First, let me open this post by telling you that I am not going to bash the Marine Corps (USMC) or ESPN for their unfortunate and ill-advised decisions regarding social networks this week. But I will say this: Their respective decisions to temporarily (or permanently) impose restrictions and/or bans on their personnel with respect to social network access do not address the problems they hoped to correct.
We’ll get to that in a bit, but first, let’s flashback to what actually happened this week:
Exhibit A: On August 3, 2009, the United States Marine Corps released a document entitled IMMEDIATE BAN OF INTERNET SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNS) ON MARINE CORPS ENTERPRISE NETWORK (MCEN) NIPRNE. The fully capitalized document essentially banned Marines from accessing social networks like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter from their network. (An issue for potentially tens of thousands of USMC families who currently use these platforms to stay in touch with their loved ones – deployed in active theaters or not.)
A few key elements of this ban:
1. PURPOSE. THIS MESSAGE ANNOUNCES AN IMMEDIATE BAN ON INTERNET SNS WITHIN THE MCEN UNCLASSIFIED NETWORK (NIPRNET).
2. BACKGROUND. INTERNET SNS ARE DEFINED AS WEB-BASED SERVICES THAT ALLOW COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE TO SHARE COMMON INTERESTS AND/OR EXPERIENCES (EXISTING OUTSIDE OF DOD NETWORKS) OR FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPLORE INTERESTS AND BACKGROUND DIFFERENT FROM THEIR OWN. THESE INTERNET SITES IN GENERAL ARE A PROVEN HAVEN FOR MALICIOUS ACTORS AND CONTENT AND ARE PARTICULARLY HIGH RISK DUE TO INFORMATION EXPOSURE, USER GENERATED CONTENT AND TARGETING BY ADVERSARIES. THE VERY NATURE OF SNS CREATES A LARGER ATTACK AND EXPLOITATION WINDOW, EXPOSES UNNECESSARY INFORMATION TO ADVERSARIES AND PROVIDES AN EASY CONDUIT FOR INFORMATION LEAKAGE THAT PUTS OPSEC, COMSEC, PERSONNEL AND THE MCEN AT AN ELEVATED RISK OF COMPROMISE. EXAMPLES OF INTERNET SNS SITES INCLUDE FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, AND TWITTER.
Exhibit B: On August 4, 2009, US sports broadcaster ESPN also announced new Social Media guidelines regarding employee/talent usage of Twitter.
Some key elements of ESPN’s new guidelines (bold text for editorial purposes only):
“We expect to hold all talent who participate in social networking to the same standards we hold for interaction with our audiences across TV, radio and our digital platforms. This applies to all ESPN Talent, anchors, play by play, hosts, analysts, commentators, reporters and writers who participate in any form of personal social networking that contain sports related content.”
Specific Guidelines:
* Personal websites and blogs that contain sports content are not permitted
* Prior to engaging in any form of social networking dealing with sports, you must receive permission from the supervisor as appointed by your department head
* ESPN.COM may choose to post sports related social media content
* If ESPN.com opts not to post sports related social media content created by ESPN talent, you are not permitted to report, speculate, discuss or give any opinions on sports related topics or personalities on your personal platforms
* The first and only priority is to serve ESPN sanctioned efforts, including sports news, information and content
* Assume at all times you are representing ESPN
* If you wouldn’t say it on the air or write it in your column, don’t tweet it
* Exercise discretion, thoughtfulness and respect for your colleagues, business associates and our fans
* Avoid discussing internal policies or detailing how a story or feature was reported, written, edited or produced and discussing stories or features in progress, those that haven’t been posted or produced, interviews you’ve conducted, or any future coverage plans.
* Steer clear of engaging in dialogue that defends your work against those who challenge it and do not engage in media criticism or disparage colleagues or competitors
* Be mindful that all posted content is subject to review in accordance with ESPN’s employee policies and editorial guidelines
* Confidential or proprietary company information or similar information of third parties who have shared such information with ESPN, should not be shared
Any violation of these guidelines could result in a range of consequences, including but not limited to suspension or dismissal.
View the guidelines here (via Mashable).
Not everyone will agree with me on what I have to say about this and that’s okay. Just hear me out and feel free to tell me why I am right and/or why I am wrong.
First things first: The USMC’s ban.
Remember these posters from WWII? Seaborne convoys to Europe were under constant attack from German U-boats and it was believed (rightly so) that Nazi spies were listening in on conversations to help plan attacks on ships. The US government created an awareness campaign to remind people (military and not) to keep sensitive information (schedules, troop movements, ship departures, etc.) to themselves.
Smart move: Creating that awareness saved lives. People were introduced to a threat they had not considered, understood the stakes, and were asked to take responsibility for their actions. This was essentially a combination of awareness and training.
What the government didn’t do was ban military personnel and their families from using telephones, the US postal service or classified ads (the technologies of the time) out of fear that sensitive information might be leaked out via these mass communication devices.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Awareness, education and responsibility vs. outright bans. That’s the discussion we are really having today. What best practices can be put in place within an organization when it comes to social media usage?
In the case of the USMC, is an outright ban of SNS access on the NIPRNET truly the solution? Or is it possible that perhaps clear guidelines about what content is and isn’t acceptable (along with adequate monitoring) for Marines might yield better results without interrupting benign types of communications? Perhaps even create further layers of guidelines based on the role and location of these Marines. (Recon Marines in Iraq vs. a drill instructor on Parris Island, for example: Different threat. Different access to mission-sensitive info, etc.) This might sound complicated, but it isn’t.
Look at it in a different way. Is it possible that Marines chatting about a mission within hearing range of an Iraqi vendor or contractor might be as damaging (if not more) as a Facebook update? An overheard phone call? An intercepted postcard while on leave? Isn’t it more likely that sensitive information would find its way into the hands of the enemy through conventional means than through a tweet or Facebook update?
The risk here is not the medium, it is the behavior. Ban access to the medium and you solve nothing: The behavior is still there, only now, you are blind to it. Double-fail.
Identify the threat, then address the specific threat. That’s how it works. If you identify the wrong threat and engage it instead of the real threat, you’re screwed. I fear that this is what has happened with the Marine Corps. In other words, not only will the move not save lives, but it will instead help further isolate soldiers from their families at a time when technology makes deployments a lot more manageable than they have ever been.
I kidded on Twitter earlier this week was that to avoid being outdone by the Marine Corps, the Army was planning to ban the use of telephones and the Air Force would look into banning the use of snail mail. Don’t take it too literally (I understand the different threat posed by the openness of social networks), but don’t dismiss the notion too quickly either. Twitter… telephones… not a huge difference when you step back and look at the full picture.
There is a reason why telephones and mail were not banned in WWII: Training and awareness worked. A ban of technology usage would not have worked at all. The lesson: Give people some credit. Give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Don’t treat them like stupid little children. Chances are, they’ll make you proud. (That’s what IBM did… but hang on. We’re not quite there yet.)
In regards to ESPN’s Twitter guidelines:
Many of these guidelines are solid. Especially “Confidential or proprietary company information or similar information of third parties who have shared such information with ESPN, should not be shared”, “Assume at all times you are representing ESPN” and “Exercise discretion, thoughtfulness and respect for your colleagues, business associates and our fans.” No problem there. These should actually be #1 #2 and #3 on that list.
When it comes to being professional, representing your employer 24/7 and not sharing confidential information, thumbs-up. Good stuff. I’m right there with you, ESPN.
But wait… then things get a little out of hand.
Case in point: “Personal websites and blogs that contain sports content are not permitted.” Seriously? So let me get this straight… if I am a triathlete working for ESPN and want to write a post on my own personal blog about the half Ironman I just competed in last weekend, I am not allowed to do so? Am I also prohibited from posting pictures of my son playing basketball on my Facebook page? Openly supporting a charity like Livestrong or Susan G. Komen is out of the question then? Let alone sharing with anyone that I am a fan of a particular team or athlete?
Another problematic policy here is this one: “The first and only priority is to serve ESPN sanctioned efforts, including sports news, information and content.” Not to get Clintonesque here, but can ESPN define “the”? Whose priority are we talking about, and in what context? Is ESPN implying that their employees use of social media platforms (FaceBook, Twitter, blogs, Skype, Friendfeed, IM) is exclusively limited to ESPN-sanctioned communications? So… Any use of social media outside of a ESPN-sanctioned context is in violation of company policy? Outside of work, ESPN employees are no longer allowed to connect with old high school friends on Facebook? They shouldn’t engage with friends, neighbors, golf buddies and family members on Twitter? They should immediately end their involvement with the dozens of hobby-related communities they belong to online, from sports clubs and antique car collector communities to foodie and health-minded forums?
Help me out here. I don’t see how this makes any sense from an HR or PR perspective (let alone a legal one). Though some elements of this policy are sound, others fall completely outside the realm of realistic, enforceable and effective guidelines for company-wide social media usage. Perhaps ESPN might want to consider other options (and probably better sources of advice) when it comes to framing policies for its social media program? Perhaps (again) incorporating training for employees as well might be a better solution?
Counterpoint: IBM’s fantastic internal social media policy – A template for all companies? (Maybe.)
You might not expect a corporate juggernaut like IBM to lead the way when it comes to creating effective social media guidelines for its employees, yet here we are: IBM was one of the first enterprise-size companies to not only recognize the need for such a document, but also to deliver an adequate set of guidelines within it that made sense and allowed its culture to spread. IBM recognized that treating its employees like responsible adults rather than dangerous little children might yield pretty good results.
And they were right.
Check out IBM’s Social Computing Guidelines here.
I want to highlight a few specific elements of the document here so you can enjoy the radical contrast between ESPN’s less than savvy approach vs. IBM’s:
As outlined in the Business Conduct Guidelines, IBM fully respects the legal rights of our employees in all countries in which we operate. In general, what you do on your own time is your affair. However, activities in or outside of work that affect your IBM job performance, the performance of others, or IBM’s business interests are a proper focus for company policy.
IBM supports open dialogue and the exchange of ideas.
IBM regards blogs and other forms of online discourse as primarily a form of communication and relationship among individuals. When the company wishes to communicate publicly as a company—whether to the marketplace or to the general public—it has well established means to do so. Only those officially designated by IBM have the authorization to speak on behalf of the company.However, IBM believes in dialogue among IBMers and with our partners, clients, members of the many communities in which we participate and the general public. Such dialogue is inherent in our business model of innovation, and in our commitment to the development of open standards. We believe that IBMers can both derive and provide important benefits from exchanges of perspective.
One of IBMers’ core values is “trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.” As a company, IBM trusts—and expects—IBMers to exercise personal responsibility whenever they participate in social media. This includes not violating the trust of those with whom they are engaging. IBMers should not use these media for covert marketing or public relations. If and when members of IBM’s Communications, Marketing, Sales or other functions engaged in advocacy for the company have the authorization to participate in social media, they should identify themselves as such.
Read the rest here.
Beautiful, isn’t it? IBM actually treats its employees like responsible adults. How about that.
By the way, check out when IBM started working on this: 2005! Most companies today still don’t have adequate (or even specific guidelines when it comes to social media usage) and we’re just a few months away from 2010. Anyone feeling a little unprepared right now? Yeah. Some of you probably should be.
That is how it’s done, boys and girls: With calm, insightful knowledge and understanding. With respect for the medium, the process, your employees and your customers.
Okay, now come close. I have a secret to tell you: The best antidote to fear is knowledge.
That’s right: Companies whose staffers understand social media, community dynamics, organic brand management and new technologies will figure out how to do this right. (Like IBM.)
Conversely, companies with a lack of knowledge, understanding and practical experience in these areas are bound to let fear overcome logic and common sense. Fear, ignorance and paranoia aren’t exactly good foundations upon which to base a social media program – or anything else, for that matter. This is how companies can suddenly invalidate the entire potential of their social media efforts AND turn a knee-jerk reaction into a PR disaster all in one fell swoop. (And man, is it painful to watch.)
Incidentally, if you are a corporate executive who actually fears his own people… why are they your people? (Either hire better or train better. What are you doing? Hiring mean-spirited unprofessional idiots with no common sense? In this economy? When you could have your pick of the best talent out there?) If you have to impose bans and draconian restrictions on your staff to keep them in line, if the stick needs to be bigger than the carrot, your problem isn’t Twitter or Facebook. Your problem is you. (Something to think about.)
One last bit of wisdom from IBM’s Social Web Guidelines to send you off on a good note:
Be who you are. Some bloggers work anonymously, using pseudonyms or false screen names. IBM discourages that in blogs, wikis or other forms of online participation that relate to IBM, our business or issues with which the company is engaged. We believe in transparency and honesty. If you are blogging about your work for IBM, we encourage you to use your real name, be clear who you are, and identify that you work for IBM. Nothing gains you more notice in the online social media environment than honesty—or dishonesty. If you have a vested interest in something you are discussing, be the first to point it out. But also be smart about protecting yourself and your privacy. What you publish will be around for a long time, so consider the content carefully and also be judicious in disclosing personal details.
This is so evolved that it almost brings a tear of joy to my eye.
No need to panic. If IBM can pull it off, our company can too. (Yes, even you, ESPN.) To start with, all you really have to do is take this social media program building process seriously and maybe ask for a little bit of expert help to help you avoid these types of snafus.
Incidentally, if your company doesn’t currently have either a solid set of social media guidelines or employee awareness training in place, give me a call (or have your HR manager give me a call). I can help you with that. 😉
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
Ooh. Not sure I agree when it comes to the military. Guidelines may have worked “back in the day”, but Americans then were much more united against a common enemy than even seems possible now. In this super-polarized environment (domestically and globally) people are all to willing to undermine their political opponents (and the military) by whatever means necessary. Sadly, this is true even in today’s intelligence community, which is supposed to be the guardian of our secrets. Do we want make it easier for people to move intelligence in real time? Telephones, the postal service and classified ads weren’t real-time and phones can be (and were) wiretapped.
I dunno…I’m not for treating people like children, but when you have people stealing our nuclear secrets and leaking damaging information to the press (something that was also unheard of in WWII, since FDR implemented blackouts and heavy censorship) on a regular basis to undermine our policies and our military, one has to wonder.
That was then. This is now. Totally different society and set of values.
I agree with you, Malcolm. I was in the military as well and understand the threat posed by live, open social networks. You get no argument from me there.
BUT:
Nuclear secrets aren’t going to make their way to North Korea or a rogue organization via Twitter or Facebook. They’ll be smuggled out either physically or electronically, and communicated to our enemies by means that existed long before social networks: Discs, thumb drives, memory cards, microfilm, notebooks, cocktail napkins, email, snail mail, mule, telephone, etc. This isn’t limited to FaceBook. The dead drop is far from dead, unfortunately, and it hasn’t been replaced by MySpace. 😉
I would find clear guidelines on the type of content and information Marines are allowed (and not allowed) to post to social networks coupled with proactive monitoring a more appropriate response/strategy than an outright ban. (Akin to the wiretapping you mentioned in your comment, only it can be done by keyword searching bots now: Less strain on resources.)
If some Marines are currently using social networks to purposely undermine their own mission or the United States, all the Marine Corps did with this decision was send them underground and make them tougher to catch.
If some Marines were accidentally undermining their mission by stupidly sharing sensitive information on social networks, proper training and sanctions would probably be more effective.
Thanks for the comment, Malcolm. Great discussion. 🙂
Yes, of corse I didn’t mean to suggest that nuclear secrets could be conveyed via Twitter, but that there’s a certain element that will use whatever technology is at hand to share stuff that shouldn’t be shared. Thanks for responding! good comments, all.
In the case of USMC, is really causes me to wonder why the sudden change in policy. It’s not like the corps members haven’t been using Facebook and other social sites for the last year or two (without incident, as far as we know). Then suddenly, the plug is pulled. It seems like there would need to be something that precipitated such a drastic response like that. I wonder if it has anything to do with Facebook’s move to make status updates searchable to all? Or if there have been specific instances of information being leaked or casually mentioned via SNS? Regardless, the draconian approach of completely cutting off what I’m sure is a lifeline for many military families to stay connected seems like a hasty response.
In the case of ESPN, it seems like they started out with the correct intentions of trying to get some guidelines out there for employees, but then went too far. It seems like the legal department was a little too involved here. What also interested me is that up until recently (and even still for some of their accounts), ESPN’s Twitter bios for certain accounts consisted of a disclaimer statement saying something to the effect of “An @ reply to this account constitutes your permission to quote you, potentially on air or in other EPSN material.” I noticed this with the @ESPNCFBLive account. Again, it seems like a CYA move from an organization where the lawyers must run everything!
I certainly understand the need for organizations to mitigate risk. But common sense and, like you said, knowledge/education/training can go a long way toward mitigation, too.
You just paraphrased my post in two paragraphs. THIS is how I need to start writing these things. (My English 101 teacher always told me I needed to cut to the chase.) 😀
Yeah, knee-jerk reactions are rarely good for anyone. I feel bad for ESPN and the USMC. It looks like they panicked a little bit. I hope they will change their policies soon. 🙂
This is a GREAT post Olivier. I had no idea IBM was so evolved when it came to their online policies (never having had a reason to wonder.) I was pretty appalled about the ESPN thing – I know the entire sports industry is annoyed by how readily their people will send out a tweet of surprise (Shaq finding out he has been traded via a Twitter user because his agent hadn’t called yet) or disgust (Lance tweeting about the drug testing people from another country, standing on his doorstep in Texas when he arrived home one day.) But the anti-American, take away all freedom of speech attempt at silencing secrets is not the way to combat this behavior.
The military is a bit more understandable in context of terrorists, enemies, etc. and the necessity to keep operations a secret at times. But these social outlets and email is one of the key ways soldiers keep in touch with their families here in the states, so some tact and understanding, when drafting these over-arching policies is a must.
Between this excellent post about what and what not to do with your social media policies, and your social media director job requirements post, you better be careful – someone may try to snatch you up for their HR department. LOL! 🙂
Haha. Me, in HR? That would be a new one. 😀
Olivier,
Outstanding post! Having come from American Express who is struggling with their overall social media plan (they’ll tell you they are not, of course, and have a strategy “well defined”), it is refreshing to hear of a company who does it well. Many HR people would do well in contacting you!
Scott
Thanks Scott. Yeah, they probably would. 🙂
This is an excellent heads-up to those organizations who are in need of, or are thinking about starting, a proper social media “company policy.” I also think PR and branding outfits should use their own policies as guiding lights for their clients, but I’m wondering how many would actually make an example of their own integrated company and HR policies.
Excellent point about PR and branding specialists needing to get in on this. 🙂
Olivier,
Nice post. I’m from IBM. I think one thing that’s been key to the success of the social computing guidelines here is that they weren’t created in a top-down fashion. The community (individual employees) actually wrote the actual guidelines, which were then they were vetted by legal, marketing, HR and communications.
The problem with the ESPN issue this week (and the Marines too, for what I can tell) is that the guidelines weren’t written in a way that actually involved employees in the process. If any one thing has been responsible for the success of the guidelines here, it’s the fact that they were community written.
I captured a bit more of that experience here, in light of this whole ESPN issue: http://adamchristensen.com/2009/08/05/some-perspectives-on-espns-new-social-media-guidelines/
Very good point: ESPN and the USMC seem to have made command decisions without stepping out of the command bubble (which can be an insight/foresight vacuum, unfortunately).
When I was in uniform, I routinely conferred with my NCOs and enlisted men to determine the best course of action. My leadership’s success wasn’t due to my ability to bark orders and bend people to my will. Instead, it came from the relationship or respect, trust and purpose I built with my team. They never questioned an order and always executed 100%, but I also knew when they felt that I was missing a detail, and I had no problem asking for their help.
IBM obviously gets that. I wish more companies did.
Great to have you comment on this today, Adam. I’m going to go check out your link. 🙂
HR? Hell, you should be a lawyer, with how well you just presented your case.
The underlying fallacy here is that you can legislate human behavior. People have a basic need to connect, share, communicate. No matter the situation, we always find a way to do what comes naturally to us.
We’re also pack animals, meaning that we like to belong to a group. Most good managers–and good organizational management–realize that.
Restricting the channels for the behavior does not stop the behavior. Restriction sends the behavior underground, and further from whatever control (or, at the very least, monitoring) you might have had–because you suddenly make it very, very clear that management is not part of the staff “pack”…but the staff pack is much, much bigger. By trying to legislate / control the behavior of the “other” pack, it turns into a fight about cultural dominance.
From that standpoint alone the USMC’s and ESPN’s policies are guaranteed to achieve the opposite effect they had intended–instead of enlisting staff in service of the organization, they’ve turned them against it (at least in spirit).
And, once you’ve added the air of the forbidden, you actually make attractive that which might not previously have been. (“They say I can’t talk about this? I’ll show them!”) How else did the full copies of these documents get out there, even with these policies in place?
The best approach, always, is to look at what people are already doing–not what you think they *might* do. Find a way to make that work with your goals, not against them, as IBM has done so beautifully.
People will do what people do. If you make them part of your pack, a la IBM, they’ll help you (because it helps themselves). If you treat them as separate, other, less, they’ll still do what helps themselves, but now it hurts you, too.
–Tamsen (@tamadear, @Sametz)
Beautifully written, Tamsen. Excellent observations all. 🙂
(I did consider a career as a litigator many, many, many moons ago.)
This is a brash response by people and companies that aren’t comfortable with a new and unfamiliar communication concept.
What do you do when a pipe breaks? You don’t start to slowly mess with the connection, you turn the water off, figure out the problem, fix it, and then turn the water back on.
That’s what we’re going to see a lot of until people become more comfortable with these innovations. They’ll turn the water off, figure out what to do about it, and then start to let the water flow again.
Great post Olivier…I haven’t read that much in some time…I think I need to lay down ^_^ But seriously, very well said and your thoughts are dead on, in my opinion.
@DavidSpinks
Thanks, man. Maybe I should start letting Advil or Excedrin advertise here. 🙂
Great post. One thing I don’t think you mentioned, which I think is also very important for understanding the cultural difference here – IBM’s guidelines were written collaboratively, on a wiki, internally, openly, by the employees. We’ve been through just the one significant revision (going from “Blogging” to “Social Computing” Guidelines) in the past few years.
If you’re interested, I’ve spoken about this on a number of occasions, most recently at the London SOMESSO enterprise social media conference. See slideshare.net/andypiper/openness-and-innovation-in-a-web-20-world for slides with voiceover, and http://en.sevenload.com/shows/Somesso/episodes/YBZSljD-Andy-Piper-smo09-SOMESSO-London-09 for the video of me speaking on stage.
Disclaimer: I work for IBM and contributed both to the original guidelines, and the re-edit, as part of the collaborative process.
Thanks, Andy. Good points.
I’ve worked for several companies for whom wikis and established internal guidelines like IBM’s would have been completely ignored and stricken from the record by management in favor of more restrictive and purely top-down policies.
IBM’s leadership didn’t have to adopt the existing guidelines, yet it did. That is a HUGE testament to their commitment to the type of culture IBM wants to build. Had the brass at IBM decided it needed to protect itself against every possible SM-related threat – in spite of the wonderful job done by its employees – things could have gone in a different direction.
You’re very fortunate to be working for an organization that values its employees’ opinions and respects their right to act professionally all on their own. 😉
I’m going to go check out your link now. Thanks for the great comment.
IBM really had no choice, the guidelines were written long after employees were all over social networking. You have to remember, IBM has some 300,000 employees, and many are at the leading edge of technologies and are likely to be participating in new technology as individuals long before the company hears about it.
IBM has so many employees that work outside its network control that it cannot effectively stop them from accessing social networking web sites. Thousands upon thousands work at customer sites, thousands more work from home.
Simply blocking access at the internal/external proxies would have been a finger in the dam approach. Rather, they built on their Business Conduct Guidelines, which in on their own could be used to fire any employee found not adhering to them.
They have numerous times attempted to ban non-IBM tools from accessing especially IM style tools/web sites from inside the IBM network, more often than not claiming that it causes internal network stability problems.
However, in their defense, they do take a grown-up approach to allowing access to pretty much everything, within the law and then tracking down employees that violate the BCG.
I recall one incident in the mid-1990’s when IBM.COM was one of the top visitors to the playboy.com website. Rather than ban it, we were sent an email pointing out a number of problems with accessing the web site, not least the damage to IBM’s reputation.
Good comment, Mark. It’s still a grown-up approach, as you say.
Incidentally, you point out that “thousands upon thousands work at customer sites” – true – and nine times out of ten when I’ve been to a customer site to direct them to useful technical content posted on a blog or wiki beyond their firewall, it has been subject to the classic “restricted site, access has been logged” red screen filter. Frustrating. Far better to trust the people, inform and educate the people, and react in a grown-up manner on both sides should that trust be broken.
Mark, read the reply I just left on Andy’s comment. It applies to yours as well.
IBM had a choice. It could have imposed a ban or restrictions in the same way that ESPN and the USMC did, regardless of how illogical, disruptive or enforceable this might be. Many companies choose that path (the NFL seems to be struggling with this today as well).
IBM made the right choice though. And your Playboy story illustrates their management team’s maturity perfectly. Where most companies would have blocked the site altogether and sanctioned its employees, IBM simply gave them a heads-up and expected that people would start acting worthy of the company’s trust again.
It’s all a choice, and I wish more companies adopted IBM’s example.
Thanks a bunch for the comment. 🙂
Yes Andy, I’d think the grown up approach that was pervasive back 10yrs ago is still there. I once had to meet with Linda Sanford VP to discuss an email to the press incident. Rather than just fire me under the BCG, or send an email threatening such, we had the chance to discuss and I had the opportunity to give an assurance that it wouldn’t happen again.
I’d like to think that side of the grown-up approach is still there, and feel that is aprt of the bigger thinking that companies need to adopt, and not just a binary yes/no approach, however grown-up.
hi, Interesting article. Is there any chance I can use a little bit of it on my blog?
With proper attribution, sure.
Stunning post Olivier. Perfect reading for 7am to get me thinking creatively for the rest of the day.
Very handy to point out the SM policies, thanks for those.
Sweet! IBM is basically the standard IMO. 🙂
Thanks, O.
You know your opinion carries a lot of weight. Glad to see your yearly blog slump hasn’t effected your thinking! 😀
This time of year, what I lack in frequency, I try to make up in quality. 😉
First off, I love you argument! You make some great points, but there is WAY more to the USMC decision then is being stated in the message. The USMC released this message under the guise of OPSEC (protecting Americans especially service members is an easy position to defend), if this is the case then why not ban the use of SNS to all Marines all the time. Instead, they ban it just under their network. Here’s the other reason.
The greater concern is for the NETWORK itself. The belief that SNS poses a risk to the security of the DoD network is the principle concern. The DoD has a zero risk policy and is currently reviewing weather or not to ban all SNS.
Check out the conversation: http://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense?ref=mf
Bandwidth is not cheap… Yes the DoD has to pay for the bandwidth, maybe not a local ISP but it has a cost. Marines can still use SNS in forward deployed locations now; they just have to do it on Morale Welfare and Recreation/USO computer and network, this service is provided WITH OUT the use of tax payers money. MWR/USO provide all kinds of services, that typicaly could not be legaly funded with Gov funds.
I look forward to your reply!
Very good points, Shawn. I realize that this isn’t an all-out ban but a ban specifically on the network. The bandwidth issue is – at least to me – the most valid argument for the ban (or at least restrictions). I also understand the Marines’ zero-risk policy. All valid concerns to be sure. I certainly don’t want to minimize the types of new costs and threats posed by digital media. Having been in the military myself, I can completely empathize with USMC’s command. Their situation is very different from the other examples cited in this post (ESPN and IBM) in that the USMC has a lot more issues to worry about than bad PR. When the cost of a mistake online can snowball into people actually dying, that’s a whole different level of threat management and responsibility than what most companies have to worry about. 😉
Again, having served – in a foreign branch of the military very similar to the USMC – I understand that soldiers are meant to obey orders and that these orders, when issued, don’t have to go into flowery lengths to explain their purpose or logic. That said, because this issue has an internal impact on morale and an external impact on the USMC’s image, the USMC’s document could have been a little bit more forthcoming about alternatives to the network when it comes to SNS access. Something to more clearly point out that Marines should continue to use SNS, just not on the network. In other words, don’t just tell me where I can’t go anymore; also tell me where I’m allowed to go. 😉
Thank you very much for the comment, Shawn.
What a great post. The idea of making people aware that they are accountable rather than expecting them to act irresponsibly and mandating certain behavior builds stronger (trusting) relationships.
Back in 1999 (before all these social media sites) we were only given LotusNotes123 as our e-mail service at Twentynine Palms MCB. The program was a pain and knowing that we could not “abuse” this for our own personal communications, we resorted to having to created our own yahoo or hotmail accounts to be able to communicate between ourselves and other Marines in using units. Although I understood the ban at the time, honestly what were our other alternatives to communicate with loved ones back home? Phone banks? snail mail? MARS communication centers? Now I know every Marine would be responsible enough NOT to disclose his unit’s fighting position to a loved one but it wasn’t too hard to figure out who was engaged and where the engagement was taking place by simply tuning into CNN or FOX.
Exactly. The channels are irrelevant – even when comms through many are instantaneous. It comes down to training. Marines are highly trainable, as I recall. Give them rules to follow and they will follow them. A Marine who purposely reveals sensitive information would be a security risk with or without facebook.
That said, I understand that the ban may have been caused partly by concerns regarding bandwidth issues. THAT, I completely get.