Social Media when you're a Lead or Manager

[rousseau]

Ok, I'm hoping to get some perspective from anyone here who's an acting manager or leader about social media, beyond 'don't post offensive things'.

A quick Google search suggests the plainly obvious things like not getting too political, or religious, not being an asshole, being professional. But beyond that I wonder what you'd consider appropriate for someone in a leadership position to post online? In what ways should someone present themselves, if at all?

At this stage I'm tracking toward becoming a tech lead, if not in title, in practice, and over the past number of months I've been sanitizing my online presence, but there are still things that concern me. Mainly right now I keep a personal blog and a Twitter account, which I think may need to go in time.

So how has this worked in your experience?

 

[steve_bank]

Social media or not what an employee does on and says on their own time is no god damn business of anyone you work for or with.

Over here there us a new vigilante lynch mob out to enforce a publically correct narrative.

At higher levels in business some companies require a contract defining social issues. You cab be fired for associating a company with certain behaviors. The old 'morals clause' for employment. It used to be you'd get fired for being outed as gay.


If you are a manger and are watching employee personal social media as a company representative IMO uou have your head up your ass. It is not in your pursue to tell people how to act and speak outside of work.

Also, I think we should start charging you for personal and career counseling.

 

[rousseau]

If you are a manger and are watching employee personal social media as a company representative IMO uou have your head up your ass. It is not in your pursue to tell people how to act and speak outside of work.

Unfortunately, it's a reality of the workplace in 2018. Your online presence is a reflection of your character.

Also, I think we should start charging you for personal and career counseling.

Throw me some rates

 

[rousseau]

Also, I think we should start charging you for personal and career counseling.

I'd add this is something I've tried to research myself, but Googling anything to do with 'social media' and 'managers'.. does not get me the results I'm looking for.

 

[Ford]

If you are a manger and are watching employee personal social media as a company representative IMO uou have your head up your ass. It is not in your pursue to tell people how to act and speak outside of work.

Unfortunately, it's a reality of the workplace in 2018. Your online presence is a reflection of your character.

Yep. I work for a media company, and while I'm not "on the air," the policy still applies. As a public figure (or someone that works for a company that employs public figures) your "personal" social media accounts are anything but. This point was driven home when our company merged with another one about a year ago. A few of us posted the news on our personal Facebook accounts. Nothing secret...we just linked to the story and commented on it.

We were told to take those posts down and in no uncertain terms if we did it again it was a one way ticket to the unemployment line. The old company and the new one have it as policy that - even on your personal socials - you are considered to be a representative of the company. It's bullshit, but as you say, that's the reality.

 

[rousseau]

If you are a manger and are watching employee personal social media as a company representative IMO uou have your head up your ass. It is not in your pursue to tell people how to act and speak outside of work.

Unfortunately, it's a reality of the workplace in 2018. Your online presence is a reflection of your character.

Yep. I work for a media company, and while I'm not "on the air," the policy still applies. As a public figure (or someone that works for a company that employs public figures) your "personal" social media accounts are anything but. This point was driven home when our company merged with another one about a year ago. A few of us posted the news on our personal Facebook accounts. Nothing secret...we just linked to the story and commented on it.

We were told to take those posts down and in no uncertain terms if we did it again it was a one way ticket to the unemployment line. The old company and the new one have it as policy that - even on your personal socials - you are considered to be a representative of the company. It's bullshit, but as you say, that's the reality.

I worked for 3M for just under a couple years, you wouldn't believe the speed people locked down their Facebook profile when they were poached from 3M Canada to the headquarters in the US.

It's the same kind of thing with almost everyone I work with now. We're under a pretty good pension plan so everyone expects to be working there for a long time. As such, they all go to great lengths to not offend each other.

 

[bilby]

If an employer doesn't want to hire (or keep) me as an employee because of something I posted online then I don't want to work for them.

Either I expressed a negative opinion of them, in which case I would be a hypocrite to take their job; Or they are so overbearing and authoritarian as to prohibit expression of even neutral or positive opinions of them, in which case it's my moral duty to withold my skills, experience and labour from supporting their immoral business practices.

The real problem is that so many 'ordinary' people are perfectly happy to instantly discard their personal morals, and/or their civic duty to oppose immoral corporate behaviour, in return for a paycheck.

Corporations don't own their employees. If they behave as though they do, the employees have a duty to push back, and to quit rather than submit.

Being fired for expressing your genuine opinions is a strong indication that you should have quit already. If you hate your employer, quit. If your employer wants to gag you despite your neutral or positive opinions of them, quit. If you can't stop yourself from saying rude or potentially harmful things that you don't really mean, you should be seeking psychiatric help, not a job.

Honour demands that no self-respecting person should work for an immoral organisation. That honour is rare, doesn't render it less valuable. Some demands are beyond what is reasonable; And IMO demands for a person to censor themselves meet that criterion.

If you are proud to work where you do, then any boss who doesn't want you to express that pride is a fool. If you are not proud to work where you do, then why are you still there?

 

[rousseau]

If an employer doesn't want to hire (or keep) me as an employee because of something I posted online then I don't want to work for them.

Either I expressed a negative opinion of them, in which case I would be a hypocrite to take their job; Or they are so overbearing and authoritarian as to prohibit expression of even neutral or positive opinions of them, in which case it's my moral duty to withold my skills, experience and labour from supporting their immoral business practices.

The real problem is that so many 'ordinary' people are perfectly happy to instantly discard their personal morals, and/or their civic duty to oppose immoral corporate behaviour, in return for a paycheck.

Corporations don't own their employees. If they behave as though they do, the employees have a duty to push back, and to quit rather than submit.

Being fired for expressing your genuine opinions is a strong indication that you should have quit already. If you hate your employer, quit. If your employer wants to gag you despite your neutral or positive opinions of them, quit. If you can't stop yourself from saying rude or potentially harmful things that you don't really mean, you should be seeking psychiatric help, not a job.

Honour demands that no self-respecting person should work for an immoral organisation. That honour is rare, doesn't render it less valuable. Some demands are beyond what is reasonable; And IMO demands for a person to censor themselves meet that criterion.

If you are proud to work where you do, then any boss who doesn't want you to express that pride is a fool. If you are not proud to work where you do, then why are you still there?

In my case the question isn't about being muzzled, it's about presentation of character.

I could most assuredly keep a Twitter account, blog, active Facebook profile, the whole nine yards, within the bounds of reason and have no problem. That's not the issue.

What I'm asking is what type of image do leads/managers feel comfortable projecting online. For example, if I was a CEO of a large company it wouldn't be wise to post stupid, daily memes on Facebook in front of all of my employees. I'm not going to get fired but I look like a dick-head, and in practice my character is being judged.

That's the kicker: you can't separate what people see of you online with your character, and so whether you like it or not you have to be careful about what you post, especially if you're in a leadership position.

 

[bilby]

If an employer doesn't want to hire (or keep) me as an employee because of something I posted online then I don't want to work for them.

Either I expressed a negative opinion of them, in which case I would be a hypocrite to take their job; Or they are so overbearing and authoritarian as to prohibit expression of even neutral or positive opinions of them, in which case it's my moral duty to withold my skills, experience and labour from supporting their immoral business practices.

The real problem is that so many 'ordinary' people are perfectly happy to instantly discard their personal morals, and/or their civic duty to oppose immoral corporate behaviour, in return for a paycheck.

Corporations don't own their employees. If they behave as though they do, the employees have a duty to push back, and to quit rather than submit.

Being fired for expressing your genuine opinions is a strong indication that you should have quit already. If you hate your employer, quit. If your employer wants to gag you despite your neutral or positive opinions of them, quit. If you can't stop yourself from saying rude or potentially harmful things that you don't really mean, you should be seeking psychiatric help, not a job.

Honour demands that no self-respecting person should work for an immoral organisation. That honour is rare, doesn't render it less valuable. Some demands are beyond what is reasonable; And IMO demands for a person to censor themselves meet that criterion.

If you are proud to work where you do, then any boss who doesn't want you to express that pride is a fool. If you are not proud to work where you do, then why are you still there?

In my case the question isn't about being muzzled, it's about presentation of character.

I could most assuredly keep a Twitter account, blog, active Facebook profile, the whole nine yards, within the bounds of reason and have no problem. That's not the issue.

What I'm asking is what type of image do leads/managers feel comfortable projecting online. For example, if I was a CEO of a large company it wouldn't be wise to post stupid, daily memes on Facebook in front of all of my employees. I'm not going to get fired but I look like a dick-head, and in practice my character is being judged.

That's the kicker: you can't separate what people see of you online with your character, and so whether you like it or not you have to be careful about what you post, especially if you're in a leadership position.

Sure; But that's no different from how things were a century ago.

The only thing that's changed is that you now have the ability (should you opt to do so) to spend far more time in public than before - and perhaps to be rather less forcefully aware that you are in the public view. It's easier nowadays to forget to draw the curtains.

Making a fool of yourself online today is not in any fundamental way different from making a fool of yourself on a crowded street a century ago. If you crave the respect and approbation of your peers, you have to be sure the curtains are drawn before acting the clown - and you have to be confident that you can trust everyone you invite onto your side of those curtains not to gossip about your private behaviour.

Nothing has changed in this respect. Discretion remains the better part of valour.

 

[rousseau]

If an employer doesn't want to hire (or keep) me as an employee because of something I posted online then I don't want to work for them.

Either I expressed a negative opinion of them, in which case I would be a hypocrite to take their job; Or they are so overbearing and authoritarian as to prohibit expression of even neutral or positive opinions of them, in which case it's my moral duty to withold my skills, experience and labour from supporting their immoral business practices.

The real problem is that so many 'ordinary' people are perfectly happy to instantly discard their personal morals, and/or their civic duty to oppose immoral corporate behaviour, in return for a paycheck.

Corporations don't own their employees. If they behave as though they do, the employees have a duty to push back, and to quit rather than submit.

Being fired for expressing your genuine opinions is a strong indication that you should have quit already. If you hate your employer, quit. If your employer wants to gag you despite your neutral or positive opinions of them, quit. If you can't stop yourself from saying rude or potentially harmful things that you don't really mean, you should be seeking psychiatric help, not a job.

Honour demands that no self-respecting person should work for an immoral organisation. That honour is rare, doesn't render it less valuable. Some demands are beyond what is reasonable; And IMO demands for a person to censor themselves meet that criterion.

If you are proud to work where you do, then any boss who doesn't want you to express that pride is a fool. If you are not proud to work where you do, then why are you still there?

In my case the question isn't about being muzzled, it's about presentation of character.

I could most assuredly keep a Twitter account, blog, active Facebook profile, the whole nine yards, within the bounds of reason and have no problem. That's not the issue.

What I'm asking is what type of image do leads/managers feel comfortable projecting online. For example, if I was a CEO of a large company it wouldn't be wise to post stupid, daily memes on Facebook in front of all of my employees. I'm not going to get fired but I look like a dick-head, and in practice my character is being judged.

That's the kicker: you can't separate what people see of you online with your character, and so whether you like it or not you have to be careful about what you post, especially if you're in a leadership position.

Sure; But that's no different from how things were a century ago.

The only thing that's changed is that you now have the ability (should you opt to do so) to spend far more time in public than before - and perhaps to be rather less forcefully aware that you are in the public view. It's easier nowadays to forget to draw the curtains.

Making a fool of yourself online today is not in any fundamental way different from making a fool of yourself on a crowded street a century ago. If you crave the respect and approbation of your peers, you have to be sure the curtains are drawn before acting the clown - and you have to be confident that you can trust everyone you invite onto your side of those curtains not to gossip about your private behaviour.

Nothing has changed in this respect. Discretion remains the better part of valour.

Fair point. I guess the problem then becomes following and understanding established social norms of managers. In the case of my workplace that's basically just a negligible online presence.

 

[rousseau]

Sure; But that's no different from how things were a century ago.

The only thing that's changed is that you now have the ability (should you opt to do so) to spend far more time in public than before - and perhaps to be rather less forcefully aware that you are in the public view. It's easier nowadays to forget to draw the curtains.

Making a fool of yourself online today is not in any fundamental way different from making a fool of yourself on a crowded street a century ago. If you crave the respect and approbation of your peers, you have to be sure the curtains are drawn before acting the clown - and you have to be confident that you can trust everyone you invite onto your side of those curtains not to gossip about your private behaviour.

Nothing has changed in this respect. Discretion remains the better part of valour.

Fair point. I guess the problem then becomes following and understanding established social norms of managers. In the case of my workplace that's basically just a negligible online presence.

And then the light bulb goes off... Role.. Models?

Just do what the people before you are already doing.

 

[steve_bank]

When I had people under me my primary concerns were

Personal hygiene,
Ability to get along and work cooperatively in a group.
Integrity.
Ability to meet commitments.

Black, white, gay, straight, male, female did not enter into it.

Your are not a social worker and people's lives are their own. The job is to provide structure and ensure project goals are met. On a project I'd sit with each person and work out an agreed upon sub part of a project and a schedule.

There is no one definition of leadership. To me it is largely trust. You do not need to have all people like you or have a personal relationship with everyone. What you do need is for people to trust you and take you at your word. You do not need to be the technical best in the group.

Last but not least you have to be able to delegate. And that is having trust in your people. Trust is not being nice or never having conflict, true trust exists regardless of personal conflict or feeling.

You trust those under you and they trust you are not going to play games or screw them over. It is something you work at.

People trust who and what they see you as by actions, not what you try to project. The old saying, always be yourself. Not something you think you should project. People will distrust when they see a difference between what you project and who and what they experience you as. When that happens people loose confidence and you are done.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is one of those "in a perfect world" questions.

It shouldn't matter what a person does in their private life, but we've all seen enough cases where it did. 99.9% of the people in the world never get any notice, but if something happens, your online presence will be put under a microscope. When James Fields posted pics of cars driving through crowds of pedestrians, I'm sure he never dreamed it would be an issue at his trial for driving through a crowd of pedestrians. We'll call that a "worst case" scenario.

 

[Rhea]

As a manager what I am comfortable posting online in PUBLIC is low.

I am comfortable posting things to varying degrees in varying audiences.

I almost never post anything on a public setting. If I want to reply, I look at the audience. If it is "public," I do not reply. On my own wall I post mundane and sanitized things to "friends." I post more detail to "close friends". I keep political and religious to "secret groups". What I post here is under a pen name.

As manager, I am expected to display a front that would not embarrass the corporation. They are not strict, so I'm fine with this balance. It happens to coincide with my desire to stay out of the view of bad actors (like incels, e.g.) and so not wanting to be public on contentious issues.

Also as a manager, I choose to make sure I do not say things that would be hostile to my direct reports. I want them to have an atmosphere where they can trust me to act with their interests in mind and act as a shield against things that would harm their productivity. Not as top priority, since that belongs to the company, but their interests at least in mind; usually because an unstressed employee is a productive employee and I wish to project an image that will not bring stress to my team.

Prior to being a manager I would have cared little about most of these (except the bad actors), but as a manager I don't need to be controversial in public and feel it would be as bad for my interests as it would be for the corporation. If I want to weigh in on a public issue, I want to do it in a constructive way if possible for the sake of the cause, and that turns out to align with being okay with that public statement to my team and my company.

Note: I am not always successful at this, but these are my goals.

 

[rousseau]

On my own wall I post mundane and sanitized things to "friends."

Have to comment here that I find your ability to be quirky, but completely confident about it, and still garner tons of attention on social media impressive. I don't know if that's just the nature of online culture where you are or what, but it's completely outside the norm in my circles.

Especially with the people I work with who I'm increasingly becoming friends with on Facebook. Because of the pension they're all planning to end their careers where they are, which creates a kind of culture of character and stoicism, where you just don't say anything out of the ordinary, or offensive, ever.

I'm not friends with my manager, but I am my lead, and she seems to act in ways similar to what you mention, except she's also extremely private about her inner thoughts and personal life. She'll gregariously post some pictures when they go on vacation or it's someones birthday, but that's it. She's been a major influence on my professional life since starting there.

 

[Rhea]

On my own wall I post mundane and sanitized things to "friends."

Have to comment here that I find your ability to be quirky, but completely confident about it, and still garner tons of attention on social media impressive. I don't know if that's just the nature of online culture where you are or what, but it's completely outside the norm in my circles.

Especially with the people I work with who I'm increasingly becoming friends with on Facebook. Because of the pension they're all planning to end their careers where they are, which creates a kind of culture of character and stoicism, where you just don't say anything out of the ordinary, or offensive, ever.

I'm not friends with my manager, but I am my lead, and she seems to act in ways similar to what you mention, except she's also extremely private about her inner thoughts and personal life. She'll gregariously post some pictures when they go on vacation or it's someones birthday, but that's it. She's been a major influence on my professional life since starting there.

Thanks, rousseau. I really quite enjoy interacting with friends on facebook. Some folks don't like the medium, but I've found my settings to make it work well for my needs/desires (I was going to say, "my likes," but that seemed like a pun too corny to toss on your doorstep, LOL)