Your Boss is keeping a Private Eye on You:
Generation Y's Online Behaviour in Response to
the Employers’ Control of Social Media Sites
Ankie Middel
Student number: S2973448
Programme: MSc. BA – Management Accounting & Control
Supervisor: Dr. Sakshi Girdhar
Word count: 11.834
Date: Groningen, January 14, 2020
ABSTRACT: Employers are increasingly controlling the potentially inappropriate online employee behaviour. This practice has the potential to invade employees’ privacy because it gathers personal data that were originally intended for family and friends (Black, Stone & Johnson, 2015). Examining this emergent source of tension in the employment relationship, this paper explores in depth how the controlling practices of social media by the employer influence the online behaviour of Generation Y (Gen Y) employees. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with management consultants working at Dutch management consultancy firms and three different behavioural patterns were derived from the data: relativistic-, proactive-, and defensive behaviour. Each behavioural pattern is related to a certain level of awareness of the employers’ controlling practices. This study contributes to the existing literature by offering some new insights regarding the use of social media, the control of social media and social media privacy. Keywords: Social Media Sites, Employer Controlling, Privacy Violation, Procedural Justice, Generation Y.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, employers increasingly make use of social networking sites (SNSs), such as Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn (Thomas, Rothschild & Donegan, 2015). These social media sites represent a new stage in the evolution of the Internet (Smith & Kidder, 2010). Employers use SNSs to attract and screen job candidates. The studies of Hurrell, Scholarios & Richards (2017) and Suen (2018) have shown that employers also use SNSs to control potentially inappropriate online employee behaviour thereby invading into the private boundaries of their employees. An employee may use his or her SNS profile as a social activity and as a way to interact with friends and may not always use SNSs for work-related purposes (Jones & Behling, 2010).Employees may therefore believe that it is not the employer’s right to control SNSs and to question one’s behaviour outside of work (Smith & Kidder, 2010). This implies that there may be a gap between employers’ and employees’ expectations about how SNSs must be used (Clark & Roberts, 2010). If employees perceive an invasion by their employer through social media, employees may respond by adjusting their online behaviour (Hurrell et al., 2017; Abril et al., 2012). Some resistance may be expected, especially if employees have no control over how and when the controlling practices of social media by the employer occur (Jeske & Santuzzi, 2015). Accordingly, this study explores in depth how the employers’ control of social networking sites influences the online behaviour of Gen Y employees.
Abril et al. (2012) have asked Gen Y employees how they would respond to an employer accessing their social media sites. 25% had a neutral opinion. 40% reported not being concerned if the employer accessed information on personal SNSs (Abril et al., 2012). These employees may not be concerned for different reasons. Gen Y may consider the information on SNSs as irrelevant and not useful for the employer. For that reason, Gen Y may believe that the employer will not control personal SNSs (Curran, Draus, Schrager & Zappala, 2014). However, it may also be that the unconcerned Gen Y employees have managed their SNSs with employers in mind (Hurrell et al., 2017; Abril et al., 2012). These employees might have made efforts to cleanse their private information and/or information on SNSs that could cast them in a negative or unprofessional light in the eyes of the employer (Abril et al., 2012).
the controlling practices of social media by the employer may influence the online behaviours within the Generation Y cohort.
This research focuses on Gen Y employees since Gen Y is the first generation that has spent the entire lives in the digital environment (Wesner & Miller, 2008). Consequently, the development of profiles on SNSs appeared to be a defining factor in Gen Y’s social identity formation (Cheung, Chiu & Lee, 2011). Gen Y feels comfortable with sharing information about their personal lives online. In addition, the majority of Gen Y believes it is appropriate to friend supervisors on SNSs (Dolliver, 2007). The results of a survey showed that 82% of Gen Y believes it is appropriate to friend the supervisor on Facebook (Making the Connection, 2011). Gen Y constitutes therefore a highly relevant unit of analysis for this study. The current literature focuses primarily on how potential applicants who are looking for a job and are not yet working somewhere perceive and respond to the controlling practices of social media by the prospective employer (Curran et al., 2014; Black et al., 2015; Black & Johnson, 2012). Models of privacy are developed to empirically prove potential applicants’ perceived privacy violations when SNSs are used in the hiring process (Stone & Stone, 1990). The limited number of studies that have focused on permanent employees who are working in companies for a longer period of time only provide a theoretical framework and no empirical evidence. This implies that the extant literature lacks empirical evidence with regard to the perceptions and responses of permanent employees who have already joined the company. Permanent employees may perceive the employers’ control of SNSs as so-called insiders differently than outsiders. In contrast to potential applicants, permanent employees have already established a relationship of mutual trust with the employer (McDonald & Thompson, 2016). Permanent employees may perceive the employers’ invasion into their private lives through social media as a breach of trust (Abril et al., 2012). A breach of trust may provoke different responses than when there is no relationship of confidence yet and potential applicants still have to prove themselves. It is therefore valuable to investigate permanent employees. Specifically, the extent to which permanent employees are aware of the employers’ control of SNSs and how this awareness influences their online behaviour is not empirically investigated. Some employees may be aware of the employers’ control of SNSs and manage their online behaviour accordingly while others may have no clue. Overall, this paper makes a contribution to the research area of social media by filling in the research gap as described above.
Accordingly, this paper will answer the research question as presented below. This question will be answered using qualitative research. In particular, semi-structured interviews are conducted.
“How do the controlling practices of social media by the employer influence the online behaviour of Gen Y employees?” These empirical insights are highly important given the rapidly shifting SNSs technology and continuing legal ambiguity on data protection/misuse (Hurrell et al., 2017). Specifically, employers should be aware of the possible negative reactions of Gen Y employees that may ensue in response to perceived privacy violations. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section provides an overview of the relevant literature. The third and fourth section describe the methodology and the research results, respectively. The final section provides a discussion and an overall conclusion of the results that have been found in the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social Networking SitesSocial networking sites are web-based platforms that allow online information sharing and interactivity among users (Loss, Lindacher & Curbach, 2014). SNSs have become an indispensable part of people’s lives in recent years. Information disseminating behaviour is so common that nearly 60% of people frequently share online messages to others (Shi, Lai, Hu & Chen, 2017). Information is shared in order to maintain relationships, exchange knowledge, participate in self-expression, and for entertainment purposes (Krasnova, Spiekermann, Koroleva & Hildebrand, 2010). The primary feature of SNSs is that users upload personal details about themselves to their profile. Users then link their profile to the profiles of others (Freeman & Chapman, 2008). So social media sites allow individuals to form social networks. These networks are maintained by liking and commenting on each other’s content, such as photos, messages, and videos shared on newsfeeds (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
development (Weidner, O’Brien & Wynne, 2016). The majority of social media users integrate two or more SNSs in their daily activities because each SNS has unique features and purposes (Brandtzaeg, 2012).
Control of Social Media Sites by Employers
face legal liability for the harm caused to the victim. This can be very costly for employers (Thomas et al., 2015). Procedural Justice Theory and Social Media Control This research focuses specifically on Generation Y. Gen Y, also called millennials, represents individuals born between 1980 and 2000 (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). Gen Y can be characterized as less cynical and more optimistic than older generations (Stutzer, 2019). Millennials are highly educated and technologically sophisticated. Millennials are also group oriented, multitaskers, and are focused on networking. Technological advancements that occurred during the generational period 1980 to 2000 have shaped the attitudes, beliefs, and work habits of Gen Y (Stutzer, 2019). An important technological development concerned the introduction of the Internet during millennials’ lives (Bolton, Parasuraman, Hoefnagels, Migchels, Kabadayi, Gruber, Loureiro & Solnet, 2013). Millennials are often described as technologically savvy and the most visually sophisticated of any generation. Millennials are more likely than older generations to prefer social media sites for interactions with acquaintances, friends, and family (Bolton et al., 2013). In total, 88% of the Generation Y cohort indicates that they use SNSs (Smith & Anderson, 2018).
Procedural justice theory is used to explain the influence of the controlling practices of social media by the employer on the online behaviour of Gen Y employees. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of procedures (Stanton, 2000). Procedural justice has long been recognized as a key determinant of people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. People react to how fairly they are treated in social spheres. Examples are the family, the workplace, and the legal arena (Vermunt & Törnblom, 2007). Negative affective states are elicited as a consequence of experiencing unfair procedures. Positive affective states are brought on by fair procedures (Hafer & Correy, 1999). Procedural justice also affects people’s attitudes about the arenas in which the procedures were enacted. For instance, job satisfaction will be enhanced by the experience of fair procedures at work (Tyler & Blader, 2000). The effects of procedural justice are not limited to feeling-based and attitudinal responses. These effects also translate into the way people behave. For example, employees’ intentions to quit their job increase if procedural injustice is perceived at work (Vermunt & Törnblom, 2007).
be socially connected 24/7 might integrate personal lives and work (Chesley, 2005), both Hurrell et al. (2017) and Abril et al. (2012) highlighted a contradiction in the willingness of Gen Y to share information whilst simultaneously wishing clear boundaries between work and personal lives. In other words, millennials might expect their work and personal lives to be segregated regardless of their publicly accessible digital identity (Abril et al., 2012). Millennials may use some of their SNSs to connect with others within the private space for non work-related purposes (Jones & Behling, 2010). The information on SNSs may focus primarily on off-duty behaviours, such as romantic relationships, which may not be perceived as job relevant (Black et al., 2015). When employers control the SNSs of Gen Y employees, millennials may experience their employer is invading into their personal lives and privacy (Clark & Roberts, 2010). Consequently, perceptions of procedural injustice may arise among millennials (Gilliland, 1993). As Bies (1993) claimed “privacy becomes a procedural justice issue when employees’ moral expectations about control over their personal information are violated”. In other words, privacy invasion violates expectations about fairness such as being treated with respect and dignity (Folger & Bies, 1989) and having rights to personal space (Zweig & Webster, 2002). However, the employers’ control of the LinkedIn profiles of Gen Y employees may lead to less privacy violation perceptions in comparison to other SNSs (Hurrell et al., 2017). This is because millennials may consider LinkedIn more as a business and professional network rather than a personal network. This suggests that the control of SNSs by the employer may be more accepted when millennials’ SNSs use is business-related in contrast to the rest of the platforms (Hurrell et al., 2017). Overall, when millennials perceive procedural injustice, this perception may influence their online behaviour. A way of regaining a sense of control when one feels powerless is through managing the own online behaviour (Bennett, 1998). Curran et al. (2014) demonstrated evidence of the lack of awareness of online control of Gen Y applicants who are looking for a job and are not yet working somewhere. These millennials could be conceptualized as relativists (VanMeter et al., 2013; Curran et al., 2014). Based on the study of Curran et al. (2014), it could be expected that relativists plan few changes to their SNSs since relativists do not believe that the employer would find the information on their SNSs useful. Employers feel that they are able to learn significantly more about relativists through social media sites than the relativists believe themselves (Curran et al., 2014). In line with procedural justice theory, relativists do not expect the employer to control social media sites. This is because relativists consider online-posted information as irrelevant for their employer (Curran et al., 2014). Relativists therefore do not perceive privacy violations and procedural injustice. That in turn explains why relativists do not feel a strong urge to alter their current online behaviour (Curran et al., 2014).
concerns of millennials with regard to privacy violations, and the linkage with an active management of SNSs. Hurrell et al. (2017) made no distinction between employees and applicants in their study. More than half of the respondents indicated being a proactivist. Based on the study of Hurrell et al. (2017), it could be expected that proactivists are motivated to manage their profiles and/or privacy settings in advance in response to expected control of SNSs by the employer. Posting photos of nights out might be avoided and proactivists might control which online posts the employer is able to see (Hurrell et al., 2017). Proactivists may also deliberately choose not having the supervisor in SNSs contacts and not to make their SNSs publicly accessible (Roulin & Bangerter, 2013). In line with procedural justice theory, proactivists do expect their employer to control SNSs (Hurrell et al., 2017). Proactivists perceive the controlling practices of social media by the employer as a violation of their privacy. Consequently, proactivists are motivated to manage their online behaviour in advance with the employer in mind (Hurrell et al., 2017). In this way proactivists are able to regain a sense of control over their personal information (Bennett, 1998). The result is that proactivists perceive lower levels of privacy violations and higher levels of procedural justice (Alge, 2001). Millennials may also behave defensively online in response to experienced control of SNSs by the employer. These millennials could be conceptualized as defenders (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010). The theoretical frameworks of both Peluchette et al. (2013) and Clark & Roberts (2010) illustrated online defensive behaviour. Both authors focused on employees who have already joined the firm rather than on applicants but did not conduct any empirical research. Based on the theory, it could be expected that defenders respond to the controlling practices of social media by the employer after actually experiencing them. Defensive behaviour may take the form of deleting the supervisor from SNSs contacts after finding out that this person has controlled personal or the SNSs of colleagues (Peluchette et al., 2013). Defenders may also create a public SNS using their real name and a pseudo SNS for friends containing the pictures and dialogues intended for them (Clark & Roberts, 2010). In line with procedural justice theory, defenders have experienced that their employer has controlled SNSs. Defenders perceive the controlling practices of social media by the employer as a violation of their privacy (Clark & Roberts, 2010). Defenders therefore perceive procedural injustice as their sense of respect and dignity towards the employer is eroded (Stanton, 2000). Consequently, defenders start to behave defensively online towards their employer (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010). In this way defenders are able to regain a sense of control over their personal information (Bennett, 1998).
even if the employer engages in the control of SNSs (Thomas et al., 2015). Thomas et al. (2015) found that even when corporate policies prohibit specific online behaviours, progressivists ignore these corporate policies at least once a week. A report by Deloitte revealed that 61 % of employees belong to the conceptualization of progressivists (CU360, 2010). In line with procedural justice theory, progressivists have experienced that their employer has controlled SNSs. Just like defenders, progressivists perceive privacy violations and in turn procedural injustice (Thomas et al., 2015). Defenders restore perceived privacy violations by changing their current online behaviour in a defensive way (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010). Progressivists, on the other hand, restore perceived privacy violations by explaining to the employer that their online behaviour is unrelated to work behaviour. Progressivists are therefore not willing to change their current online behaviour (Jones & Behling, 2010). Overall, the current literature lacks empirical evidence regarding how Gen Y employees who have already joined the company perceive and respond to the employers’ control of SNSs. How aware are millennials of the controlling practices of social media by the employer? And how does this awareness arise? Do millennials simply expect the employer to control SNSs? Or do millennials only become aware when they have actually experienced it? Or is it also possible that some millennials are more naïve and are completely unaware of the employers’ SNSs controlling practices? And most important of all, how does this awareness influence the way millennials behave on their SNSs? What roles do perceived privacy invasions and perceived procedural injustice play in this? The theoretical framework as outline above provides a lens through which to answer all of these questions. In this way the goal of answering the question of how the employers’ control of social media sites influences the online behaviour of millennials can be accomplished.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The literature on the use of social media sites by Gen Y is growing. But the current literature does not provide empirical insights into the influence of the controlling practices of social media by the employer on the online behaviour of Gen Y employees. The topic of this paper can be characterized as relatively nascent instead of highly developed. This can be explained by the fact that social media is a more recent phenomenon (Smith & Kidder, 2010). The research method will therefore be a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. A qualitative research method makes it possible to understand the meaning of what is going on within the investigated SNSs controlling context (Gillham, 2000). Theory development will take place by disclosing all underlying relationships and explanations (Eisenhardt, 1989).
This research has been performed within the management consultancy sector. Management consulting has grown worldwide significantly faster than gross national products (Glückler & Armbrüster, 2003). Competition is not primarily based on price or cost (Lindahl & Beyers, 1999). Instead, management consultancy firms compete on market reputation. Management consulting is a reputational sensitive industry (Clark, 1995). Management consultants (MC) have access to clients’ confidential information. Management consultants analyse data that clients’ competitors must not get hold of (Nayyar, 1990). Clients should therefore trust the management consultant (Groß & Kieser, 2006). Inappropriate SNSs of management consultants can disrupt the clients’ trust in the management consultant. It is very likely that clients view the SNSs of the management consultant (Carter, 2018). Clients’ lack of trust in the management consultant will negatively influence the market reputation of the involved management consultancy firm (Clark, 1995). Managers of management consultancy firms are therefore motivated to control consultants’ SNSs (Carter, 2018). That is why management consultants constituted a very interesting unit of analysis. This study is carried out in the Netherlands. Nine management consultants were interviewed at junior and medior levels in a Dutch consulting firm. The privacy legislation in the Netherlands is very strict. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has come into force in May 2018 (Voigt & Von dem Bussche, 2017). The GDPR provides for numerous new and intensified data protection obligations, as well as a significant increase in fines. As a result, employers are very restricted in their freedom to control the social media sites of employees (Voigt & Von dem Bussche, 2017). Nevertheless, this paper demonstrated that Dutch employers do not fully comply with the GDPR.
Data Collection
This research has focused on the employee’s perspective. Gen Y employees working as management consultants within the Netherlands constituted the unit of analysis. The participants were selected on the basis of three predefined criteria. First, the participants had to use at least one social media site on a weekly basis. Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Snapchat were investigated. The participants should also have at least two years of work experience. Lastly, the participants should have been available for the study. Data collection took place by conducting semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews enable the interviewer to ask questions about new ideas and themes that may arise unexpectedly during the interview (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Semi-structured interviews provide at the same time some structure for comparison across interviewees by covering the same topics (Edwards & Holland, 2013).
different management consultancy firms. One former management consultant has been interviewed as this person stopped working as a management consultant for only two months now. All management consultancy firms were located in the Netherlands. An overview of the interviewees can be found in appendix B. The average duration of the interviews was approximately 33 minutes. The average age of the participants was 26 years. Every interview started with some general questions, such as “what is your role within the organization you work for?” and “how long have you been working as a management consultant?” These questions were asked to provide context to the interview and to put the interviewee at ease. In-depth questions were then asked related to the research topics. Example questions included “to what extent do you believe that the information on someone’s social media sites is useful and relevant for your employer?” and “in general, how do you think that your employer influences your online behaviour?” The interview protocol was sent to the interviewees prior to the interview. The interviewees were therefore already able to prepare themselves. All interviews have been performed face-to-face and were conducted in Dutch to avoid language barriers. By translating the interviews into English, some information might have gotten lost. The translation process has therefore been executed with a high degree of accuracy and care. All interview transcripts were shared with the interviewees to increase the validity of the research. The use of an interview protocol consisting of a predetermined and fixed set of questions increased the reliability of the study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Data Analysis After the interviews had been conducted, the qualitative data was analysed. This analysis was based on the method outlined by Pope, Ziebland & Mays (2000). The first step involved transcribing the interviews. Audio recordings were used if the interviewees allowed this to guarantee completeness of the transcripts. The research question functioned as the guideline during the coding process. After reading the transcripts extensively, important words, sentences, and paragraphs related to the research question were highlighted. These then inductively resulted in categories. The constant comparison method was used during this categorization process. The constant comparison method implies that all identified categories are continuously compared and linked with each other. Based on similarities and differences that appear within this constant comparative analysis, the identified categories and their relationships were repeatedly refined (Pope et al., 2000). After theoretical saturation had occurred (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), the final categories were integrated with another.
RESULTS
Social Media Usereplacement for local and international news websites. Eight of the nine participants mentioned that they use Instagram on a daily or weekly basis. Instagram offers a good way to see what friends, acquaintances, and colleagues are doing in their daily lives and to share what they are doing themselves. Instagram is therefore used exclusively for entertainment purposes. This also applies to Facebook that is used by seven of the nine participants on a daily or weekly basis. Each participant indicated to use LinkedIn on a daily basis. LinkedIn is considered a business and professional network rather than a personal network such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. This is in line with the findings of Weidner et al. (2016). In contrast to other platforms, LinkedIn functions as an online resume. Potential employers can see someone’s work experiences and education levels on a LinkedIn profile. LinkedIn is also used to share information with business relations such as publications of the own company.
Employees’ Perceptions about Blurred Work/Life Boundaries
Some participants are connected (i.e. friends) with their supervisor on their frequently used SNSs while others are not. This differs per SNSs. All participants indicated being friends with their supervisor on LinkedIn to see from each other what kind of business-related information is posted and shared. The participants do not have any problems connecting with their supervisor on LinkedIn. This is because the participants consider the information they post on LinkedIn completely as work-related and not as personal. “That is business. You work for the company, so it is very logical for me to be connected with my supervisor on LinkedIn. Then you can see from each other what kind of messages are being shared and what is going on in the business world.” – MC 4 No participant is connected with the supervisor on Twitter because Twitter is not used by the supervisor.
With regard to Instagram and Facebook eight of the nine participants indicated being friends with the supervisor on both or one of these SNSs (some participants use only one of these two). This result largely corresponds to the findings of a survey, which showed that 82% of millennials believe it is appropriate to friend the supervisor on SNSs (Making the Connection, 2011). There are two important reasons for participants to be connected with the supervisor on Instagram and/or Facebook. The first one concerns being able to see from each other what someone is doing outside of work, just out of personal interest.
“I thought maybe it would be nice to be connected with each other. That was my own feeling. She is just more than my supervisor. For instance, I like to see each other’s children. To gain more insights into each
The second one concerns not daring to refuse a friendship request from the supervisor because all colleagues accept this. “The thing is that everyone accepts it. I just do not want to be the only one who refuses.” – MC 5 A combination of both reasons is also possible as illustrated by multiple participants. “It would be A: very weird if I would not do it. That is just weird. Everyone does it. And B: I am also genuinely interested. I am curious what my supervisor does during the weekend and what fascinates him.” – MC 6
Overall, relativists believe that there is little relevant information available on their SNSs and that little professional harm can result from this information. Relativists simply believe that the employer takes a look at SNSs solely out of personal interest. Relativists are therefore not motivated to adjust their current online behaviour. It can be stated that relativists are characterized by a high degree of naivety. Studies have shown that employers do use SNSs to control potentially inappropriate behaviour since SNSs provide employers with much valuable information. Much more valuable information than employees believe. It is problematic that relativists are unaware of the possible risks that could come from posting certain information on SNSs. So in line with procedural justice theory, relativists do not perceive the controlling practices of social media by the employer as an invasion of their privacy since relativists do not expect the employer to control SNSs. But even if relativists had to imagine that their employer does control social media sites, relativists do not perceive privacy violations. It is considered the own responsibility to manage the privacy settings of SNSs. An employee can always refuse a friendship request from the employer. When relativists give the employer access to their SNSs in the form of accepting a friendship request, relativists give the employer permission to look at the available information. Relativists therefore perceive the controlling practices of social media by the employer as a just activity. “There is nothing wrong with it. You can manage the privacy settings yourself. Or you could refuse a friendship request from your supervisor. If I give my supervisor access to my social media sites, I give him permission to look at all the available information. That is also what I do when I add someone.”– MC 4 “A supervisor has the freedom to access channels. If you have not protected your profile then it is your own fault. So I think the supervisor has the right to control social media sites.” – MC 8
Somewhat surprisingly, these results demonstrate that three of the nine participants do not perceive the controlling practices of social media by the employer as an invasion of their privacy as they believe it is the own responsibility to ensure online privacy. These relativists welcome the blurring of work and personal boundaries. This is inconsistent with the previous literature (Abril et al., 2012; Jones & Behling, 2010; Black et al., 2015). These findings may indicate a growing trend favouring casual and social work environments. It may also be indicative of the naivety of millennials with respect to the business world (Abril et al., 2012).
employer will spend more time with the information on their and the SNSs of colleagues than with any other person in the employer’s network. The participants may be right about this since employers are exposed to various firm risks (Trivedi, 2018). Employers may control the SNSs of employees to limit risks such as poor employee productivity (Jacobson & Howle Tufts, 2013) and a high level of absenteeism (Hurrell et al., 2017). “My supervisor just scrolls through all the photos, about one or two seconds per photo. That goes really fast. But if he sees my photo, I expect him to take a look at it for a longer period of time. He will look at what I am doing. And at such a moment my supervisor is already unconsciously controlling me.” – MC 2
the supervisor on Instagram and Facebook and has opted for private instead of public social media profiles. The latter was also found by Roulin & Bangerter (2013) within the context of applicants. This is because both SNSs are considered private. It is desirable to maintain clear boundaries between personal lives and work. “When I post something on Facebook or Instagram, this is unrelated to work. Those are personal things. It is not necessary for me that my supervisor sees this. I would like to keep my personal life separate from work. If I take my work home to a large extent, which is highly likely for me as a management consultant, then at some point the boundary between work and personal life disappears.” – MC 2 This proactivist also manages its behaviour on LinkedIn in response to the expected control by the employer. Other proactivists also mentioned this. Proactive management includes that interesting messages from competing companies are no longer labelled as interesting anymore (i.e. giving a thumbs up). But proactivists would have labelled these messages from their competitors as interesting if the employer could not see this. As LinkedIn is considered a professional platform, proactivists perceive the employers’ control of this online platform to a lesser extent as privacy violation compared to Facebook and Instagram. Nevertheless, even the control of work-related platforms like LinkedIn still need to conform to procedural justice rules. But in general it can be concluded that an employer will experience least resistance when controlling professional platforms like LinkedIn compared to personal platforms like Facebook or Instagram. This finding corresponds to the study of Hurrell et al. (2017). “I do not label certain messages from competitors as interesting anymore even though I would have done this if my supervisor could not see it. If my supervisor sees this, I expect him to address this with me. My supervisor encourages me and my colleagues to promote messages from the own company.”– MC 2
Three of the four proactivists are connected with their supervisor on Facebook and/or Instagram out of personal interest. The results show that these proactivists have also taken proactive steps with regard to Facebook and/or Instagram (depending on which SNSs are used) since these SNSs are considered to be part of one’s personal lives. So despite the fact that these proactivists included their supervisor in SNSs contacts, proactivists would like to disassociate work life from personal life. Proactivists expect that their actions in one should not affect the other. These seemingly contradictory results are in line with the findings of Abril et al. (2012). As such, one proactivist avoids posting photos of nights out on weekends on Instagram and Facebook. This is common since millennials are afraid this will make them appear unprofessional and unproductive in the eyes of the employer (Abril et al., 2012; Hurrell et al., 2017).
“I used to post photos on my Instagram and Facebook that I was drinking wine with friends on weekends. The cosy and enjoyable nights, you know. Now I would think much more about those kind of pictures. This is
private. My supervisor does not necessarily have to see that.” – MC 3
Another proactivist indicated to post much less on Instagram since having a fulltime job. This proactivist experiences censorship and has therefore become more cautious. The company this proactivist is working for would like to exude a culture of young professionals both offline and online. All employees should meet a standard and the employer ensures that employees do not deviate from this standard by controlling SNSs. However, the proactivist perceives his Instagram channel as a part of his private life. The photos that are posted on this platform do not reflect the performance and behaviour at the workplace. The proactivist is therefore motivated to avoid posting pictures on Instagram that are considered private and inappropriate for the employer to see, such as photos of having a late night drink in the city on weekdays. By managing the online information in advance, the proactivist is able to regain a sense of control over his personal online information (Bennett, 1998). At the same time the proactivist is able to meet the organizational standard of being a young professional and prevents the employer from judging him for conduct outside the workplace. “I have been posting much less on my Instagram since I am having a fulltime job. I have become more cautious. Like posting photos of swimming in a speedo during the time I was a triathlon athlete. I would not do that anymore. I think that is no longer appropriate. This also applies to posting photos of having a late night drink in the city on weekdays. My supervisor can see that and may think that I am less productive the next working day. Because of my sporting heritage I look holistically at those things.” –MC 6 Yet another proactivist indicated that the expected control of SNSs by the employer makes him think much more about what kind of content could be posted online. This happens both consciously and unconsciously. “I already take into account what I could post on Facebook. I unconsciously think about that.” – MC 7
In sum, the results demonstrated that four of the nine participants belong to the conceptualization of proactivists. That implies that approximately 44% of the participants manage their online information with the employer in mind. Proactivists are aware of the fact that their employer may use SNSs as a mechanism to control potentially inappropriate behaviour whereas relativists are not. Given the rapidly shifting SNSs technology and continuing legal ambiguity on data protection/misuse, employees should be aware of the visibility of their online data and should develop strategies to manage this information (Hurrell et al., 2017).
One participant has actually experienced that the employer has corrected the online behaviour of a colleague. The colleague of this participant expressed some political statements on Facebook. The employer was informed of this by colleagues and confronted the employee with his online behaviour. “My colleague is interested in politics. He therefore likes to occasionally share some political views on Facebook. Our supervisor discovered this and was not amused. This is due to the fact that we often work for municipalities. Our supervisor therefore believed it is not wise to publicly express political views.” – MC 5
“I love Rolex watches and I always feel proud if I wear one. That is why I like to post pictures of those watches on my Instagram. Usually it is a close-up picture taken with a nice car in the background. This exudes luxury and I love this. But my supervisor unfortunately not. He asked me to stop posting these photos, because they give clients the impression that I feel better than them. Of course this is not the case. Rolex watches are just a hobby of mine. But as an employee I should represent the firm, so I have to take my responsibility.” – MC 9
The participant has responded defensively to this incident and can therefore also be conceptualized as a defender (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010). This defender deleted all the pictures of Rolex watches from his Instagram account under pressure from the employer. He has then chosen to create two different Instagram profiles, which is in line with the theoretical framework of Clark & Roberts (2010). This defender has also changed the privacy settings of his Facebook account. “I deleted all the pictures of Rolex watches. Then I decided to create two Instagram profiles just like people do for their pets for example. One for my friends and colleagues and other people I know and one for other Rolex watch lovers. In this way I can still post what I want without my supervisor saying anything about it. I have also changed the privacy settings of my Facebook account. Facebook has the option that you can label a person as ‘best friend’, ‘friend’, or ‘acquaintance’, do you know that? I labelled my supervisor and my colleagues as ‘acquaintance’ thereby excluding them from things I post.” – MC 9 Overall, two types of defenders can be distinguished based on the results. The biggest difference is that the first type uses a more gentle approach while the second defender uses a tougher approach. A more gentle approach contradicts the existing literature (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010) but might be explained by the employee’s fear of the employer’s reaction if he finds out that major defensive actions were undertaken. But looking at the data it may also be that defenders, who have experienced online control for themselves, use a tougher approach while having experienced that a colleague is controlled is accompanied by a more gentle approach. This could be explained by the fact that in the first case stronger and more intense emotions might be evoked resulting in greater defensive actions than in the latter case.
So in line with procedural justice theory, the proactivists and both defenders perceive the employers’ control of SNSs as a violation of their privacy. This is mainly the case with regard to Instagram and Facebook as both are considered personal networks. The participants believe that their Instagram and Facebook accounts are part of their personal lives and have nothing to do with work. According to proactivists and defenders, work and personal lives should not be blended and one should not be judged across these contexts. These results are in line with the previous literature (Hurrell et al., 2017; McDonald & Thompson, 2016; Abril et al., 2012). “I do not really like that. I have a private life and my social media should not be important for how I behave and perform at work. Privately I can have a very nice party, while I just perform well at work. So yeah, why would you do that as a supervisor? I really do not like that. Especially with Facebook or Instagram, it feels like the boundary between work and private life becomes blurred.” – MC 5 As proactivists have managed their online behaviour with the employer in mind, proactivists perceive higher levels of procedural justice than the defenders. This is in line with procedural justice theory (Alge, 2001). According to Alge’s (2001) theoretical framework, employees who believe that they can control their privacy in a timely manner will perceive higher levels of procedural justice. As such, the proactivists in this research indicated that the employer should not constantly control SNSs. Occasionally taking a look at what employees do and how they behave online is not perceived as unpleasant.
“I do not really care if my supervisor occasionally takes a look at what all employees do and how they profile themselves on social media. I have nothing to hide. But it should not be extreme.” – MC 6
The defenders perceive the employers’ control of social media sites as unjust due to perceived privacy violations. Folger & Bies (1989) confirmed that perceptions of privacy invasion damage employees’ sense of procedural fairness. The greater the perceived intrusiveness of the controlling procedure, the more likely the procedure will erode employees’ sense of respect and dignity towards their employer and the greater the perceived procedural fairness violation (Stanton, 2000). “I think it is unfair. Judge me on what I do at work and not on what I do in my private life.” – MC 9 Summary
defenders who became aware of this practice after actually experiencing it. The level of awareness subsequently influenced how millennials behaved online. Relativists did not believe that the employer controlled SNSs and therefore did not plan any changes to their SNSs. But even if relativists had to imagine that their employer does control SNSs, relativists did not care. They did not perceive privacy violations since it was considered the own responsibility to ensure online privacy. This finding is remarkable as other results found in this study demonstrate that millennials need clear work/life boundaries. As such, proactivists and defenders did perceive the employers’ controlling practices as a violation of their privacy. These participants expressed that work and personal lives should not be blended and that they would not be discriminated against on the basis of their online identities. This was mainly the case with regard to Instagram and Facebook as both were considered personal platforms instead of work-related platforms like LinkedIn. It is an intriguing result that three out of four proactivists chose to do a cost-benefit analysis. These proactivists added their supervisor in SNSs contacts out of personal interest (i.e. benefits) but nevertheless remained aware of the employer’s potential to invade their privacy through social media (i.e. costs). Perceived privacy violations stimulated both the proactivists and defenders to make conscious choices about which online content the employer was allowed to see. Interestingly, the data showed different ways of managing with online controls within the group of defenders. One defender used a more gentle approach consisting of becoming a member of private discussion groups and sending certain pictures only to friends. The other defender used a tougher approach consisting of creating multiple online profiles and changing the privacy settings of SNSs. Since proactivists managed their online behaviour in a timely manner, their perceptions of procedural justice increased. But perceptions of privacy invasion fully damaged defenders’ sense of procedural fairness.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
favouring casual and social work environments or it may be indicative of the naivety of Gen Y with respect to the business world (Abril et al., 2012). For future theoretical elaborations it would be interesting to investigate relativists in more depth. It would also be interesting to examine to what extent relativists are actually able to manage the privacy settings of their SNSs correctly. Nowadays there are still plenty of examples that online data is not properly protected and therefore fall into the wrong hands.
This study showed that approximately 44% of Gen Y behaved like a proactivist. Proactivists were aware of the controlling practices of social media by the employer. They were therefore motivated to take proactive steps regarding their SNSs. Since proactive management enabled proactivists to regain control over their personal information, proactivists perceived lower levels of privacy violations and higher levels of procedural justice. These findings confirm and contribute to the theory of Hurrell et al. (2017) by focusing exclusively on permanent employees who have already joined firms. The most interesting outcome concerned that three out of four proactivists chose to do a cost-benefit analysis. The supervisor was added in SNSs contacts in the awareness that this action carried a strong risk of privacy breach. These proactivists were not willing to forgo online participation with the supervisor through social networks to achieve a separation of work and personal lives. Interest in the personal lives of the supervisor and the desire that the supervisor learned more about your private life was worth the costs of privacy violation. But in order to reduce these costs to the minimum level, proactivists decided to manage their online profiles with the employer in mind. It is an addition to the literature that the benefits of an online connection with the supervisor outweigh the costs but that these costs are still of such relevance that they encourage proactivists to actively manage their SNSs. It is a valuable contribution that Gen Y likes to be connected with the supervisor on social media but nevertheless makes advance choices regarding the content that is posted online to protect the own privacy.
behaviour is contrary to the previous literature (Peluchette et al., 2013; Clark & Roberts, 2010). A more gentle approach might be explained by the fear of the defender that the employer finds out that major defensive actions were undertaken. For example, there may be a fear that the employer will discover a second Instagram account. However, it may also be that defenders’ way of managing with online controls is related to the person who underwent this control. As such, the results showed that the defender who has experienced that a colleague was controlled used the more gentle approach while having experienced this control yourself was accompanied by the tougher approach. In the latter case, stronger and more intense emotions may be evoked resulting in greater actions than in the first case. Further study on the different types of defensive behaviours and the explanations behind these types would be an area of future research.
This paper did not find any empirical evidence regarding the existence of progressivists. This might be explained by two reasons. Firstly it is likely that Gen Y does not have the courage to tell the employer that they are unwilling to change their current online behaviour. Gen Y is now gradually entering the workforce and therefore lacks in experience in comparison to older generations. Gen Y still has to prove itself in the workplace thereby behaving more cautiously during the first years of employment. Secondly refusing to change the current online behaviour while it has been experienced that the employer controls SNSs does not allow progressivists to regain control over their personal information. Progressivists cannot be sure that their message has reached the employer and that the employer really understands that their behaviour on social media and at work is separate from each other. The result is that progressivists still take the chance of being controlled by the employer thereby perceiving privacy violations. Future qualitative research should be conducted to determine whether some Gen Y employees actually behave progressive in response to the employers’ control of SNSs or whether this is not the case for the reasons described above.
findings. The most surprising results were the following: (1) Relativists do not perceive privacy violations when they know the employer does control SNSs as they believe it is the personal responsibility to protect online information; (2) Proactivists are interested in the personal lives of their supervisor and give access to their personal lives but resist being judged on the basis of what they disclose online; (3) Defenders have different ways of managing with online controls, whereby a distinction can be made between a tougher and a more gentle approach. This study has practical relevance since it provides Gen Y with suggestions on how to protect themselves against the employers’ controlling practices. This paper also shows the employer how much value is attached on clear work/life boundaries by the majority of Gen Y despite the fact that Gen Y itself blur these boundaries by involving the supervisor in their online networks. This research therefore provides the employer with guidelines on how to deal with the social media sites of the own employees.
This study does have some limitations. First of all, this research has been conducted within the management consultancy sector. Management consultancy firms operate in a reputational sensitive industry. This motivates the managers of management consultancy firms to control the SNSs of their management consultants. However, this raises the question whether the results of this study can be generalized to industries that are less reputational sensitive. Second, the interviews have been conducted in Dutch. This has created the risk that some information might have been translated incorrectly. Although the translation process has been executed with a high degree of accuracy, a potential translation error cannot be excluded.
REFERENCES
Abril, P., Levin, A., Del Riego, A. (2012). ‘Blurred Boundaries: Social Media Privacy and the Twenty-First-Century Employee’. American Business Law Journal, 49(1), 63–124. Alge, B. (2001). 'Effects of Computer Surveillance on Perceptions of Privacy and Procedural Justice'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 797-804. Bennett, R.J. (1998). Perceived Powerlessness as a Cause of Employee Deviance. In Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior (Griffin RW, O'Leary-Kelly AM and Collins JM, Eds), 221-239, JAI Press, Stamford, CT. Bies, R.J. (1993). Privacy and Procedural Justice in Organizations. Social Justice Research, 6(1), 69-86. Black, S.L., Johnson, A.F. (2012). Employers’ use of social networking sites in the selection process. Journal of Social Media in Society, 1(1), 7-29. Black, S.L., Stone, D.L., Johnson, A.F. (2015). “Use of social networking websites on applicants’ privacy”. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27(2), 115-159. Blumberg, B.F., Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S. (2014). Business research methods (4th ed.). Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y.K., Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267. Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 11. Brandtzaeg, P.B. (2012). Social networking sites: Their users and social implications - A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 467-488.
Carter, S.D. (2018). Efficacy of Social Media Adoption on Client Growth for Independent Management Consultants. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 78(9). Cennamo, L., Gardner, G. (2008). ‘Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes and Person-Organisation Values Fit’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906. Chesley, N. (2005). ‘Blurring Boundaries? Linking Technology Use, Spillover, Individual Distress, and Family Satisfaction’. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (5), 1237–1248. Cheung, C., Chiu, P., Lee, M. (2011). ‘Online Social Networks: Why do Students Use Facebook?’ Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343. Clark, T. (1995). Managing consultants: Consultancy as the management of impressions. Buckingham: Open University Press
CU360. (2010). Social networks add value and risk. CU360, 36(3), 1–2.
Curran, M., Draus, P., Schrager, M., Zappala, S. (2014). 'College Students and HR Professionals: Conflicting Views on Information Available on Facebook’. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 442-458.
Davison, H.K., Maraist, C., Bing, M.N. (2011). “Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 153-159. Dolliver, M. (2007). Despite appearances to the contrary, they’re turning into normal adults. Adweek, 48(15), 40. Edwards, R., Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative Interviewing? (The ‘What is?’ Research Methods Series). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472545244 Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532–550. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. Flynn, N., Maltby, L. (2014). “Should employers monitor their employees’ social media?” Available at: www.Wsj.Com/articles/should-companies-monitor-their-employees-social-media- 1399648685. Folger, R., Bies, R.J. (1989). Managerial Responsibilities and Procedural Justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90. Freeman, B., Chapman, S. (2008). Gone viral? Heard the buzz? A guide for public health practitioners and researchers on how Web 2.0 can subvert advertising restrictions and spread health information. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 778-782. Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. Real World Research. London: Continuum Gilliland, S. (1993). 'The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective'. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 694–734.
Jeske, D., Santuzzi, A.M. (2015). ‘Monitoring What and How: Psychological Implications of Electronic Performance Monitoring’. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 62-78. Jones, C., Behling, S. (2010). “Uncharted waters: using social networks in hiring decisions”. Issues in Information Systems, 11(1), 589-595. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109– 125. Lindahl, D.P., Beyers, W.B. (1999). The creation of competitive advantage by producer service establishments. Economic Geography, 75, 1–20.
Loss, J., Lindacher, V., Curbach, J. (2014). Online social networking sites—A novel setting for health promotion? Health & Place, 26, 161-170. Making the connection: How Facebook is changing the supervisory relationship. (2011). Minneapolis, MN: Russell Herder. McDonald, P., Thompson, P. (2016). Social media (tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries in employment relations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(1), 69-84. Mitran, A. (2010). Using social networks for staff recruiting. Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication, 5(2), 59–69. Nayyar, P.R. (1990). Information asymmetries: A source of competitive advantage for diversified service firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 513–519. Peluchette, J., Karl, K., Fertig, J. (2013). A Facebook ‘friend’ request from the boss: Too close for comfort? Business Horizons, 56, 291-300. Phua, J., Jin, S.V., Kim J.J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115-122. Pope, C., Ziebland, S., Mays, N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320(7227), 114– 116. Roulin, N., Bangerter, A. (2013). 'Social Networking Websites in Personnel Selection: A Signalling Perspective on Recruiters’ and Applicants’ Perceptions'. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12,(3), 143–153. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education. Shi, J., Lai, K.K., Hu, P., Chen, G. (2017). Factors dominating individual information disseminating behaviour on social networking sites. Information Technology & Management, 19(2), 121-139. Smith, A., Anderson, M. (2018). Social Media Use in 2018. In: Pew Research Center (Ed.), Proceedings of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington.
Smith, W.P., Kidder, D.L. (2010). You’ve been tagged! (Then again, maybe not): Employers and Facebook. Business Horizons, 53, 491-499.
Snyder, J.L. (2010). “E-mail privacy in the workplace: a boundary regulation perspective”. The Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), 266-294.
Stanton, J.M. (2000), “Traditional and electronic monitoring from an organizational justice perspective”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 129-147. Stone, E.F., Stone, D.L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection strategies. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management, 8, 549–411. Greenwich: JAI Press. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Stutzer, K. (2019). Ask the Experts: Generational Differences and Multigenerational Teamwork. Critical Care Nurse, 39(1), 78-81.
Suen, H-Y. (2018). The effects of employer SNS motioning on employee perceived privacy violation, procedural justice, and leave intention". Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(6), 1153-1169.
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: This interview will be recorded with your permission. I am the only person who uses the recording. You are not required to answer all of the questions and you are allowed to withdraw during the interview. You can ask questions about the research before, during, and after the interview. Purpose of the research:APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW INTERVIEWEES
*MC refers to management consultant.
Interviewee* Work Experience Social Media Sites Date Interview
