Employers and other organisations such as schools, universities and TAFES are running the risk of missing the point in their response to the hype that has been generated surrounding Planking [1] that which will inevitably follow its likely replacement, Poopin [2]

This is because Employers are not seeing the behaviour as a new type of workplace issue. There is no doubt that some of the images seen represent clear breaches of safety, health and (at times) hygiene, but to address this in the most effective way, employers should understand that this is a social media issue first. This is cyberconduct.

There have always been people willing to play the fool in the workplace. Often their behaviour puts themselves and others at risk. However, in today’s workplace, it would be extremely rare not to have policies in place dealing with this as a misconduct issue.

What sets cyberconduct such as planking, its successors and their successors apart as each lines up for their 15 minutes of fame, is that these are intrinsically and fundamentally public events. The new risk created is a risk of perception and image, existing over and above the safety issue or the hygiene issue.

If businesses don’t respond to cyberconduct, but instead try and treat the issue by more traditional means, then they risk losing even more ground to the harm that cyberconduct can create.

Take the example of the Adelaide College that came out very strongly against student planking. Coverage of this story was accompanied by the largely innocuous picture of several of its students planking a stairway. The response to the story suggested the College had demonstrated wowserism at its worst, and enhanced rather than detracted from the activity. The students were viewed quite affectionately as delightful rogues. The upshot will undoubtedly be that the next cyberconduct fad will be avidly embraced in light of this.

Cyberconduct produces instant notoriety and status. The attractiveness of this is the heart of the matter and it is what must be addressed by Employers, and this can only be done through education of just what cyberconduct can do, and the impact it can have.

If Employers attempt to address the fact that photos of someone perched meters and meters in the air over a chimney solely as a safety issue they are, unfortunately missing the point. What makes this cyberconduct so desirable to engage in is the accompanying infamy – it is, for want of a better term, cool. Employers will fail if they attempt to fight “cool” solely with a safety argument. Employees need to be educated about the effects of cyberconduct, time and energy needs to be spent on letting them know:

• That cyberconduct is permanent and will possibly define them and their attitude to work with current and future employers and may in all likelihood impede their chances of advancement;
• That cyberconduct sends out a message about the organisation that has the same level of permanence, and can seriously detract from the brand and reputation of that organisation
• That cyberconduct cannot simply be restricted to a closed circle, the potential audience, including those who would be offended by it, would seek to emulate it, or would seek to better it (to their detriment) is limitless.

Responding solely to the craze itself is responding to a symptom, and does not treat the cause. There is no doubt that breaches of safety or hygiene need to be dealt with but only looking at the issue in this way will not stop the flow of fads because the technology continues to develop and thrive.

Employers should take steps to get to the heart of the matter by educating their staff on the risks of cyberconduct to the organisation, to them and to their future. It is only when the myth of the “cool” is debunked will we start seeing this issue managed. -Grant Archer

[1] Planking, the lying down game is an activity consisting of lying face down in an unusual or incongruous location. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planking_(fad)

[2] “Poopin” is an assault on another person’s unattended mobile device, usually posting “Poopin’” to their Twitter or Facebook accounts.

The debate over Social Media in the workplace has for too long centred upon whether or not employees would be able to access social media websites.

The increasing connectivity of the workforce and the phenomenon of the “citizen journalist” however means that employers should lift their eyes from the operational issues and consider more broadly the potentially damaging cultural role that social media can play in the workspace and develop policy and training responses sooner rather than later.

Whilst employees playing with virtual farms may still be a legitimate management issue in the workplace, of growing concern is the increased capacity of the workplace to expand to include the actions of employees towards the company or towards each other outside of the traditional “bricks and mortar” work space.

If one employee utilises social media to bully another employee, and the second employee suffers harm as a consequence, to what extent can the Employer be held liable? Is the environment in which that post, status update or tweet was sent sufficiently connected to the employment to constitute a “workplace” for OHS or Worker’s Compensation purposes? And if so, what is the responsibility of an employer to respond to this behaviour?

The courts are beginning to reflect the law attempting to deal with these issues; however the cases have thus far been limited to the issue of whether the content of social media posts can justify a termination. It surely cannot be long however before an employer is prosecuted for failing to provide a workplace safe from cyberbullying.

The social agenda is clearly moving towards demanding harsh action taken against bullying and harassment, as the connectivity of our workplace grows exponentially, this must inevitably create an obligation upon the employer to deal with the communications, in whatever form, between employees.

Additionally, the rise of the “citizen journalist” – or the instantaneous transmission of news and views via social media, also sharpens the risks for employers. Incidents in the workplace can no longer be reasonably expected to stay in the workplace, and versions of events, perhaps embellished with voyeuristic enthusiasm, can make their way almost instantaneously into the permanent, non deletable and eminently public world of cyberspace. This presents risks to fair investigations, confidentiality of witnesses and, perhaps just as significantly, corporate reputation.

The answer is to proactively manage the issue by investing now in training staff to appreciate the incredible risks that accompany the tantalising opportunities that social media provides. Training is necessary to assist employees to:

• Manage tone style and level of communications,
• Manage interpersonal interactions,
• Understand how the misuse of social media can impact on the integrity of workplace investigations and performance management,
• Understand employer expectations of respectful communications in all forums, and
• The importance of distinguishing a private social media identity from an identity readily associated with the workplace.

Social media is no longer a question of “will we let them?” – that horse has bolted. Employers must now ask themselves “how will they use it?” and respond by means of training and setting clear behavioural expectations.

Employers must set the cultural expectations within their own workplace, wherever that workplace may be, or the social media phenomenon will drive them into very dangerous cultural waters.

You can bet the Farmville!