Queries on the “Three Steps for Policy Evaluation” graph

Sep 15, 2015

Hello guys!

Referring back to our lecture last week, we learned about the three steps for policy evaluation. I would like to clarify on the impact aspect of the social media policies.

Week 4.2 Slides 39

It seems to me that a Reactive policy, in which employees are restricted from social media usage, has the least impact while Proactive policy always generates the highest impact. However, as illustrated in the case of Domino Pizza employees as well as the milk-bottle case in Korea, employees are not discerning and unable to make sound judgements when it comes to posting in their social media. As such, I would think that a Reactive social media policy may create more benefits (higher impact) to the company.

Taking a step back, i think that the selection of the social media policy would be moderated by various factors (social, economic, and technological) that exist in the company. There might be cases where a Reactive policy would do more good to the company, especially when employees have lower educational background, as compared to a Proactive policy. What do you guys think about it, would greatly appreciate any comments and inputs 🙂

Thank you so much!

Valdy

2 responses to “Queries on the “Three Steps for Policy Evaluation” graph”

sarahwidjaja2013

September 16, 2015 at 11:26 am

Hi Valdy,

I agree with you that in some cases it may not be beneficial for the company to leave social media posts to the employees’ discretion. As prof showed us in class, I think it’s important that employees go through the proper training process regarding social media communication in order to preserve the reputation of the company. I do believe as well that many companies now have specific social media functions in which only one person or team is responsible for the posts that go up online. This gives the company much better control over what is said in cyberspace. Of course, this is somewhat different to letting employees post on their personal pages, but companies could possibly structure it in a way that all employees can give their input and have a say yet it will still channeled through the social media marketing team. I think a reactive policy is too restrictive and employees could lash out due to lack of freedom of speech, so companies need to find a way to empower them whilst still keeping control over what is posted. This could mean a hybrid of social media policies or a more intricate training process, especially now that we’re moving to a more digital world. It is also important that companies highlight the repercussions of negative and detrimental posts.

Sarah

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
KyuJIn SHIM

September 17, 2015 at 5:22 am

I love this idea: “Taking a step back, i think that the selection of the social media policy would be moderated by various factors (social, economic, and technological) that exist in the company”.
I think the framework in the graph does not take as many factors as it could be into account. The general overview given in the graph might fail to capture the bigger picture regarding social media policy (just simply assuming that doing something is better, at least impactful, than doing nothing).
Regarding the proactive/reactive approach in the graph, a company can come up with multiple strategies based on the employees’ rank, tasks, and their goals at work. So, for example, while a “NO Facebooking” policy during work hours for store staff can be implemented (reactive), communication team members might be encouraged to post “thought leadership” contents to relevant online forums and so on (proactive).

The Domino Pizza case might be a good example in terms of mitigation effect. It is very critical to shield the company’s reputation from the social media disaster, yet this framework is focusing on the degree of the company’s will/motivations to succeed in changing consumers’ attitudes and behaviours via employees’ social behaviours rather than focusing on actual happenings and outcomes.
I would like to clarify that your application/evaluation of mitigation effect was neither wrong nor misapplied, but only different from the view in the given framework.

We will recap a bit more about this framework in our next meeting.
Thank you.

LikeLike

Reply