HR Challenge: You’ve Got a “Friend” . . . But Is That a Good Thing?
Five years ago, you probably never imagined you’d ever have to make a policy regulating which employees could be friends — or if they could be friends at all. But Facebook, the social media monster with half a billion members and growing, has changed what it means to be a “friend.” Once you’ve “friended” someone on Facebook, you usually have access to personal pictures, posts, and other information. While that can build camaraderie amongst coworkers, it can be a sticky situation when supervisors and subordinates become friends.
For instance, unwanted attention or comments during off-duty time could turn into a workplace harassment ordeal. The situation only becomes more complicated when supervisors and subordinates become Facebook friends. A supervisor “friending” one subordinate and not another could lead to claims of favoritism. The revelation of an employee’s alternative lifestyle paired with adverse employment action could lead to a discrimination charge.
Besides the legal ramifications, research suggests that supervisors and subordinates generally are uncomfortable being Facebook friends. Office Team, an administrative staffing company, found in a recent survey that 48 percent of executives are “not comfortable” being virtual friends on Facebook with the employees they manage. And that discomfort goes both ways — the survey found that 47 percent of employees also are uncomfortable being friended by their bosses.
Despite all those drawbacks, you run the risk of being resented for being too intrusive if you start to stick your fingers into employees’ Facebook friends list. So what’s an HR person to do? Here are a few different perspectives from employment law experts:
- Mark Schickman, a partner at Freeland Cooper & Foreman LLP in San Francisco, looks at the issue from a “conservative, traditional employment law perspective.” “Discourage ’social media’ interaction at the workplace; leave it at home with the rest of your personal life,” he writes in California Employment Law Letter. “Direct supervisors not to ‘friend’ their subordinates and discourage discussion of company business online. . . . A policy discouraging social media at the workplace makes you less likely to be held responsible for some random remark that is viewed as defamatory, discriminatory, or harassing. For that reason, it has always been common wisdom to discourage discussion of any personal matters at the workplace.”
- Molly DiBianca weighs in on Facebook friends in the office on the Delaware Employment Law Blog, suggesting that you should choose between the following three options depending on your company’s culture:
- No rules. Anyone can friend anyone, and the employer won’t get involved.
- Supervisors may not make friend requests to direct reports. Direct reports may make friend requests to supervisors, in which case the supervisor has the discretion to accept (or not accept) the request.
- Supervisors may not make friend requests to direct reports. Direct reports may not make friend requests to their supervisor. Colleagues may be friends on Facebook.
While DiBianca refuses to pinpoint one of those as the “best” option, she does favor using one that prohibits supervisors from making the friend requests because “Common sense dictates that any request that comes from a supervisor is going to be given more consideration. In other words, will the employee really feel free to deny the request? Likely not.”
- Susan Hartmus Hiser, an attorney with Vercruysse, Murray & Calzone, P.C., in Detroit, warns against supervisors friending subordinates on Facebook, but she offer LinkedIn as a work-safe alternative because it ” is purely professional, and typically, personal information is left off.”
One point to add to this discussion: No matter which option you choose, make sure your supervisors know that if they do friend a subordinate on Facebook, they should never use a false identity. Besides being a violation of trust that could blow up in your face in terms of employee trust and morale, you can guarantee that no judge or jury will look on that sort of deception kindly.
Do you have a policy governing supervisor/subordinate Facebook friend status? Have you encountered any problems with employees being friends on Facebook?
– Celeste
6 COMMENTS
1 ACU Frank
Whichever option you choose, the next issue you have to deal with is what you do when one of your ‘friends’ leaves the organization. Touchy, touchy.
2 Jonathan Hyland
I think it comes down to education and common sense. Having a written policy against social media is, frankly, a terrible idea; if it comes from HR, score one for the stereotype of HR being a micromanaging policy agent.
The company should put faith in its employees to not go about ranting about it; if it is a legitimate fear, then HR needs to spend its time uncovering the causes of the employee discontent and work with management to bridge the gaps. Having a training, explaining the use of social media and best practices (aka, what to do and not to do), is better than some legalese policy denouncing social media.
3 Tweets that mention HR Challenge: You’ve Got a “Friend” . . . But Is That a Good Thing? | Technology for HR -- Topsy.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HR Hero and Jonathan Hyland, Technology for HR. Technology for HR said: Friending bosses & subordinates on FB: @MollyDibi and 2 other #emplaw attys weigh in on workplace perils http://bit.ly/96Fupf #HR [...]
4 Tony Kessler
Jonathan, today’s “Dilbert” comic strip in the local paper makes your point with comic precision. In the first frame, Dilbert’s boss is making an introduction: “Beth is our new marketing manager for social media.” In the second frame, the boss turns his head toward Beth and says, “By the way, company policy forbids the use of Facebook and Twitter at work. And we don’t trust you to work from home.” In the third frame, in more intense tones, he declares: “If you blog bout how lame we are, you’re fired!!!” Beth’s thought bubble: “First day, not so good.”
5 Molly DiBianca
Tony:
Great Dilbert comic! Posted it on the Delaware Employment Law Blog with my thoughts on the need for a (workable) social media policy. http://ow.ly/2EmwR
6 HR Director
Perhaps it just me, having worked in “HR” for over fifteen years, with a concentration in employment law, it is interesting to me that the meaning of common sense. The boundary indicators of common sense have moved so much that many don’t have a grasp of where it stops or where it ends.
I, as an administrator would like nothing better than to NEVER, get involved in having to create a policy against social media in the work place, if hadn’t been as a result of EMPLOYEES forcing me into such a position for having said something inappropriate about another employee or about the company which they work.
Their inappropriate comments generally fall under the mistaken guise of “freedom of speech” and “civil rights” which by the way they haven’t the slightest idea what such phrases mean. I suspect that as litigation in this area increases exponentially, believe me it will, some may come to understand that many be it wasn’t a “good idea to say that about a coworker.”
Trust me I don’t care what employees think of each other. You can call each other all sorts of malicious names. Unfortunately when one employee decides to sues because they have been maligned they don’t only sue the maligner, they sue the employer because “we really should have forced the other employee to remove that slanderous statement from their Facebook page about my work, my private life, etc.”
Why the hell should an employer educate employees on the proper use of social media? In that particular regard, seeing as you don’t want an employer to enact policy against social media, shouldn’t you be educating YOURSELVES on its proper uses? Maybe consult an attorney to find out what is libelous or maybe remember the good old fashioned phrase which is “if you don’t want to make actionable, don’t reduce it to writing.” Hmmmm, that’s legalese, maybe you won’t understand it.
Maybe you should start teaching “Social Media 101, Ethics and its Proper Uses.” So I, as an HR person, won’t ever have to sit through another hysterically crying employee, both male and female, in my office ranting and in a rage over what a coworker stated to another coworker about their situation and we should do something because it happened on company time.
Perhaps I will not have another employee come in and say xyz employee made a negative comment about the supervisor, and start the process of a full blown investigation three day investigation only to find out that a disgruntled employee thought the supervisor was being “mean” to me because he asked me do the work when he could have asked the other employee to do it.
Discontent employees? How about this, the same way you walked in through the door, is the same way you can walk out, so if you don’t like the job, quit. I’ll bet that there are a whole passel of unemployed individuals who would be thrilled to have your job, even if it is a lousy job. Maybe everyone in a department will quit because they have a “terrible boss.” Is a problem, yes; however; maybe try telling those “discontented” employees to think about two plus years of unemployment, as the statics indicate is the above average, and maybe you might work towards a better sense of self instead of a better sense of social media.
Micromanaging, how about HR is doing everything it can to ensure that the next wave of downsizing or right sizing, does not hit or hit as few as possible, to EVER care about social media. I work fifteen hour days trying to ensure that the next day employees will have a job to come into. It would make me very happy to not have to worry about social media, oh yes, and interoffice dating.
The phrase TMI means more to HR than you think. My greatest wish is that Facebook and social media had never been created.
Leave a Reply