the reason why SM force

companies to be as transparent as possible. In their opinion, the

choice of “being social” implies the need to be aware of the related

consequences, for example being exposed to criticism without any

filter. One interviewee discussed how temporary staff – in this

particular case, ship crews employed on a rota basis - might use SM

to express their disappointment:

“Social networks is like standing in the middle of the road. You can

enjoy all the possible advantages in terms of visibility, popularity […]

but you also have all the drawbacks of being exposed. You basically

have no protection. […] There are specific group of employees, e.g.

crew members, who feel involved in the business to a very limited

extent, particularly in the lower ranks. They have short-term

contracts and [being predominantly on board] they do not have an

all-round view of what is happening [in the company].” [2]

This can also be seen in terms of positive opportunity rather than a

threat, as in a case where SM are being used to develop trust in the

organization and its mission, thus consolidating the company’s

reputation:

“This means that if you want to be trusted [as an organization], you

could decide to build a house of glass and be totally transparent. […]

we are promoting and encouraging our own presence on the SM in

that we are communicating constantly about whatever we’re doing.

And we’re encouraging our colleagues to do so too.” [6]

Another manager believed that transparency also implies the need to

be authentic. The appointment of an external “social media manager”

is, for this reason, seen as unadvisable since it would undermine the

authenticity of the communication:

“It is very clear to the public when there is somebody else [external

to the company] writing the contents of your pages, even if this role

is perfectly integrated within the company”. [3]

The social war for talent

SM seem to have facilitated interaction between companies and

candidates, as organizations now have direct access to the networks

of professionals without geographical or departmental boundaries.

This possibility of direct contact seems to have supported proactivity

as a crucial factor in the competition for talent.

A broader pool of candidates

The participating companies predominantly belong to the business-to-

business sector and, for this reason, may struggle to be visible for a

population of prospective candidates. Two managers believed that the

accessibility of a broad network of highly specialized profiles is

extremely valuable for organizations:

“So we now use quite sophisticated technology to target people all

over the world who have profiles that we will want to employ, for

instance specific engineers in very, very specific areas. […] We will

find them and then approach them directly via our HR people.” [4]

“Finding the right candidates is quite challenging in our niche market.

For this reason we are active in different recruitment channels and,

amongst others, we build networks with universities. LinkedIn is

undoubtedly one of the main channels we are using either for EB or

for promoting scientific forums.” [7]

It emerged from the interviews that SM might help companies to

increase their visibility and change their positioning. One employee

reported the beneficial effect on visibility brought about by a change

in the recruiting strategy combined with the use of SM:

“We used to have problems keeping pace with competitors in the job

market. We’ve invested a lot in the EB, for instance taking part in

career events and also using social tools. This has improved the

situation […] and the company now has a better ranking in the eyes

of young graduates.” [14]

The results also suggest that SM have not completely replaced other

recruiting channels, such as networks with management schools and

universities:

“[We need] to work also with management schools and universities,

which are fairly distant from this industry and from this company”

[1].

One manager reported that building and maintaining a direct

relationship with a network of potential candidates had been

extended beyond the traditional recruiting process, anticipating future

vacancies:

“We can now be less passive in the way that we use LinkedIn and

actually look for candidates of interest and promote the company

accordingly. We can contact them directly and keep in touch with

them, even if there are no vacancies.” [9]

The broader pool of candidates may also include internal resources.

For example an internal SN was designed to promote vacancies and

allow employees to apply, thus helping to optimize the allocation of

skills within the company:

“It’s an exchange between different departments for short term

projects, either part-time or full-time. If I am a director and I need a

specific professional profile, I describe the project and the skills I

need. And I can also search the network for potential internal

candidates matching my needs. […] It’s a real revolution.” [9]

Changed dynamics in the recruiting process

The interviews suggested that social tools have reduced the distance

between recruiters and candidates and, according to one manager,

showing a proactive interest in the position has become a key success

factor in the recruiting process:

“A few years ago it was considered quite inappropriate for a

candidate to keep pushing their application […] and try to keep the

relationship with the company alive during the recruitment process.

[…] Nowadays [on the contrary] a proactive approach during the

recruitment process is appreciated” [9]

The forced transparency reported in the previous section seems to

show its effects also in the recruiting process, and “generation Y” was

perceived unaware of the risks related to reckless disclosure on SM:

“Generation Y seems to be totally oblivious to the “verba volant

scripta manent” [‘spoken words fly away, written words remain']

warning that we [as a different generation] have been mindful of

since we were very young. They [GenY] do not consider such things

as potential risk factors […] and you can even find a candidate

completely drunk, something that is obviously not considered positive

[at the end of a recruiting process].” [9]

Two managers believed that a candidate’s Facebook public profile

now plays a decisive role in recruitment, resulting, sometimes, in the

exclusion of an applicant.

“LinkedIn provides you with all the information that you normally find

in a CV. However, if you are looking for more specific and detailed

picture of what someone is like, or their attitudes, interests,

communication or networking skills, you can get this easily from the

Facebook profile rather than from LinkedIn. LinkedIn being more

static […], it doesn’t emphasize personal interests, or doesn’t make it

clear if these really are your actual interests. But finding this

information on Facebook is easy.” [8]

“On one occasion we decided not to hire someone because of things

we saw on SM that we really didn’t like.” [9]

On the other hand, the “forced transparency” effect is double-sided

as it is seen as relevant to companies, as reported by another

manager. Social tools are seen as the watchdog of a company’s

behaviour, as information can be double-checked very easily in the

public domain, with unethical practices being discovered:

“If a candidate is looking for a company with some specific

characteristics, allowing a certain lifestyle or fostering a work-life

balance, it is extremely easy to double-check this information on SM

[…] SM allow candidates to find out immediately if a company is

breaking the law, behaving unfairly, has unethical practices in place

or is simply not telling the truth.” [8]

Social media and employer brand

The influence of SM on EB was discussed in the interviews and

positive effects were emphasized. The results suggest, however, that

such effects depend upon the adoption of a structured and consistent

approach that positions SM within a broader strategy.

Positive influence on employer brand

Three managers considered SM to play a positive role in shaping the

employer brand of the company, as they support the idea of a

modern organization:

“A company willing to share, to be present on new platforms, comes

across [to its employees] as an interesting, growing, dynamic place.”

[1]

“The first impact you have among your employees is ’great, our

company is abreast of the times’ and ‘we’re in line with the main

trends in the world around us’. I honestly think that this makes

people even prouder to work for this company.” [7]

“EB can also be crafted via intelligent management of SM.” [8]

A mere presence on SM alone is not, however, sufficient to create EB,

according to what two managers thought:

“Perhaps, we’re now better known because someone reads our

LinkedIn page and decides to find out more about the company. But

I don’t believe we provide enough information on our LinkedIn page

to generate EB.” [3]

“What we have falls short of what we need […]. So at the moment

we’re in the middle of quite a major investment programme to

improve what we have, giving the company an EB that is

aspirational.” [4]

Two employees confirmed this belief, mentioning cases where

presence on SM has been seen as no real modernisation. One

mentioned the lack of innovation in the organization of the company

and of its working processes. Another confirmed that presence on SM

might indeed give the idea of a “young and interesting company” but,

at the same time, expressed doubts regarding the consistency of this

choice with organizational culture, as the implicit message that the

company is modernizing is not supported at all levels.

“No, [my view of the company] hasn’t changed, maybe because I’ve

been with this company for about ten years. At a certain point you

don’t notice these things anymore, as they have an impact mostly on

product designers or on users. Everything is still centered on

procedures and on the usual working processes.” [17]

“I’ve always seen this company as being pretty old-fashioned. This

new communication style can indeed give a different idea. […] You

create a sense of belonging to a ‘cool’ company that wants to be

important and well-known outside of the industry as well. [On the

other hand] I feel that there is a contrast, in the sense that managers

aren’t all heading in the same direction. Some are open and back

such initiatives [SM]. Others behave like policemen and this is

confusing for employees.” [12]

Involvement of the internal audience

Some interviewees mentioned the role played by employees as

engines in a structured SM strategy, and this has been reported in

the above sections. In one specific case, employees are the specific

target of an internal social tool aiming at facilitating interaction with a

diverse workforce.

“Over the last few years we’ve hired people with all sorts of different

backgrounds and we felt the need for a tool that would let us interact

with these [different groups of] employees, who are often spread out

in branch offices.” [5]

The interviewee in question believed that the opportunity to apply for

internal vacancies has had a positive influence on employees’

motivation:

“Being able to apply for a vacancy has a huge influence on those who

don’t feel appreciated in the workplace. And there are people like that

in every company. Giving employees the opportunity to apply for

another position or a specific project [..] is a real revolution,

encourages job rotation and lets people stretch their professional

wings. And this is crucial for an employee” [5]

Not everybody likes social media

The results of the interviews suggested that undisputed appreciation

by employees of social tools was not universal. Three employees in

fact expressed concern regarding the protection of their own privacy

and the need to foster relationships, specifically personal

relationships, outside the virtual arena, thus limiting the use of SM to

those cases where there is no other choice (contact with friends living

abroad, for instance).

“I’m possibly the only person in the company who has asked to be

disconnected from Lync [a corporate communication system for

virtual meetings]. Other colleagues are probably not allowed to do

this. I don’t like it, because everybody can see if you’re at your desk

or not. I find it extremely intrusive” [13]

“I’m not on Facebook and I don’t use SM during working hours. I do

have a LinkedIn page, but I don’t update it very often. I don’t have a

picture, for instance. I’m invited by others rather than inviting them.

I believe it’s better to keep your personal life and professional life

apart. And this is why I’m not on Facebook.” [14]

“I don’t use SM a lot and when I do, it’s mostly for personal reasons,

for instance to keep in touch with my friends, mostly with those living

abroad.” [16]

The use of social media in the workplace

The approach by participating companies towards use by employees

of SM in the workplace ranges from open access (the case in the

majority of businesses) to a ban on specific websites – mostly

Facebook - when they are not considered essential for work.

Open access: a matter of trust

A large majority of companies -ten out of the twelve- allow open

access to any SM at the workplace. In at least five cases, business

reasons are the main driver of this choice in sectors such as the

Internet or television where engagement with customers via SNs is

considered routine:

“This is an Internet company and so a certain awareness in the use of

these tools that have become a commodity in our life is normal here.

[…] This is a young organization with an open working environment.”

[11]

“I think around 40% of our staff work with Facebook. There are

probably people who use it for personal reason, but we normally use

it for work. So banning it would be utter nonsense.” [18]

In two cases open access was explicitly reported in combination with

an organizational culture and employee relationships founded on

trust, with managers believing that employees will use SM properly.

One interviewee, for instance, is of the opinion that training staff in

the proper use of SM is more fruitful than forbidding its use

altogether.

“Employees can access any websites they want, and we take it for

granted that they will use them properly. We trust our employees,

and for this reason we allow them free access to SM.” [7]

“Trying to stop them using it, when it becomes an integral part of our

business, would be stupid, difficult and useless. It’s better to train

people to use them properly and in harmony with the company

environment. If relationships in the workplace are based on trust […]

I strongly believe that nobody will misuse [SM]. [8]

A communication manager echoed these views, reporting that trust

regards not only the possibility of accessing certain platforms but the

content of postings as well. He believed that the introduction of an

approval workflow in the internal SM he is supervising, would

probably result in a decreased participation of employees to the

platform.

“Any employee can post a comment about a topic being tabled,

suggesting additional points or solutions.” […] We never forbid ‘a

priori’ the publication of a post. […]. All content is checked afterwards

and - if necessary - modified by a group of experts on the specific

subject.” [5]

Is productivity a good reason for restrictions?

Two of the participating companies did not allow access to specific

SM, such as Facebook (in both cases), Twitter and YouTube (in one

case). In only one of these cases did the manager seem wholly

convinced that this had been a step worth taking. The other case was

the result of a policy imposed by the holding company and this

manager was doubtful that the long wave of SM can be really

stopped:

“There is a sort of rule imposed by our IT department on Facebook in

Korea. I think it’s something to do with employees spending too much

time on it, but I personally don’t see the point, they will just do it on

their phone instead.” [4]

This perception is confirmed by the experience of another company,

where possible plans to ban access to Facebook had been rejected as

pointless. In this case, however, a certain distrust for “timewasters”

still emerged:

“Four or five years ago we discovered that our colleagues were

spending a lot of time on Facebook. We even considered banning it,

but in the end we gave up on that idea. […] It was clearly something

unstoppable. We preferred to adopt more general guidelines limiting

the time spent on Facebook. […] We have advised people that

wasting time on SM for timewasters, Facebook being one, is

considered inappropriate.” [13]

Why do companies choose to limit access to SM? Guaranteeing

productivity seems to be one of the aims, and two interviewees, one

manager and one employee, expressed different opinions here. The

former reported that restrictions on access to certain SM had been

introduced for reasons of productivity and was convinced that it is

appropriate to limit the use of SM in order to prevent its improper

use:

“If the tool is not designed for company use then I believe it might be

used improperly. […] We do indeed use [SM] to promote the image of

the company, to create our EB or involve the internal audience. [But]

the purpose of work is […] above all, productivity.” [9]

The employee discussed her employer’s decision to allow open access

to SM and felt that, in general, trust was a positive driver for

productivity:

“You need to promote a climate of trust in the working environment.

[…] If you trust your employees, this, in my opinion, will increase

their productivity.” [12]

She also found it difficult, however, to reconcile the message of trust

and openness implied by the company’s decision to enter the SM

arena with the approach by management, which did not appear to be

fully in line with this approach.

All the employees interviewed work in organizations allowing free

access to SM and, for this reason, had no experience of such

restrictions. In one specific case, an employee reported that the

approach of his employer had significantly changed over the last

three years, becoming less restrictive. Considering the possibility of

new restrictions, this employee did not see them in a negative light if

adequately justified:

“When I joined, in 2011, everything was banned and access to

Facebook was not allowed. This was a hot topic and we’d get a lot of

emails on how to use SM. […] Now the situation is different. It still

something that the company has its eye on and we still get

guidelines. The company seems more flexible, however, probably due

to the evolution of the SM . If, one day, the company decides to bring

back restrictions on the use of specific SN because of real and

concrete issues, I wouldn’t mind. It also depends on the restrictions

that the company decides on. […] But it would have to be based on

facts. I’d prefer to know why, exactly, the company [decides to

impose a restriction].” [14]

Transparent monitoring of social media use

Only one interviewee admitted that his employer had adopted a

system monitoring employees’ online activities, e.g. number of visits

to certain websites and time spent on line, etc. In all other cases,

interviewees – managers and employees alike - did not know whether

employee Internet use was being monitored and, in general,

appeared to dislike this idea.

One manager, for instance, rejects this possibility as an invasion of

privacy whilst admitting, however, that in some cases this monitoring

might be done “reactively”.

“We do not produce reports of what people are doing online. We

regard that as an invasion of privacy really. If we had a suspicion that

an employee was doing something they shouldn’t be, or potentially

an employee was spending a large part of their day not doing their

job, then we can go and analyse the records of their online usage.

[…] It’s not done proactively; it’s done reactively.” [4]

Another manager added that he simply could not see any good

reason for the introduction of such “restrictive and extensive

monitoring”:

“I really wouldn’t be happy with such restrictive and extensive

monitoring. I believe it’s normal to spend a bit of time during the

working day, let’s say fifteen minutes, on personal matters like, for

instance, sorting out my holiday. I really wouldn’t be happy knowing

someone was monitoring how much time I spent either on the

Internet or on Facebook.” [1]

In one specific case, unions had supported this opinion, preventing

management from forwarding data about employee Internet use to

the holding company:

“The branch of our European trade union specializing in IT matters

has managed to ensure that data relating to Internet use (such as IP

address and time and duration of connection) are not tracked and

reported to the [American] corporation.” [7]

From the discussion about these practices, transparency seemed to

emerge as a relevant aspect for both groups of interviewees. One

manager thought that, as banning access to certain websites was

more transparent, this step was preferable to monitoring:

“I know that in other companies monitoring is done in terms of time

spent on certain websites. I think our decision to ban certain websites

is fairer. Quite simply, as those websites do not relate to work, we

don’t let our staff visit them.” [9]

The employee expressed some concern regarding her employer’s

practices in this field and saw it as quite a nebulous aspect:

“I don’t think there’s enough transparency about what [the company]

is actually monitoring.” [12]

Guidelines for the use of social media and employer brand

In most cases, organizations had issued formal guidelines for the use

of SM in order to warn employees about the risks of misuse.

Guidelines seemed to be based on different approaches, either taking

the form of a statement of general principles or providing very

detailed instructions; on occasions they formed part of a more

general policy about the use of Internet or corporate tools. In

general, the guidelines were perceived as necessary in order to

address employee behaviour even though they might not be sufficient

to prevent any possible misuse.

Content of guidelines and different levels of details

One of the topics most frequently included in the guidelines is an

emphasis on the effect of the public domain. For this reason

employees are supposed not to express opinions about the company

or disclose proprietary information unless authorised to do so. Other

topics, such as protecting employee privacy, also emerged from the

interviews:

“The main topics are to do with not misrepresenting the company. So

employees are not allowed to express an opinion publicly about a

company position.” [4]

“We have stated very clearly that writing something in SM is like

speaking out to the public in the street […] The policy also regards

SM use outside of the workplace. I believe it somehow protects

employees, because it warns them about the risks of speaking in the

public domain.” [9]

“The aim of the policy is to protect either employees or the company

with regard to several topics, such as privacy and use of graphic tools

related to the brand, anything which, if left uncontrolled, might have

a snowball effect.” [3]

Different level of detail chosen by companies when drawing up

guidelines were reported by interviewees. One approach is to

establish few clear principles, leaving employees with ample

discretion:

“The code of conduct [for social tools] is not different from the one

you’ll find on any website […] and is not invasive. It’s one page long

and very easy to read.” [5]

“We have two rules, that’s it. In particular, the first rule is that [...]

they don’t hold themselves out as speaking for the company. And the

second rule is that only communication officers can speak on behalf

of the company.” [6]

One employee in particular, who is of the opinion that behaviour on

SM should be driven mostly by common sense, appreciated this high-

level approach:

“Guidelines should be not rigid, otherwise you get the feeling there is

a kind of “Big Brother” controlling everything. There is no need to go

beyond that [giving more precise indications], because it’s mostly a

matter of common sense.” [16]

Two companies had adopted a different tactic and had added further

suggestions to the basic principles. Belonging to the same industry

(business advisory services), there was evidence that both

organizations had major concerns regarding the protection of their

own reputation and the protection of their customers’ data:

“We are allowed to participate, but we need to preserve the

company’s reputation. We can’t mention our customers, for instance,

because we have significant restrictions on the use of references.”

[14]

In this case, the corporate SM policy, for instance, also provides

employees with a broad range of suggestions about how to develop

professional relationships on SNs, share corporate material with the

network, start a personal blog covering business topics, friend

colleagues, managers or employees or keep personal and professional

lives separate.

Another employee echoed this, reporting that his employer had

included, in the SM policy, topics such as tips on creating a personal

profile and managing a network of friends:

“We’ve been given policies for each network, including guidelines on

how to draft our profile on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter. Of course,

these guidelines are mere suggestions. We are reminded, for

instance, that a picture on a profile is public, that the management of

information posted on LinkedIn, and of the network of contacts, is

very important.” [15]

Written guidelines are a first step

The results suggested a widespread belief that the adoption of a

policy is only the first of a series of steps that a business can take to

clarify rules and adopt safeguards:

“Yes of course, […] you need to have one. […] Not having a policy is

basically inconceivable.” [3]

At the same time, there was a certain awareness that a policy alone

might not be sufficient to protect the company from any possible

issues in the endless world of SM:

“Complete control over these [SM] tools is much easier in theory than

in practice. And, in any case, an “ex post” reaction is totally useless.

It’s always too late.” [2]

“I believe you have to accept that, once you are exposed to the

external world, you need to accept […] positive and negative

comments. These tools are “de facto” beyond any form of control and

guidelines that are too strict and inflexible are, in my opinion,

anachronistic.” [7]

Influence on employer brand

When discussing the relationship between clarification of SM rules

and the company’s EB, 13 out of the 17 interviewees recognised a

certain degree of consistency between the two, with the views held

by managers and employees essentially being the same on this point.

Consistency seemed more apparent to them in companies that had

adopted a structured SM strategy:

“Employees can use SM in the workplace 100% freely and this is in

line with the image of the company, which wants to keep a window

open on this world […] We are pretty consistent and I don’t think that

a person coming for an interview will find something different after

joining the company. I think that at the interview you receive a

promise. It’s like buying a can where you expect to find, let’s say,

tuna inside. […] I think you’ll definitely find tuna in our ‘can’.” [8]

The results suggested no significant differences between managers

and employees:

“I believe that in my company the way we use SM and the rules we

have adopted are wholly consistent.” [13]

“The company uses any possible channel to promote the idea that

working here means having fun. Maybe it goes a bit too far. There

are no rules; you might find a ping pong table somewhere or meet

somebody on a skateboard, this kind of thing. Maybe there is too

much consistency with this constant idea of ‘having fun’ both on and

off SM.” [18]

Two interviewees suggested that the attitude of employees might

depend also whether they are actually aware that guidelines exist. On

this point, one manager thought that, since the company does not

place much emphasis on the policy, the employees’ attitude is

consequently neutral. Another admitted she had very little idea about

the real impact of the policy on the attitude of her colleagues and on

their behaviour on “SM”.

“I’d imagine most people forget all about it fairly quickly. We don’t

come on strong in terms of them being reminded about it a lot. So we

don’t keep on reminding people that there is a policy in place or

anything. I would’ve thought their attitude would be neutral.” [4]

“I got only got feedback from two people, who said ‘this [the policy]

is really interesting - I’ll read it’. Over the last months I haven’t been

monitoring Facebook as much as I used to do and I don’t know if

their behaviour has changed.” [3]

Employees confirm this opinion as well. In at least two cases they had

almost forgotten about the guidelines, and one thought that her

colleagues might be not aware of the policy at all:

“I don’t know to what extent my colleagues are aware of this policy.”

[12]

“We are not bombarded with emails on a daily basis telling us to ‘be

careful, you need to do this and that’. It took time to find the policy

on our Intranet and I had to ask someone to help. This isn’t

something we talk about every day.” [14]

One manager suggested that, besides the written guidelines, what

really matters is that the management of social tools and the

company’s value proposition are reciprocally aligned.

“I’d say that it’s the way you manage such tools that matters most

and not the code of conduct. What matters is whether the

management of the tools is in line with your official statement, if you

really are transparent in your answers. What matters is […] showing

employees that this tool really is democratic.” [5]

Importance of communicating policies

Placing emphasis on the policy raises a point regarding the steps

taken by the company for an adequate communication to its

employees. One manager suggested the adoption of a very factual

approach, based upon plain rules combined with info sessions for

staff and effective slogans that are easy to remember:

“We encourage them to put a disclaimer on their personal accounts

and we trained them. […] We raised awareness that SM

communication is public and that your behaviour and opinions will

reflect on the company, and we even have a slogan which says ‘You

should think of your mother, your manager and the BBC’.” [6]

Three interviewees –one manager and two employees, all belonging

to the same organization- suggested that the formal release of

guidelines needs to be reinforced with a proper and effective

communication plan, in order to make sure that it is fully understood

by the staff.

“I think that we should promote this policy more than we have done

until now. […] For instance, some colleagues have recently posted

pictures of ships on Facebook without asking if they were allowed to.

Nothing came of it, but imagine what might have happened if there

had been problems with that ship […]! People don’t think about these

things, but they might have consequences for the business. [3]

“I believe more effective communication should be organized, beyond

a simple email about the fact that we now have a SM policy. […] And

you need to train Managers first!” [12]

One was of the opinion that this might help to raise awareness and

encourage a more positive attitude by staff:

“[The company] should clarify […] the reason why we are being

provided with these suggestions, instead of just issuing a policy.

Because whilst I might get the idea that that the company is simply

thinking about the way we communicate with external parties,

somebody else might see it as an attempt to control everything, even

your personal life. I think clarification might be of help. […] I know

my colleagues, and I know that these things are not always seen in

the correct light. For this reason. the company should improve

communication about this policy.” [16]

Informal guidelines

Mention was made in one case of a more informal approach being

appropriate, with the employee in question expressing the opinion

that the company culture is more than sufficient to clarify what,

exactly, is acceptable behaviour on SM. Consequently, he would

perceive a written policy as a restriction:

“The company culture is very much in favour of the use of social

technologies, on condition that such use must be conscientious and

professional. When you share information […] you are obviously

representing the company. This is an Internet Company, so we have

a certain awareness about the use of these tools, which are now a

commodity in our life. […] We don’t have a policy, of course, and I

would see it as a restriction.” [11]

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to analyse the effects of SM on

businesses and the approach adopted in order to regulate employee

behaviour on SM, focusing in particular on the influence that any

guidelines in fact adopted might have on the EB.

The number of SM users is significant, and is reportedly on the

increase. These tools are seen as a desirable partner for

organizations due to significant benefits ranging from promotion of a

company’s brand to the generation of a more spontaneous flow of

information contributing to the creation of knowledge beyond

hierarchical and geographical boundaries (McKinsey, 2012). All the

businesses involved were actively present on social platforms.

Different degrees of sophistication in terms of SM strategies became

apparent, and full integration with corporate strategy was reported in

two thirds of cases. This choice was imposed upon certain companies

by customers who were active SM users. On the other hand, the

adoption of social tools was reported by other companies as an

“experiment” in relation to a more specific and limited objective, e.g.

recruitment.

Some authors suggest that employee appreciation of SM does not

vary significantly from generation to generation (Kaplan and

Haenlein, 2010; Lorenzo-Romero et al, 2011). The wind of modernity

brought about by SM seemed, in general, to be appreciated by the

interviewees. Concerns did emerge, however, in relation to the

protection of privacy and separation of personal and professional life.

There is agreement in the literature that an ability to attract

employees is of the utmost relevance for businesses. For this reason,

companies should foster an authentic (Martin et al, 2009) and

consistent (Laumer et al, 2010) EB. SM are seen as a convenient

channel for brand promotion (Kumar, 2008). Authors are also of the

opinion that EB is not built and sustained by SM alone, with a

company’s broader reputation, i.e. with or without the involvement of

SM, remaining a crucial driver for candidates in terms of job seeking

(Sivertzen et al, 2013). The results of the research confirmed the

view put forward by the literature, as corporate use of social

technologies was thought to radiate a positive influence on an

organization’s image, resulting in workplaces that are “dynamic”,

“interesting” and “abreast of the times”. However, interviewees also

warned that this sense of modernity needs to extend beyond the

superficial, operating in combination with 360-degree innovation

involving all levels of hierarchy and with a truly dynamic company’s

presence on SM.

Frazer and Dutta (2008) argue that SM contribute to a shift of power

from a hierarchical framework to one made up of networks and

individuals. The results revealed two effects of the social arena in

parallel: a change in the position of an organization in relation to its

stakeholders and diluted boundaries between the organization and

the outside world, with the public at large being able ‘to look in

through the windows’. It was suggested that this aspect be leveraged

as an opportunity rather than a threat, building up stakeholders’ trust

via constant communication with the outside world. A need for

authentic and consistent conduct by companies also emerged,

confirming the arguments put forward by Martin et al (2009) and

Laumer et al (2010). Interaction with stakeholders should move on

substantially from a one-way and top-down flow of information to a

dialogue among peers in order to enhance a company’s reputation.

The benefits of using SM for recruitment purposes (McKinsey, 2012)

were substantially confirmed by the results, with interviewees

discussing advantages such as huge visibility for the company, easier

access to specific targets such as young graduates and highly

specialised profiles and the creation of a pool of potential candidates

accessible in the medium term. Here too SM appeared able to

positively contribute to broader strategies and to an improvement in

the EB. There was no report of benefits in terms of cost reduction,

however. In addition, the recruitment process benefits from the new-

style, peer-to-peer relationship between companies and their

stakeholders, paving the way for candidates to be proactive and

giving their application added value. Increased transparency and

blurred boundaries between private and public life, which are believed

to facilitate access to candidates’ personal information (Smith and

Kidder, 2010), appeared to be confirmed by the results, with the use

of non-professional SM (e.g. Facebook) to check information about

candidates and obtain a more comprehensive insight into their

personality and opinions being reported in a certain number of cases.

Discussing the use of SM in the workplace, the view that productivity

is a justifiable reason for banning access by employees to SM is not

one that is unanimously held. Whilst Heydari et al (2011) support

systems that monitor Internet use for personal reasons, Landers and

Callan (2014) report occasional access to SM does not necessarily

result in a dip in job performance. In any event, the widespread

availability of personal devices with an Internet connection means

that there is reduced mileage in such a step for employers (Dery and

MacCormick, 2012). This thesis confirms Freifeld’s research, as

access to any SM was allowed in the vast majority of companies. Only

in one case was productivity specifically put forward as a good reason

for banning access to SM. But managers and employees mentioned

trust as a key element in the employment relationship, relevant in

terms of access to SM and of the content of postings. Moreover, the

adoption of a monitoring system was believed by some interviewees

to be inconsistent with the trust and transparency that are typical of

the SM environment.

Given that the extent to which a ban on SM is of limited effect,

companies are advised to adopt written SM policies in order to

address employee SM behaviour, clarify the related legal

responsibilities and issue a reminder that business information is

confidential, etc. (Lange and McKay, 2013). The findings of this

research seem to be in line with the increasing trend of adopting

policies that Gartner (2012) anticipated. On the other hand, the

results of other research (Freifeld, 2012) suggesting that a low

percentage of employees had been issued with an SM policy were not

confirmed. Policies had been adopted in most companies, albeit with

different levels of detail in the instructions that can probably be put

down to the particular SM strategy and business sector. Some

organizations reported down-to-earth and easy-to-communicate

instructions essentially reminding employees that SM imply exposure

to the public domain and that care must be taken not to misrepresent

their employer. Organizations belonging to the business advisory

sector tended to include, in their policy, broader and more detailed

guidelines. It also emerged from the interviews that, generally, there

is a sense of realism and a widespread awareness that policies are

not a panacea in terms of the risks encountered in the SM arena.

Do SM policies influence the EB in either a positive or negative way?

Cho et al (2013) argue that where SM policies are in place, this

affects the approach adopted by Millennials when job seeking,

claiming that employers who allow unlimited access to SM in the

workplace are more attractive. On the other hand, the literature has

not explored this topic in relation to members of a generationally

diverse workforce who are currently in employment. Both managers

and employees perceived the SM policy adopted by their employers

as being consistent with the EB and, with the exception of one case,

the introduction of such formal guidelines was not seen as a

restriction. The results also suggested that a more neutral attitude on

the part of employees towards the policy in question might be

explained by the fact that are completely unaware, or only vaguely

aware, of it or the fact that management afforded it little time or

attention. This thesis provides confirmation of the opinion put forward

by Buttell (2011) in relation to formal adoption of the policy being

combined with training sessions to increase staff familiarity with the

policy and possibly involving them as active contributors to the SM

strategy objectives. A need for greater awareness about the content

and implications of the policy emerged in those cases where the

policy seemed to be a stand-alone initiative without any clear links to

a broader and more structured communication plan. An approach

focused on communication rather than rules via info sessions was

thought to be more effective.

It emerged from the interviews that, besides the written guidelines,

the way in which SM is managed on a practical level might also

influence the EB. For this reason, official statements by companies

proclaiming transparency and trust need to be implemented

effectively in order to make them credible. Whilst the number of

interviewees who talked about it was fairly limited, this aspect seems

fully consistent with the other results of this research, strongly

recommending authenticity and consistency as key foundations of the

“house of glass” that companies build in the SM arena. This result is

in line with Merrill and Tanenbaum’s (2013) advice to that SM

guidelines be an integrated part of SM strategy.

Conclusions

According to Buttell (2011), the added value of SM is interlinked with

the replacement of traditional organizational hierarchies with a

“horizontal diffused network” (p.146) The consequent advantages

affect the organization as a whole and range from amplified work

efficiency to “increased brand reputation” and “a more open,

transparent culture” (p.146). In networked organizations the roles

change, everybody has a voice and the classical top-down

communication flow is changed profoundly (Frazer and Dutta, 2008).

The results of this thesis contribute to demonstrating that SM

communicate an implicit message of trust and transparency and that

companies should take this into account. Moreover, the social arena

turns into a spotlight requiring a solid consistency between official

statements and organizational behaviours.

When deciding to enter the SM environment, companies should

carefully consider the possible implications for organizational culture

and relationships with stakeholders. An evaluation of these effects is

a prerequisite to enjoying the advantages mentioned above. This is

also relevant when it comes to drawing up the guidelines on

employee behaviour on SM. These are far to be a sufficient way of

preventing any possible risk, but are perceived as a necessary way of

minimizing such issues. Whilst they might not appear to have any

negative effect on brand reputation, a certain degree of concern

about how well-known they actually are is also legitimate. This limit

might be emphasized by the fact that policies are often simply issued

to the masses by management, a top-down practice somehow in

contrast with the dynamic and peer-to-peer communication style that

is typical of networked organizations.

For this reason, when adopting such guidelines companies should

consider running briefing sessions in parallel or adopting a

combination of several and more effective communication tools in

order to help staff gain a better understanding. Another option is

actively involve employees in the task of drawing up the rules. This

would help everyone to become an active brand ambassador (Buttell,

2011).

This thesis confirms the results of investigations previously carried

out into the prominence of SM in the business environment and deals

with a previously unexplored topic, the influence of SM guidelines on

EB. For this reason, it will be of interest to those companies in the

process of deciding upon, or reviewing, their approach to social

technologies and the relevant rules for their particular organization. It

can also provide a starting point for further research into the

relationship between SM policies and EB.

Limitations

Firstly, with the sample of interviewees being predominantly Italian,

the findings might have been affected by national culture. Moreover,

where the group of employees is concerned, a more balanced mix of

generations (i.e. Millennials and Generation X) would have enabled

similarities and differences between these groups to be identified.

Only one case involved managers and employees from the same

company. This meant that the opportunity to compare different

opinions provided within the same organizational context was

somewhat limited. Whilst managers were all actively involved in SM

strategies, there is a possible difference in quality of the employees’

contribution. Those working in departments more frequently involved

in policy-related discussions (Internal Auditing for example)

appeared, in general, more familiar with concepts such as EB and

policies, etc.

Last but not least, the analysis of policy content has been negatively

affected by the fact that, in most cases, interviewees were unwilling

to provide a copy of the policy.

References

Adjei, M.T., Noble, C.H. and Noble, S.M. (2012), “Enhancing

Relationships with Customers Through Online Brand Communities”,

MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53, N. 4, p. 22-24.

Axelroad, B., Handfield-Jones, H. and Micheals, E. (2002), “A new

Game Plan for C-players”, Harvard Business Review, January 2002,

Vol. 80, N. 1, p. 80-88.

Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching

employer branding”, Career Development International, Vol. 9, N.

4/5, p. 501-517.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive

advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, N. 1, p. 99-120.

Bennet, J., Owers, M., Pitt, M., and Tucker, M. (2010), “Workplace

impact of social networking”, Property Management, Vol. 28, N. 3, p.

138-148.

Bernoff, J. and Li, C. (2008), “Harnessing the power of the Oh-So-

Social Web”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49, N. 3, p. 36-42.

Boldizzoni, D., Manzini, S., Nastri, A. and Quaratino, L. (2012),

“Giovani e Lavoro: dall’Università al mondo. I giovani nelle aziende

senza confini”, Fondazione Istud, available at

http://www.istud.it/attivita_ricerca/tematiche_chiave/giovani.aspx,

(accessed 20th December 2012).

Buttell, A.E. (2011), “5 Rules of Social Media Compliance”, Journal of

Financial Planning, Sep-Oct 2011, p. 6-7.

Chambers, E., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., and

Micheals, E.G. (1998), “The war for talent”, The McKinsey Quarterly,

N. 3, p. 44-57.

Chincholikar, A. (2012), “Being an Employer of Choice with the

Millenials”, Tata Journal of Management, October 2012, p. 11-17,

available at

http://www.tmtctata.com/administrator/components/com_publication

s/publication_files/9636f7588acda9ea37f3a4e219644de6-TMTC-

october2012.pdf (accessed 20th September 2014).

http://www.istud.it/attivita_ricerca/tematiche_chiave/giovani.aspx

http://www.tmtctata.com/administrator/components/com_publications/publication_files/9636f7588acda9ea37f3a4e219644de6-TMTC-october2012.pdf



Cho, J., Park, D.J. and Ordonez, Z. (2013), “Communication-Oriented

Person–Organization Fit as a Key Factor of Job-Seeking Behaviors:

Millennials’ Social Media Use and Attitudes Toward Organizational

Social Media Policies”, CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social

Networking, Vol. 16, N. 11, p. 794-799.

Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship between

early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of

new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, N. 6, p. 1121-1133.

Consoli, D. (2012), “A Collaborative Platform to Support the

Enterprise 2.0 in Active Interactions with Customers”, Informatica

Economica, Vol. 16, N. 3, p. 37-49.

Corpedia (2012), “Millennials, social media, and employee usage.

Effective practices to mitigate social media’s emerging risk”, July

2012, NYSE Governance Services, available at

http://request.corpedia.com/WPSocialMediaPolicies2012 (accessed

25th July 2014).

Crosman, P. (2013), 'A Roadmap for Complying with Proposed Social

Media Rules for Banks', American Banker, Vol. 178, N. 82, p. 8.

da Cunha, J.V. and Orlikowski, W.J. (2008), “Performing catharsis: The

use of online discussion forums in organizational change”,

Information and Organization, Vol. 18, N. 2, p. 132–156.

Denyer, D., Parry, E. and Flowers, P. (2011), ““Social”, “Open” and

“Participative”? Exploring Personal Experiences and Organisational

Effects of Enterprise 2.0 Use”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44, N. 5/6,

p. 375-396.

Dery, K. and MacCormick, J. (2012), “Managing Mobile Technology:

The Shift from Mobility to Connectivity”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol.

11, N. 4, p. 159-173.

Dewhurst, M., Pettigrew, M. and Srinivasan, R. (2012), “How

multinationals can attract the talents they need”, The McKinsey

Quarterly, June 2012, N.3, p. 1-8.

Dunford, B.B., Snell, S.A. and Wright, P.M. (2001), “Human

Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm”, Center for

http://request.corpedia.com/WPSocialMediaPolicies2012

Advanced Human Resource Studies, Working Paper 01-03, available

at

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=106

5&context=cahrswp (accessed 14th April 2013).

Facebook (2014), “Statistics” available at

http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ (accessed on 26th August

2014).

Franca, V. and Pahor, M. (2012), “The Strength of the Employer

Brand: Influences and Implications”, Journal of Marketing and

Management, Vol. 3, N. 1, p. 78-122.

Frazer, M. and Dutta, S. (2008), “Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom”

(1st ed), John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester.

Freifeld, L. (2012), “Social Media at Work”, Training, Vol. 49, N. 6, p.

7.

Gartner (2012), “Gartner Says Monitoring Employee Behavior in

Digital Environments is Rising”, available at

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2028215 (accessed 27th

December 2012).

Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, N. 6, p. 1360-1380.

Hassan, K. (2012), “Making Sense of the Arab Spring: Listening to

the voices of Middle Eastern activists”, Development, Vol. 55, N. 2, p.

232–238.

Hershatter, A. and Epstein, M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of

work: an organisation and management perspective”, Journal of

Business and Psychology, Vol. 25, N. 2, p. 211-223.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1993), “Motivation

versus Hygiene”, Chapter 13 in The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.),

Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, p. 113-119.

Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W. E. Jr and

Schlesinger, L.A. (2008), “Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work”,

Harvard Business Review, July-August 2008, Vol. 86, N. 7/8, p. 118-

129.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=cahrswp

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=cahrswp

http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2028215

Heydari, A., Danesh, E., Jamehshooran, B.G. and Teimouri, M.E.

(2011), “DPI and its impact on employee’s productivity”,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol.

3, N. 2, p. 577-584.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2002), “Coming soon to a graduate school

near you: the millennial generation”, Selections, Vol. 2, N. 1, p. 40.

Jennings, S.E., Blount, J.R. and Weatherley, M.G. (2014), “Social

Media - A Virtual Pandora’s Box: Prevalence, Possible Legal Liabilities,

and Policies”, Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,

Vol. 77, N. 1, p. 96– 113.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The

challenges and opportunities of Social Media”, Business Horizons, Vol.

53, N.1, p. 59-68.

Koster, K. (2013), '5 ways to connect through social technology',

Employee Benefit News, Vol. 27, N. 10, p. 28-30.

Kotler, P., Keller K.L., Brady, M., Goodman, M. and Hansen, T.

(2009), “Building strong brands”, Part 4, in “Marketing Management”,

1st ed., Parsen Education Limited, Harlow, UK.

Kumar, R.S. (2008), “Identifying the Dimensions of Attractiveness of

an Employer Brand in the Indian Context”, South Asian Journal of

Management, Vol. 15, N. 4, p. 110-130.

Landers, R. N. and Callan, R.C. (2014), “Validation of the Beneficial

and Harmful Work-Related Social Media Behavioral Taxonomies:

Development of the Work-Related Social Media Questionnaire”, Social

Science Computer Review, March 2014, p. 1-19.

Lange, P.A. and McKay, A.L. (2013), “4 Steps to Managing

Employees' Social Media Presence”, Airport Business, December

2013-January 2014, Vol. 28, N. 2, p. 32-32.

Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A. and Weitzel, T. (2010), “Electronic Human

Resources Management in an e-business environment”, Journal of

Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 11, N. 4, p. 240-250.

Leidner, D., Koch, H. and Gonzales, E. (2010), “Assimilating

Generation Y IT New Hires into USAA’s Workforce”, MIS Quarterly

Executive, Vol. 9, N. 4, p. 229-242.

Levin, A. (2013), 'A delicate balance', Communication World, Vol. 30,

N. 5, p. 19-22.

Li, S., Guan, Z., Tang, L. and Chen, Z. (2012), “Exploiting Consumer

Reviews for Product Feature Ranking”, Journal of Computer Science

and Technology, Vol. 27, N. 3, p. 635-649.

LinkedIn (2014), “About LinkedIn”, available at

http://press.LinkedIn.com/about (accessed 6th July 2014).

Lorenzo-Romero, C., Alarcòn del Amo, M. and Gòmez-Borja, M.A.

(2011), “Do you have social profile? Users and non-users of social

networking sites in the web 2.0”, Review of business information

systems, Vol. 15, N. 5, p. 41-49.

Machado, R., Cant, M.C. and Seaborne, H. (2014), “Experiential

Marketing On Brand Advocacy: A Mixed-Method Approach On Global

Apple Product Users”, The International Business & Economics

Research Journal, Vol. 13, N. 5, p. 955-962.

Martin, G., Reddington, M. and Kneafsey, M.B. (2009), “Web 2.0 and

Human Resources Management – Groudswell or Hype?”, Chartered

Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

McKinsey (2012), “The social economy: unlocking value and

productivity through social technologies”, July 2012, available at

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/the

_social_economy (accessed 27th July 2012).

McKinsey (2013), “Evolution of the networked enterprise: McKinsey

Global Survey results”, available at

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Evolution_of_the_networked_en

terprise_McKinsey_Global_Survey_results_3073 (accessed 6th April

2013).

Merrill, T. and Tanenbaum, M. (2013), “5 steps to mitigate social

media liability”, American Agent and Broker, August 2013, Vol. 85, N.

8, p. 32-34.

Miller, M. (2013), “Avatars and Social Media: Employment Law Risks

and Challenges in the Virtual World”, FDCC Quarterly, Vol. 63, N. 4,

p. 279-294.

http://press.linkedin.com/about

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/the_social_economy

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/the_social_economy

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Evolution_of_the_networked_enterprise_McKinsey_Global_Survey_results_3073

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Evolution_of_the_networked_enterprise_McKinsey_Global_Survey_results_3073

Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2008), “Characteristics of successful

employer brands”, Brand Management, Vol. 16, N. 3, p. 160-175.

Mosley, R. (2007), “Customer experience, organisational culture and

the employer brand”, Brand Management, Vol. 15, N. 2, p. 123-134.

NLRB, (2012), “NLRB Acting General Counsel issues enforcement

guidance on social media policies”, Jones Day, June 2012, available at

http://www.jonesday.com/nlrb_acting_general_counsel (accessed

30th November 2012).

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2011), “Managing tomorrow’s people”,

available at https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/managing-tomorrows-

people/future-of-work/pdf/mtp-future-of-work.pdf (accessed

November 2012).

Russell, J. (2009), “Web 2.0 Technology: How Is It Impacting Your

Employer Brand?”, Nursing Economics, Vol. 27, N. 5, p. 335-336.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), “Collecting primary

data using semi-structured, in-depth and group interviews”, Chapter

10, in Research Methods for Business Students (5th Ed.), Pearson

Education Limited, Harlow.

Sivertzen, A.M., Ragnhild Nilsen, E. Olafsen, A. H. (2013), "Employer

branding: employer attractiveness and the use of social media",

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22, N. 7, p.473-483.

Smith, S. and Harwood, P. (2011), “Social media and its impact on

employers and trade unions”, available at

http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3187&p=0 (accessed

20th November 2012).

Smith, W.P., and Kidder, D.L. (2010) “You’ve been tagged! (Then

again, maybe not): Employers and Facebook”, Business Horizons,

Vol. 53, N. 5, p. 491-499.

Swani, K., Milne, G. and Brown, B. P. (2013), “Spreading the word

through likes on Facebook”, Journal of Research in Interactive

Marketing, Vol. 7, N. 4, p. 269-294.

The Economist (2010), “Yammering away at the office - A distraction

or a bonus?”, available at

http://www.economist.com/node/15350928 (accessed July 2012).

http://www.jonesday.com/nlrb_acting_general_counsel/

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/managing-tomorrows-people/future-of-work/pdf/mtp-future-of-work.pdf

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/managing-tomorrows-people/future-of-work/pdf/mtp-future-of-work.pdf

http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3187&p=0

http://www.economist.com/node/15350928

Thompson, M. (2012), “Social media, the Law, and You”, eContent,

December 2012, Vol. 35, N. 10, p. 8-10.

Valkenburg, J. (2011), “2011 Global Employer Branding Study

Results”, 17th October 2011, available at

http://www.globalrecruitingroundtable.com/2011/10/17/2011-global-

employer-branding-study-results-incl-infographic/, accessed 7th April

2013.

Weerakkody, V. and Hinton, C. M. (1999), “Exploiting information

systems and technology through business process improvement”,

Knowledge and Process Management, Mar 1999, Vol. 6, N. 1, p. 17-

23.

Wiederhold, B. K. (2012), “Social Media is Shifting Power from

Advertisers to Consumers”, Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social

networking, Vol. 15, N. 11, p. 577-578.

Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I. (2010), “Employer branding:

strategic implications for staff recruitment”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 26, N. 1–2, p. 56-73.

Zeidner, R. (2007), “How Deep Can You Probe”, HR Magazine,

October 2007, Vol. 52, N. 10, p. 57-62.

Appendices

Appendix A – Categories of social technologies

Category Description Example

Social networks Connection through personal and

business profiles.

LinkedIn, Viadeo, Xing, Facebook, Google+, Internations, Yammer, Meetic, MySpace

Blogs and microblogs Discussion of opinion and experience Twitter, FriendFeed, Plurk, Pownce, Folkstr

Rating and reviews Rating of products, services and

experiences. Sharing of opinions.

Tripadvisor, City Search, Insider Pages, Merchant Circle, Superpages, Yelp!

Social Commerce Purchasing in groups on social

platforms and sharing opinions. eBay

Wikis

Search, creation and adaptation of

articles. Rapid access to stored

knowledge.

Wikipedia, Vikidia, Ekopedia, Nonciclopedia

Discussion and forums Discussion of topics in open

communities. n/a

Shared workspaces Co-creation of content. Coordination

of joint projects and tasks MatchWare

Crowd-sourcing Harness collective knowledge and

generate collectively derived answers InnoCentive, Innovation Jam,

Social gaming Connection with friends and

strangers to play games Social network games (The Sims Social, Happy Farm, Farm town, etc.)

Media and file sharing Upload, share and comment on

photos, videos, and audio Youtube, Instagram, Flickr

Elaboration from McKinsey (2012), The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies”, Exhibit E1, p.4

Table 3 Categories of Social Technologies

Appendix B – Profile of participants

#

Role Industry Age

Position held

since

Work

experience

(years)

Nationality Gender

(M/F)

1 HR Director Maritime 45 2009 18 Italian M

2 CIO Maritime 55 2004 23 Italian M

3 Communication

Manager Maritime 37 2010 10 Italian F

4

Director of

Corporate

Communication

Oil & Energy 51 2012 30 British M

5

Head of

Internal

Communication

Transportation -

Trucking - Railroad 45 2004 16 Italian M

6

Head of Human

Capital and

Knowledge

Management

Public safety 45 2011 20 Italian F

7 HR Business

Manager Biotechnology 37 2010 8 Italian M

8 HR Director Broadcast Media 51 2012 25 Italian M

9 HR Director Food & Beverages 38 2013 13 Italian M

Data as of the time of the interview.

Table 4 Sample of managers

#

Role Industry Age

Position held

since

Work

experience

(years)

Nationality Gender

(M/F)

11 Account

Executive Internet 37 2012 15 Italian M

12 Corporate

Legal Manager Maritime 36 2008 12 Italian F

13 Director of

Operations

Management

Consulting 46 2010 20 Italian Male

14

Sr. Manager

People and

Organization

Management

Consulting 34 2011 12 Italian F

15

Manager

Digital

Transformation

Management

Consulting 30 2010 8 Italian M

16 Internal

Auditor Maritime 34 2012 10 Italian M

17 Account

Manager

Mechanical /

Industrial

Engineering

46 2004 24 Italian M

18 HR Intern Television 26 2014 2 Italian M

Data as of the time of the interview.

Table 5 Sample of employees

Appendix C – Interview protocol for Managers

Objective of the research

Investigating the influence, if any, of the forms of control on the

employer branding and, consequently, on the capability of the firms

to compete for the most talented candidates.

Introduction

Presentation of the research project and related objectives

Brief informal presentation of the aims of the interview, including the main definitions we are referring to

- social technologies: products and services that enable social interaction in the digital realm, and thus allow people

to connect and interact virtually” providing “distributed

rights to communicate, and add, modify, or consume content” (McKinsey, 2012, p. 4).

The category includes: Facebook, Linkedin, other social networks

(Google+, … ), Twitter, Youtube, others.

- employer branding: the package of functional, economic

and psychological benefits provided by employment and

identified with the employing company (note: the definitions have been included to guarantee that the

interviewees refer to the same concepts, when answering to the

questions)

Length of the interview (about 45 minutes) Confidentiality of the information (including unidentifiable data)

and storage of data Possibility to omit or to decline questions

Description of the research procedures Participation is voluntary and possibility to withdraw from the

research at any time and any reason (to be recorded) Permission to record the interview (the permission has to be

recorded as well)

Use of social technologies at a corporate level

Is the company officially present on social media? If not, for which reason the company is not present on social

media? If yes, which social media have been chosen, and for which

reason?

For which purpose the company has been induced to be present on social media (recruiting, engaging with customers, generic

external communication)? Which activities are usually performed? There is a specific employer – branding related reason?

Which are the activities performed to create an employer brand on social media? Who is responsible for this?

Which is in your opinion the effect of this presence on the employer brand?

Use of social technologies in the workplace

Is the use of social technologies allowed in the workplace?

Are the employees encouraged to use social media? How is this use monitored?

There is any official policy for the use of social technologies? If yes: which are the topics covered in the policy? (if possible, ask

for a copy) If not: which is the reason? Do you think such policy would be

beneficial? Does the company perform any form of control of the use of social

media at the workplace?

How is the policy enforced (adoption of penalties, etc.)? In your opinion are / would be these initiatives (adoption of

policies and control) coherent with the image that the company tries to promote on social media?

What do you think is / would be the attitude of employees towards the existence of the policy/forms of control?

Demographics

Age, Gender, Nationality Professional role (covered since … )

Working Experience (number of years), of which with the current

employer

Appendix D – Interview protocol for Employees

Objective of the research

Investigating the influence, if any, of the forms of control on the

employer branding and, consequently, on the capability of the firms

to compete for the most talented candidates.

Introduction

Presentation of the research project and related objectives

Brief informal presentation of the aims of the interview, including the we are referring to:

- social technologies: products and services that enable

social interaction in the digital realm, and thus allow people to connect and interact virtually” providing “distributed

rights to communicate, and add, modify, or consume content” (McKinsey, 2012, p. 4).

The category includes: Facebook, Linkedin, other social

networks (Google+, … ), Twitter, Youtube, others

- employer branding: the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment and

identified with the employing company (note: the definitions have been included to guarantee that the

interviewees refer to the same concepts, when answering to the

questions)

Length of the interview (about 30-45 minutes) Confidentiality of the information (including unidentifiable data)

and storage of data Possibility to omit or to decline questions

Description of the research procedures Participation is voluntary and possibility to withdraw from the

research at any time and any reason (to be recorded) Permission to record the interview (the permission has to be

recorded as well)

Use of social technologies at a corporate level

Is your company officially present on social media? If yes, on which ones and with which purpose?

How do you think that this affect the image of the company as employer? / Which are in your opinion the effects on the image of

the company as employer?

Use of social technologies in the workplace

Is the use of social technologies allowed at the workplace? Are the employees encouraged to use social media? How is this

use monitored? Is there any official policy in place for the use of social

technologies? If yes: which are the topics covered in the policy? (if possible, ask

for a copy) Does the company perform any form of control of the use of social

technologies? How is the policy enforced (adoption of penalties, etc.)?

How do you perceive the adoption of such policies and control? In your opinion are these initiatives (adoption of policies and

control) coherent with the image that the company tries to promote on social media?

Demographics

Age, Gender, Nationality

Professional role (covered since … ) Working Experience (number of years), of which with the current

employer

A “Thin Red Line” - Guidelines for Employees’ use of Social Media and its Influence on the...

Documents

Transcript of A “Thin Red Line” - Guidelines for Employees’ use of Social Media and its Influence on the...