The Fallacy Of The "Don't Be Stupid" Policy

Apparently, some well-known companies have a social media policy that goes like this: Don’t be stupid. The underlying assumption is that hiring smart people means these same smart people interpret stupidity the same way. Really? That’s a pretty stupid assumption but I think I understand it. Hear me out and let me know if I’m off-base here:

Companies either…want to overcontrol the mischief their employees can make via social media so they impose a laundry list of legal “do’s and don’t's” that make everyone paranoid about doing anything online. The results are bad relations with employees, a stifling of innovative external outreach and a reputation for being a stodgy, stick-in-the-mud company.

Or…companies want to let their employees feel free to sow their wild social media oats but acknowledge that some protection must be used. So they tell their folks, “Hey, go forth and have fun, but don’t do anything stupid.” The result is that no one knows what they hell “stupid” means. It’s rather like a parent handing their 16 year old teen driver the keys to the car with an expectation that the kid is smart and nothing dumb will happen. So what does happen? The kid gets caught up in the moment of unfettered freedom and wrecks the car anyway. How many smart people has that happened to? Plenty…and I’m one of them.

So we clearly have a problem with the whole “Don’t Be Stupid” policy. Might I propose something slightly more realistic: Put a fence around your organization’s social media activity.

Yes, I’m advocating for something in the middle of the two extremes of strict legalistic policies and loose freedom. It’s something akin to what my wife explains to me everyday in her work as a preschool teacher. We all need to know where our boundaries are, regardless if we’re 4, 24, or 44 years old. The key is to set boundaries that give a person room to roam and explore their space. Set the boundary too tight and you impede curiosity and growth; set it too loose and you risk losing focus and consistency.

What to do? Here are two key ideas but remember to put them in context with your own organization’s business strategy, organizational structure, and people policies.

Purpose: Why are we engaging in social media dialogue with our customers?
It’s a simple question that far too many organizations don’t have a consistent answer to. But using social media tools without a purpose is like taking a hammer and banging on your walls: yes, you’re doing something but you’re not really sure if it’s anything constructive (probably not). Every single organization that is using or thinking about using social media tools needs a purpose. Without that purpose, then everyone’s reasons for Twittering or Facebooking or blogging is acceptable by default.

Policy: How much room do we have to roam about in the social media space?
I didn’t say I was completely against policy. What I am against are policies created solely from upon high in the organization (likely with Legal’s review) and then set in stone. What this manages to do is disconnect the actual employee practitioners from the process. More command-and-control that regards employees as cogs that can be moved as needed by management.

Policy needs to be created like this:

  • Based around your organization’s purpose, involve a diversity of perspectives and gather input into the creation process.
  • Revisit your policy on a frequent basis. Anything need to be changed? Added? Deleted entirely? Policy should be a fluid, evolving structure that gives everyone an idea of where their boundaries lie.


Peer-Observation: How will we monitor our actions and progress?

Your organization has a purpose in using social media tools. And it has a set of policies to guide activity. How will you make sure they’re used appropriately? Rather than set one person up as the brute squad enforcer or make it just management’s responsibility to curb questionable activity, create an expectation that all participants will monitor their peers’ activity. And build a process where these issues can be addressed as learning opportunities as opposed to sanctioned beat-downs. If you’re not sure if this will work based on levels of trust or camaraderie in your organization, then you might have another problem to deal with first.

The thing about social media is that you better trust your people to speak honestly about their work and their experiences. If you’re thinking of launching any social media initiative and you don’t trust your folks…well, that would just be dumb.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

, , ,

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Thanks for adding to the dialogue, Cindy. I really like your Step 3. Building the internal systems and characteristics of your organization so that social media tools work ought to be a learning process. It's new and unfamiliar to many so mistakes will happen. Management folks are going to have to get over their control fetishes if they want to play.

Thanks again for joining in and hope to hear from you again.

Step 1: Love the point about purpose. Why are we talking about our company? Because we want our customers to think of us as x, y, and z. Does your comment help customers think of us as x, y, or z? If not, save as draft and think about it some more.

Step 2: Make sure everyone realizes that Google Alerts/Twilerts indexes *everything*.

Step 3: Find some one-off comments/tweets/quotes from other companies that, taken out of context, sound bad. (Then show them in their original context).

Step 4: Give people a "if you're not sure, send it here" option (maybe a group of socially-savvy folks who review?) Do NOT make it a mandatory approval step - just make it an option. Lots of people, especially those new to social media, are grateful to have "another pair of eyes" to make sure the tone reads as intended.

I guess I can't edit my tailing into telling above (ah well, my Texan accent showing through).

I think that you have a good point about learning from peers (hey, we're all learning here and we all make mistakes). I just think that formally charging people with that responsibility breeds a certain attitude that may not even exist otherwise.

Dealing with your employees' new found ability to broadcast is a tricky thing. I'm sure there are plenty of policy breaches that happen in face to face casual conversations all the time (on purpose and on accident). Those conversations are just lucky enough not to be cached by Google and to threaten your employer and your career.

I would argue strongly that its not strong-arm policing if done right. As I mention at the end, if trust and camaraderie (or worries about infighting and tattle-telling) are problems inside your organization, you have a problem that needs to be addressed well before you try instituting any social media initiatives. Here's my unwavering belief when it comes to building companies: those that are most successful are the strongest and healthiest inside.

I'm not comfortable ceding responsibility for appropriate behavior on a single department or solely on management. Its too easy to shirk responsibility. Plus, would you rather have to answer to HR or Legal for an action...or would you rather learn from a potential mistake from a peer?

Isn't social media monitoring (a more accurate word for this case is "policing") sort of like the "time cops" of old, where you're scared to take a long lunch or where you're worried about your job if you're running late in the morning? And peer policing is usually just infighting and tattle-tailing, something that we were expected to outgrow long ago.

I think every company should monitor their brands, but in my opinion that role falls outside the scope of the common social media policy. If it is implemented (and I'm not sure exactly whose job it would be) and those guys notice some noise or issues coming from the organization within social media channels or if a complaint arises through other means then I think it's fair to deal with the employee in a manner pursuant with any other company policy breach, provided there are in fact existing social media policies.

If there are not, well... you warned them.

Thanks, Aaron, for that link. My first reaction to the IBM's guidelines is "Damn, this is long!" But there are some things that I do like about what's there. It seems well designed and does sort of have a purpose (to learn and contribute) but agree that it could go further. The one area that actually isn't covered is Monitoring. How were these policies applied and observed? That seems to be a missing facet in most orgs that already do practice some type of social media dialogue.

I've always thought IBM did a pretty good job of having a "don't be stupid" policy but with a sufficient definition of stupidity. (http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html) but it does fall short in one area that you highlight: purpose. Of course you don't want to forget your day job. But is that really good enough? Probably not according to most managers' expectations.