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.

Page 1
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

Page 2
 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

Page 3
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

Page 4
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.

Page 5
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

Page 6
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

Page 7
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

Page 8
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.

Page 9
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

Page 10
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).

Page 11
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.

Page 12
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

Page 13
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

Page 14
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

Page 15
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

Page 16
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.

Page 17
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

Page 18
(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

Page 19
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

Page 20
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).

Page 21
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.

Page 22
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?

Page 23
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

Page 24
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

Description and  presentation and objectives of
clarification of the scope the research
and objectives of the  main definitions (social
1 Introduction research technologies or media, EB)
 general information on
research procedures (length,
confidentiality, etc.)
Use of social Definition of the broader  presence of the company on
context of the employer’s SM
 strategy and activities (with
technologies
2 strategy
at corporate specific regard to EB) *
 effects on the image of the
level
company as an employer
Focus on SM guidelines
and on influence on the  use of SM in the workplace
Use of social employer’s image (allowed, not allowed, internal
promotion, etc.)
 SM policies (form, content,
technologies
3
in the enforcement)
 perceptions of consistency
workplace
between SM policies and EB
 attitude of employees

Description  age, gender, nationality

4 Demographics of the sample  role and work experience
(years)
* Only for managers

Table 1 Structure of interview protocols

Page 25
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

- Experiments versus structured strategies

2 SM strategies - Involvement of top management,
employees and other departments
Implications of the public - Changes in communication
3 - Dynamism
domain
- A “house of glass”
4 The social war for talent - A broader pool of candidates
- Changed dynamics in the recruiting process
- Positive influence on EB
5 SM and EB - Involvement of the internal audience
- Not everybody likes SM
- Open access: a matter of trust
6 Use of SM at the - Is productivity a good reason for
workplace restrictions?
- Transparent monitoring of SM use

Page 26
 # Coding Subcodings
- Content of guidelines and different levels of
details
7 Guidelines for the use of - Written guidelines are a first step
SM and employer brand - 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.

Page 27
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

Page 28
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]

Page 29
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

Page 30
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]

Page 31
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]

Page 32
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

Page 33
 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]

Page 34
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

Page 35
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]

Page 36
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

Page 37
 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]

Page 38
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

Page 39
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:

Page 40
 “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

Page 41
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]

Page 42
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

Page 43
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,

Page 44
 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]

Page 45
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]

Page 46
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:

Page 47
 “[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]

Page 48
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

Page 49
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

Page 50
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,

Page 51
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.

Page 52
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

Page 53
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.

Page 54
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).

Page 55
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

Page 56
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

th
http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ (accessed on 26 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.

Page 57
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.

Page 58
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

th
http://press.LinkedIn.com/about (accessed 6 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.

Page 59
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).

Page 60
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.

Page 61
Appendices
Appendix A – Categories of social technologies

Category Description Example

Connection through personal and LinkedIn, Viadeo, Xing,

Social networks Facebook, Google+, Internations,
business profiles.
Yammer, Meetic, MySpace
Blogs and microblogs Discussion of opinion and experience Twitter, FriendFeed, Plurk, Pownce,
Folkstr
Rating of products, services and Tripadvisor, City Search, Insider
Rating and reviews Pages, Merchant Circle, Superpages,
experiences. Sharing of opinions.
Yelp!
Purchasing in groups on social
Social Commerce eBay
platforms and sharing opinions.
Search, creation and adaptation of
Wikis articles. Rapid access to stored Wikipedia, Vikidia, Ekopedia,
Nonciclopedia
knowledge.
Discussion of topics in open
Discussion and forums n/a
communities.
Co-creation of content. Coordination
Shared workspaces MatchWare
of joint projects and tasks
Harness collective knowledge and
Crowd-sourcing InnoCentive, Innovation Jam,
generate collectively derived answers
Connection with friends and
Social gaming Social network games (The Sims
strangers to play games Social, Happy Farm, Farm town, etc.)
Upload, share and comment on
Media and file sharing Youtube, Instagram, Flickr
photos, videos, and audio
Elaboration from McKinsey (2012), The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social
technologies”, Exhibit E1, p.4
Table 3 Categories of Social Technologies

Page 62
Appendix B – Profile of participants
Position held Work
Gender
# Role Industry Age since experience Nationality
(M/F)
(years)

1 HR Director Maritime 45 2009 18 Italian M

2 CIO Maritime 55 2004 23 Italian M

Communication
3 Maritime 37 2010 10 Italian F
Manager
Director of
4 Corporate Oil & Energy 51 2012 30 British M
Communication
Head of
Transportation -
5 Internal 45 2004 16 Italian M
Trucking - Railroad
Communication
Head of Human
Capital and
6 Public safety 45 2011 20 Italian F
Knowledge
Management
HR Business
7 Biotechnology 37 2010 8 Italian M
Manager

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

Page 63
 Work
Gender
# Role Industry Age Position held experience Nationality
(M/F)
since (years)
Account
11 Internet 37 2012 15 Italian M
Executive
Corporate
12 Maritime 36 2008 12 Italian F
Legal Manager
Director of Management
13 46 2010 20 Italian Male
Operations Consulting
Sr. Manager
Management
14 People and 34 2011 12 Italian F
Consulting
Organization
Manager
Management
15 Digital 30 2010 8 Italian M
Consulting
Transformation
Internal
16 Maritime 34 2012 10 Italian M
Auditor
Mechanical /
Account
17 Industrial 46 2004 24 Italian M
Manager
Engineering

18 HR Intern Television 26 2014 2 Italian M

Data as of the time of the interview.

Table 5 Sample of employees

Page 64
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?

Page 65
 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

Page 66
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?

Page 67
 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

Page 68