|
||||||||||
Free Download
Professional Networking Sites
Issue 34 - February 2010
 printer friendly version |
The professional networking site 'LinkedIn' continues to grow in popularity but are such business networking sites an asset or a liability?
Business networking site LinkedIn has over 50 million members, including Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar. Of course, online networking still has the potential for time-wasting and the risk of users damaging the organisation’s reputation. However, banning access altogether could be counterproductive for any business that thrives on people information.
A better approach may be to allow its use, tackle time-wasting and protect the employer’s image in more traditional ways - for example, by applying disciplinary sanctions for breach of a clear policy. Broad guidelines may be more useful than a prescriptive list of “do’s” and “don’ts” that quickly date. Employees could be encouraged to ask themselves: “Would I be embarrassed if my employer saw this?”, and could be reminded that actions and omissions that bring the employer into disrepute are considered to be misconduct and, in serious cases, gross misconduct.
One difficulty for employers is that LinkedIn is neither entirely private (after all, the aim is to keep contacts up to date with current business activity) nor entirely public (contacts could include employees’ friends as well as business contacts). It is likely that a total ban of its use would be a human rights breach. However, some steps to manage any use with a direct impact on the employer may be a sensible precaution.
What happens if the clients’ names are already in the public domain?
Imagine the scenario whereby a salesman diligently “links in” via the networking site with every new business contact he makes during his three-year employment. Through the site, each of his contacts is given access to all the salesman’s other contacts. A pool of 3,000 inter-linked contacts is created. The salesman starts work with a rival business and then links in to its sales director. The new employer then has access to the entire customer list.
Similar information-sharing problems can arise during employment. An employee who deliberately links in to a prospective employer to make a job application more attractive is likely to breach the duty of fidelity to the current employer and may be guilty of gross misconduct. But what if an employee links in to an old college friend at a rival professional services firm, inadvertently sharing all its business contacts? Are the customers’ names still confidential or are they already in the public domain? Could the former employer take out an interim order to stop the new employer from using the information for its own purposes? Will LinkedIn make restrictions on post-termination solicitation of former customers unenforceable too?
A lawyer’s instinct would be to recommend drawing up detailed policies to reduce the risk of inadvertent mistakes and to help organisations take action if there is a breach. But it may be worth considering the wider picture as, for some organisations, losing control over client lists may be a fair trade for the benefits LinkedIn has to offer. The balance between restriction and encouragement is likely to be drawn in different places for different organisations - and is likely to move with the times.
A better approach may be to allow its use, tackle time-wasting and protect the employer’s image in more traditional ways - for example, by applying disciplinary sanctions for breach of a clear policy. Broad guidelines may be more useful than a prescriptive list of “do’s” and “don’ts” that quickly date. Employees could be encouraged to ask themselves: “Would I be embarrassed if my employer saw this?”, and could be reminded that actions and omissions that bring the employer into disrepute are considered to be misconduct and, in serious cases, gross misconduct.
One difficulty for employers is that LinkedIn is neither entirely private (after all, the aim is to keep contacts up to date with current business activity) nor entirely public (contacts could include employees’ friends as well as business contacts). It is likely that a total ban of its use would be a human rights breach. However, some steps to manage any use with a direct impact on the employer may be a sensible precaution.
What happens if the clients’ names are already in the public domain?
Imagine the scenario whereby a salesman diligently “links in” via the networking site with every new business contact he makes during his three-year employment. Through the site, each of his contacts is given access to all the salesman’s other contacts. A pool of 3,000 inter-linked contacts is created. The salesman starts work with a rival business and then links in to its sales director. The new employer then has access to the entire customer list.
Similar information-sharing problems can arise during employment. An employee who deliberately links in to a prospective employer to make a job application more attractive is likely to breach the duty of fidelity to the current employer and may be guilty of gross misconduct. But what if an employee links in to an old college friend at a rival professional services firm, inadvertently sharing all its business contacts? Are the customers’ names still confidential or are they already in the public domain? Could the former employer take out an interim order to stop the new employer from using the information for its own purposes? Will LinkedIn make restrictions on post-termination solicitation of former customers unenforceable too?
A lawyer’s instinct would be to recommend drawing up detailed policies to reduce the risk of inadvertent mistakes and to help organisations take action if there is a breach. But it may be worth considering the wider picture as, for some organisations, losing control over client lists may be a fair trade for the benefits LinkedIn has to offer. The balance between restriction and encouragement is likely to be drawn in different places for different organisations - and is likely to move with the times.
Key points
- Networking sites can be a cheap and useful business tool.
- Banning access to LinkedIn may be a breach of human rights.
- Issuing broad guidelines on acceptable LinkedIn usage may be more effective than fixed rules.
- Employees could be required to confirm in writing on termination that their LinkedIn profiles are up to date to prevent them passing themselves off as still in their previous employment.
- Organisations need to balance the benefit of acquiring useful business contacts against the potential loss of valuable information.