It’s natural to think that your LinkedIn profile belongs only to you. It’s contains so much of your hard work and personal knowledge, it seems out-of-the-question that anything else could possibly be the case. However, as business begins to recognise the value social media brings to the bottom line, the issue of ownership of social activities is coming to the fore. So, if you tweet for work, use Facebook for search, or LinkedIn to network, this post is for you.
Recruiters, you’re the lab rats
Recruiters, as early adopters and often super users of tools like LinkedIn, are in the front line of the coming conflict between employer and employee. Whatever is going to happen in this tug-of-war for social network ownership will happen to us first. As such, the recruitment industry which is a real time laboratory to see how this might all play out for everyone else. I’m sure no one will hold it against me for saying it, but for now, recruiters are the lab rats.
For an individual recruitment agent, the benefits of networking tools like LinkedIn are obvious – it is a portable CRM, a constantly expanding database of candidates and a self updating business development tool. The traditional downside of leaving an employer – the loss of a network of carefully cultivated contacts and therefore, sales opportunity – is largely eliminated by the portability of a LinkedIn account. What is to stop a recruitment agent joining a firm, building a network of contacts and then simply moving on with that enhanced book of business? He becomes a much higher value employee in the open market due to his expanded contact book, and is likely to command added market value as a result. What’s more, he’s free to repeat again and increase his value with further moves down the line.
Restrictive covenant clauses don’t cover it
The Restrictive Covenant has been the traditional employer defence for this type of behaviour. They are standard in recruiter employment contracts and they are designed to provide a degree of legal redress for employer; however, such clauses typically cover only those contacts deemed as ‘clients’ or invoiced customers within a specified time frame. The number of these contacts, even for a phenomenally successful recruiter, is likely to be a small fraction of the overall network that he has access to.
Uh-Oh
The danger for the employers is clear. Consultants can sign up, hoover up contacts, plug them into their LinkedIn network and move on. In a survey I conducted from a random sample of 10 national recruitment companies, 7 out of 10 confirmed that they were in the process of amending their restrictive covenant clauses to cover social media activity. If adopted throughout the wider economy, it will have enormous ramifications on how we as individuals manage and use social networks.
The gist of these contractual clauses is an employer is entitled to consider the tools it provides for employees to be returned to the company when the employee leaves. It’s widely accepted that when you resign, you agree to leave behind your company email, telephone number and various hardware items like laptop, mobile phone and whatever else the company has provided you with to do your job. In short, you agree to leave behind your corporate identity when you resign from post. And here is where we run into a major controversy when it comes to social media.
Who owns your account, your connections, friends or followers?
On a poll I cast recently on one of those networks, there was disagreement on this issue with 76% of respondents holding an unalloyed belief that their LinkedIn profile belonged to them and not the company who employed them. Interestingly, of the 24% who disagreed (that is to say, thought that the employers had a case), all were legal professionals specialising on employment law or HR professionals who were investigating precisely this position with their current companies. When there is a big disconnect between what the people believe, and what expert legal opinion say, there reason to worry. What’s more…
There is already a legal precedence.
In 2008, UK recruiter Hays successfully argued that an ex employees LinkedIn connections belonged to it, particularly during that period where he was employed by the company. The individual concerned was deemed to have breached his restricted convenant by utilising his LinkedIn network after he had left his employer and was forced to give up his account, and ‘hand over’ his connections, although it was still unclear how the latter was enforced. The implications of this ruling, for recruiters, and for anybody else who uses social media for their work, are ominous. Building your network as a corporate employee might lead you to leave those networks behind when you leave that company. Imagine, for a moment, how it would feel to leave behind your hundreds of LinkedIn connects, your thousands of Twitter followers and have to start over again in your new role.
In today’s world where your online visibility, personal brand and degree of connectedness are key tools in your job security, rulings of the type exemplified by the Hays ruling in 2008 put employee and employer interests in direct conflict. The first major legal case is surely not far away.
What you need to do for the time being
1. Set up an alternative email to link with your LinkedIn account – don’t leave and lose access to your account by leaving your work email as the default.
2. Pay for it yourself – that’s right, refuse any company offer to pay for or subsidise your account. Pay out of your own pocket, so that it’s clear that it is a personal tool you voluntarily use for company benefit.
3. Scrutinise your employment contract and escalate the online ID clauses to the same level of priority as you would do for salary and benefits
U5AMCW32XPY9
If you enjoyed this post, share it!
Interesting article – since I am self employed, it doesn’t effect me on a personal level, and I don’t think I would ever try to enforce this on my employees – but I can imagine that it is not long before headhunters start cracking down on this for their own staff. I suppose the fact that the network was developed on company time makes if fair game as company property (in the same way I would refuse an employee permission to take part of our database with them).