Journal of Communication ManagementCommunicating social media policies: evaluation of current practicesMorana Fuduric Andreina Mandelli

Article information:To cite this document:Morana Fuduric Andreina Mandelli , (2014),"Communicating social media policies: evaluation of currentpractices", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 158 - 175Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2012-0045

Downloaded on: 20 November 2014, At: 08:57 (PT)References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 494 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Anne Linke, Ansgar Zerfass, (2013),"Social media governance: regulatory frameworks for successful onlinecommunications", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 270-286Georgios Tsimonis, Sergios Dimitriadis, (2014),"Brand strategies in social media", Marketing Intelligence& Planning, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 328-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0056Sora Kim, Soo-Yeon Kim, Kang Hoon Sung, (2014),"Fortune 100 companies’ Facebook strategies:corporate ability versus social responsibility", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp.343-362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2012-0006

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 512739 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Communicating socialmedia policies: evaluation of

current practicesMorana Fuduric and Andreina Mandelli

Institute of Marketing and Corporate Communication,Universita della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

Abstract

Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to explore the main characteristics of corporate socialmedia guidelines (SMG) and determine whether companies communicate these guidelines effectivelyto employees.Design/methodology/approach – An analysis of corporate SMG is conducted using the CompetingValues Framework (CVF) formerly used to assess business and ethical codes. The sample is comprisedof 20 multinational companies that publish their SMG online.Findings – The results indicate the majority of the guidelines received average scores across the CVFframework, which implies the guidelines barely manage to stimulate change, direct action, providefacts or emphasize the importance of building trust.Research limitations/implications – A possible limitation of the research could be the issue ofinterpretability of the features of the framework. Hence, the quality of the research depends on thequality of the training raters receive prior to the guideline rating process. Additionally, the researcherswere limited with the guideline availability and could analyze only the guidelines available online.This analysis can be broadened by identifying factors that may influence the characteristics of theguidelines (e.g. corporate culture or industry).Practical implications – Managers can use this framework to analyze their companies’ guidelinesto reveal the gaps, point to opportunities for improvement or take the findings into account whendeveloping new guidelines.Originality/value – The first paper that analyzes corporate SMG and their respective characteristics.

Keywords Social media, Competing values framework, Corporate guidelines

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionGiven the raising interest in social media, companies have realized that their presenceand performance in these environments requires rules, regulations and instructions ofuse, in order to effectively and consistently communicate the company’s policiesregarding social media participation. Our study addresses this phenomenon. The mainobjective of this paper is to analyze how companies communicate their social mediaguidelines (SMG) to employees by using the Competing Values Framework (CVF).

Internet has become a mainstream channel of corporate communication. The recentinnovations regarding how people and organizations communicate online, throughsocial media platforms and collaborative practices, are opening new windows ofopportunities but also risk for corporations. Several authors have already stated theimportance of these changes for the future of businesses (Casteleyn et al., 2009).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm

Received 1 June 2012Revised 20 April 2013Accepted 26 June 2013

Journal of CommunicationManagementVol. 18 No. 2, 2014pp. 158-175r Emerald Group Publishing Limited1363-254XDOI 10.1108/JCOM-06-2012-0045

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuablecomments and suggestions.

158

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Social media, using the so-called “Web 2.0” technologies and services, are creatingso much space for social interaction and collaboration between the brand companiesand their customers, that they are increasingly considered part of the organization(Mandelli and Vianello, 2009). If the customers of a firm spend significant amounts oftime online, interacting with the company and with other customers, this creates anunexpected and unprecedented opportunity for businesses to empower the traditionalcustomer information systems and to explore new consumer online research methods(Fielding et al., 2008). Social media has inspired an environment where sharingopinions and content through the web is now interesting not only for the consumer butfor the company as well creating a natural and spontaneous form of communicationand research. Customers ask for solutions and advice regarding products and services,and they may receive answers by the companies, but also by any member of the relevantsocial networks and communities (through Twitter, Facebook, blogs or othercollaborative platforms), that feel competent and willing to contribute. Social mediaconversations regarding products and brands also stem from spontaneous reporting ofexperiences by customers, and discussions about the impact of those consumptionevents on people’s life. Brands cannot avoid participation in these conversations.When customers ask for help, or wish to share their knowledge, experiences, opinionsand ideas, the brand must be there. In this context, it becomes relevant to decide“who speaks for whom” in social media, because traditional centralized policies risk tofall short in environments where not only customers are online but also employees (andbusiness partners). So, a new corporate dilemma emerges: should the companies allowall the employees to contribute to brand-related conversations in social media?

Authoritative practitioner and academic literature suggests considering employeesas the most valuable asset in social media strategies (see Bernoff and Schadler, 2010;Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Miller and Tucker, 2013). On one hand, they know thecompany and its products or services, and frequently develop emotional attachmentwith the company and brand. On the other hand, the employees know the company’scustomers and their needs. Besides, when the individual employees are the ones thatspeak out, they are often perceived as more trustworthy compared to other moreimpersonal sources of corporate communication (Li, 2010; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010;Miller and Tucker, 2013). Still, some researchers recognize the risks of consideringemployees as brand (or company) ambassadors, as it implies the loss of control ofthe company over the published content (see e.g. Berthon et al., 2012; Ang, 2011).For example, there may be the risk that they disclose confidential information, or theyspeak about the products and the company not perfectly in line with the firm’s businessstrategy. There is also the risk that some of these employees acquire a strong appeal aspersonal brands, de facto diluting the impact of the company’s image. Since recentresearch support the claim that employee engagement is beneficial for the brandand the company (one of the most frequently used positive examples of employeeengagement in social media is IBM), one way to tackle the previously described issuesis employee education and training, complemented by the development of adequatesocial media policies and guidelines (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010) The paper isorganized as follows: first, we define social media and its respective types. We continueby describing the importance of social media for businesses, and how the companiescan respond by organizing their presence and communication in these new socialenvironments. Second, we present the CVF as the conceptual framework and procedurefor the analysis of corporate SMG its development and use in business communicationresearch. Third, we present the methodology used, followed by research findings and

159

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

discussion of results. In the conclusion, we highlight the main findings and limitationsof the research, and give recommendations for future work.

Literature reviewSocial mediaThe development of the internet and, more recently, social media calls for activecollaboration and sharing of information and opinions, and can be considered as thecritical phenomenon of the last decade in communication. As the influence of socialmedia – and those using social media – continues to grow, it is becoming increasinglyimportant for companies not only to understand how different consumer segments useand share content, but also how they can be managed. The term itself is closely relatedto the notion of interactive Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 and its collection of open-source onlineapplications (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008), but it refers more specifically to itssocial aspects. For example, Weber (2009) defines social media as an online environmentwhere people with common interests can gather together and share thoughts, ideas andopinions on products or brands.

There have been different attempts to categorize various forms of social media(Constantinides and Fountain, 2008; Mangold and Faulds, 2009; Kaplan and Haenlein,2010; Schmidt and Ralph, 2011), which are sometimes based on media theories orconcepts, such as media richness and self-disclosure (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010) or oftenjust on different characteristics of users’ interfaces and media’s different features(Constantinides and Fountain, 2008; Schmidt and Ralph, 2011; Mangold and Faulds,2009). One of the basic distinctions of different categories of social media is the divisionbetween user-generated content and social networking sites (Smith et al., 2012). Accordingto Mandelli and Accoto (2010) social media can be divided in nine categories, namely:blog (e.g. Blogger, Technorati), microblog (e.g. Twitter), social network (e.g. Facebook,LinkedIn), media sharing (e.g. Flickr, Picasa), social bookmark (e.g. Digg, StumbleUpon),virtual world (e.g. SecondLife), wiki (e.g. Wikipedia), community/forum and podcast withsome of them recently showing impressive growth in terms of active users (see Table I),and therefore represent immense opportunities for consumer interactions.

According to the Nielsen State of the Media (2011) report, across ten major globalmarkets, social networks and blogs reach over three-quarters of active internet users.

Facebooka Twitterb LinkedInc

Founded in 2004 Founded in 2006 Founded in 2003845 million monthly active users atthe end of December 2011483 million daily active users onaverage in December 2011

140 million active users340 million tweets a day

150þ million users

Approximately 80% of ourmonthly active users are outsidethe US and CanadaFacebook is available in more than70 languages

51% of active users followcompanies, brands orproducts on social networks

Members in 200 countries

Average user connects to 80community pages, groups, andevents

A natural companionmedium to other channels,such as Facebook and TV

Members from all Fortune 500companies

Sources: aFacebook Company Info (2012); bTwitter Turns Six (2012); cLinkedIn Press Info (2012)

Table I.Top three global socialnetwork statistics

160

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

These users, compared to the more traditional notion of the “user” or “consumer,” donot passively consume published content, but rather actively communicate with oneanother while simultaneously consuming and producing the content. This, in turn, hasled to the revival of the term “prosumer” (Hoffman and Novak, 1996) originally coinedby Alvin Toffler in 1980 and argued as the predominant economic form (Ritzer andJurgenson, 2010). Moreover, Ritzer and Jurgenson argue that, although prosumptionhas always been preeminent, a series of recent social changes, especially thoseassociated with the Web 2.0 (the user-generated web, e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter),have given it even greater centrality, that might have lead to the emergence of a newform of capitalism – prosumer capitalism. In this new form of capitalism, characterizedby a trend toward unpaid rather than paid labor and toward offering productsat no cost, where the system is marked by a new abundance where scarcity oncepredominated (see Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010), the social media play a crucial role.Several authors (see Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010; Tapscott and Williams, 2006; Beer andBurrows, 2007) argue Web 2.0 is an important factor in the development of the “meansof prosumption,” as it facilitates the implosion of production and consumption.

Independently of the country, region, industry or company, scholars and practitionersare united in the conclusion that companies can utilize social media platforms and onlinecommunities to build, manage and maintain relationships with consumer communities(Banks and Daus, 2002). Many authors suggest that social media brought a radicalchange to the marketing as it profoundly transformed the way companies communicatewith consumers (Mandelli, 2010; Booth and Matic, 2011; Grunig, 2009; Kietzmannet al., 2012) and how consumers respond to brands’ marketing and advertising(Wright et al., 2010; Schmidt and Ralph, 2011). The traditional hierarchical approach wasreplaced by open conversations between brands and consumers (Mandelli, 2010; Grunig,2009) and also traditional division of roles of marketers and their audience was replacedby a dynamic, flexible and constantly changing marketing process. Researchers(Mandelli and Accoto, 2010) suggest marketers can utilize online communities and theirconversations as part of the process of value co-creation, to foster dialogue (Rybalko andSeltzer, 2010), facilitate support (Fuller et al., 2007), spur innovation (Tapscott andWilliams, 2006), build social presence (Kozinets et al., 2010), build conversationalleadership (Mandelli, 2008) and create linking value with other customers (Cova, 1997).However, it is also suggested that marketers have yet to develop proper strategies how tointeract with empowered consumers (Day, 2011; Mandelli, 2010), how to cope with datadeluge coming from online sites (Day, 2011) and how to seize the possibilities forcollaboration with consumers (Day, 2011; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), especiallybecause social media users share such extensive amount of content (Hardey, 2011). Thisconclusion brings forward two important topics related to social media: strategies thatcompanies and brands have to use in these different environments (Wilson et al., 2011)and the measurement and the metrics that can be used for translating brand’s activitiesinto ROI (Mandelli, 2010; Mandelli and Accoto, 2010; Hoffman and Fodor, 2010).

Although authoritative practitioners’ literature covers many different social mediastrategies for companies (see e.g. Meerman Scott (2010), Barlow and Thomas (2010),Qualman (2013)), the academic literature falls short on offering a satisfactory typologyof relevant social media strategies. The scholars mostly focussed on determining theright steps in developing a social media strategy (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Moon,2009), rather than on identifying different types of strategies companies may use.As Moon (2009) suggests, some of the biggest mistakes companies make in their socialmedia strategies is treating social media the same way you would treat the traditional

161

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

media, and attempt to control the content and exchange of messages. These issuesare further emphasized by Berthon et al. (2012) that identified the changes Web 2.0,social media and creative consumers brought forward in the form of shifts in loci ofactivity, power and value. The authors suggest five axioms for managers that need tobe considered when developing social media strategies, namely:

(1) social media are always a function of the technology, culture, and governmentof a particular country or context;

(2) local events rarely remain local;

(3) global events are likely to be (re)interpreted locally;

(4) creative consumers’ actions and creations are also dependent on technology,culture, and government; and

(5) technology is historically dependent.

Finally, Ang (2011) stresses that, to develop a good social media strategy, it isimportant for companies to realize that technologies are now allowing people toquickly connect, converse, create and collaborate with each other, and not rely onexisting (and possibly ineffective) traditional CRM systems. Similarly, Moon (2009) andBerthon et al. (2012) propose that, in order to succesfully implement a social mediastrategy, marketers must truly engage customers, embrace technology, limit the powerof bureaucracy, train and invest in their employees, and inform senior managementabout the opportunities of social media. One of the ways to manage a company’s socialmedia presence, as well as train and invest in employees is through the developmentof social media policies which should communicate, where and how to participate insocial media, and communication and distribution of these guidelines throughout theorganization. Social media strategies, and policies that regulate their implementationbecome effective if they are communicated successfully (through SMG) to the entireorganization. In order to be able to determine the degree to which a certain guideline orsocial media policy is effective in communicating the desired behaviors and practices,a framework for evaluating the current practices and SMG is needed. We decided touse the CVF, because it allows to evaluate the cultural context and the communicationof these guidelines.

CVFThe CVF was first developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) to categorize generalorganization phenomena in relation to organizational effectiveness and was lateradopted to describe organizational culture (see Quinn and Kimberly, 1984; Quinn andMcGrath, 1985; Cameron and Ettington, 1988; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; etc.). CVF hasattracted a lot of attention since its inception in the 1980s, and is still one of the mostfrequently used instruments in assessing organizational culture (see Demir et al., 2011;Kwan and Walker, 2004). Since its development, however, in some cases alternativelabels have been used by various researchers to describe the typology (see Quinn andMcGrath, 1985; Yeung et al., 1991; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Kwan and Walker, 2004).For the purpose of this paper, we use the Cameron and Quinn (1999) typology thatidentified four types of organizational culture, namely:

(1) clan oriented;

(2) adhocracy oriented;

162

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(3) hierarchically oriented; and

(4) market oriented.

The first dimension of the framework (see Table II) is related to the organizationalstructure and ranges from criteria that emphasize stability, order and control to anemphasis on flexibility and discretion and is plotted on the vertical axis (Cameronand Quinn, 1999). The second dimension refers to organization focus and rangesfrom an internal perspective stressing the coordination of the parts, to an external focusstressing the well-being and the development of the overall organization (Quinn andMcGrath, 1985) and is plotted on the horizontal axis. The third dimension reflectsorganizational means and ends that contrasts between organizational concerns for ends oroutcomes (e.g. productivity) and concerns for means or important processes (e.g. planningand goal setting) (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Given the figure is represented in atwo-dimensional format; the third dimension is shown and described in each quadrant.

The methodology used to create this framework was later used by Quinn et al.(1991) to develop a modified CVF aimed at assessing various oral and writtenbusiness presentations in managerial contexts such as sales presentations, instructionmanuals, technical briefings, etc. Their analysis yielded the competing values modelof presentational communication that consists of four general orientations basedon two dimensions: dynamic content/conventional structure (horizontal axis) andrelational awareness/instrumental logic (vertical axis) while the third dimension,forceful presentation/perceptive presentation is represented in each of the fourquadrants (see Figure 1).

As Quinn et al. (1991) suggest, the CVF can be used to examine various businessdocuments (e.g. technical briefing, letter of condolence, convention keynote address,instructional manual, sales presentation and congratulatory note, Quinn et al., 1991; orvarious types of business codes, Stevens, 1996). The documents can be examined byscoring each document on each of the individual rays on a seven-point scale (see Figure 1),

Internal focus and integration External focus and differentiation

Flexibility and discretionClan (family or group) oriented

EmpowermentTeambuildingEmployee involvementHR development

Open communication and participation

Adhocracy orientedSurprise and delightCreate new standardsAnticipate needsContinuous improvementCreative solution findingValues innovation and entrepreneurshipDynamic

Hierarchically orientedError detectionMeasurementSystematic problem solvingApplying quality toolsFavors structure and controlStress on stability

Market orientedMeasuring customer preferencesResults/goal orientedValues competitiveness and achievementGetting the job done

Stability and control

Sources: Adapted from Quinn and McGrath (1985) and Cameron and Quinn (1999)

Table II.Representation of the

Competing ValueFramework (CVF)

163

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

revealing both strengths and weaknesses of the document depending on the obtainedscore. For example, if a document scores low on practical, informative, realistic it suggeststhat the analyzed document does not provide the employees with enough information on agiven topic and is unable to resolve possible dilemmas by providing relevant facts anddetails. On the other hand, if the document scores high on innovative, creative, original itsuggests a lot of creative and, perhaps, strategic thinking and encourages the employees tobe fresh and original and “think outside the box” (Stevens, 1996). As it can be seen fromthese examples, the CVF can be used to reveal the gaps in each document, and point toopportunities for improvement. The upper right quadrant, labeled “TransformationalCommunication” represents documents that are high on relational awareness and dynamiccontent. Such business documents can usually be described as strongly worded, emphatic,forceful, powerful, insightful, expansive, mind-stretching and visionary. Therefore, theirmain purpose is to create new visions and paradigms in the minds of the readers, andprimarily aims at stimulating change (Quinn et al., 1991). The lower right quadrant,labeled “Instructional” represents documents high on instrumental logic and dynamiccontent, with descriptors such as conclusive, consequential, decisive, action oriented,interesting, stimulating, engaging and absorbing. The lower left, “Informational”quadrant represents presentations high on conventional structure and instrumental logicand includes descriptors such as rigorous, precise, disciplined, controlled, focussed, clear,logical and organized. The main purpose of such documents is therefore to provide factsand details about the topic in question. Finally, the upper left “Relational” quadrant,represents documents high on conventional structure and relational awareness.With descriptors such as credible, believable, plausible, conceivable, expressive, open,candid and honest it is opposed to instructional communication which directs action,and focusses on building trust and establishing relationships between people.

RELATIONALCOMMUNICATION

BUILDSTRUST

INFORMATIONALCOMMUNICATION

PROVIDESFACTS

Source: Quinn et al. (1991)

INSTRUCTIONALCOMMUNICATION

DIRECTSACTION

TRANSFORMATIONALCOMMUNICATION

STIMULATESCHANGE

Expressive,Open,

Candid,Honest

Credible,Believable,Plausible,

Conceivable

TechnicallyCorrect,

ConventionallySound

ConventionalStructure

DynamicContent

Inst

rum

enal

Logi

cR

elat

iona

lA

war

enes

s

Rigorous,Precise,

Disciplined,Controlled

Focused,Clear,

Logical,Organized

Practical,Informative,

Realistic,Instructive

Conclusive,Consequential,

Decisive,Action Oriented

Interesting,Stimulating,Engaging,Absorbing

Innovative,Creative,Original,

Fresh

Aware,DiscerningSensitive,Perceptive Strongly Worded,

Emphatic,Forceful,Powerful

Insightful,Expansive,

Mind Stretching,Visionary

Figure 1.A competing valuesmodel of managerialcommunication

164

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The developers of the model (Quinn et al., 1991) argue the model articulatesa set of perceptual relationships and stress several of its advantages, namely thatit provides an alternative approach to viewing messages, the model suggestsan effective presentation or business document must possess a combination ofcharacteristics from all four quadrants, the possibility to empirically exploretrade-offs in written and oral presentations and finally, the model’s applicabilityin both practical and theoretical contexts (see Kwan and Walker, 2004; Vilkinasand Cartan, 2006). Although the model undoubtedly has many advantages, onedisadvantage may lie in the issue of interpretability of specific groups of descriptorsand their rating (Stevens, 1996). This issue, however, can be minimized (if notcompletely resolved) through training of the raters and precise definitions of eachof the descriptors.

MethodologyFor the purpose of this research, we define SMG as a set of instructions, policies andrecommended practices set forth by the organization in order to guide the employee’spersonal and professional presence in various social media platforms. We used anon-random, convenience sampling method which resulted in a sample of 20 SMGfrom multinational companies across various industries (food and beverage, finance,marketing, IT, etc.). The criteria for selection was that the company publishes its SMGonline, making it publicly available. A complete list of companies and their respectiveguidelines is available in the Appendix. The guidelines were quite diverse in terms oftheir scope, structure and topics covered. For example, they varied in the types of socialmedia platforms covered – some were written almost exclusively for a specificsocial media platform (e.g. social networks or blogs), while others were broader inscope. Additionally, in terms of employee activities addressed in the guidelines, somereferred to activities pertaining to the employee’s professional activities related to thecompany, while others addressed the issue of the employee’s private activities andbehavior in social media (e.g. the BBC SMG). Finally, while some guidelines werehighly structured and detailed, other offered a more general guideline accompanied bylinks to “best practices”.

The unit of analysis was each individual guideline, that was then analyzed by theraters using CVF. During the 1980s and early 1990s similar documents were analyzedusing content analysis (Cressey and Moore, 1983; Sanderson and Varner, 1984;Matthews, 1987; Langlois and Schlegelmilch, 1990), with more recent studies focussingon the transformational, relational, informational and instructional characteristicsof business documents (Stevens, 1996). For the purposes of this research, theauthors consider CVF as the most suitable in assessing a company’s SMG and theircharacteristics. The issue of interpretability of the features in CVF, more specifically,the differences in individual interpretations of the features and their rating on a one toseven-point scale which can be highly subjective, was resolved by training the raters.The raters were first introduced to the concept of the CVF, its significance andstructure, followed by three two-hour sessions of more intensive trainings duringwhich the raters were given a comprehensive list of all features (descriptors), theirrespective definitions and examples in order to bring subjective interpretations to aminimum. Finally, the raters practiced the rating process on a separate set of guidelinesthat were not included in the research sample.

Five raters examined each of the 20 guidelines independently using a versionof coding instrument developed by Quinn et al. (1991) and modified by Stevens

165

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(1996) by adding lines for rater comments (e.g. specific words, phrases or passagesthat influenced the rating). The coding instrument consisted of a single question:“To what extent each of the following adjectives (i.e. features in CVF such as aware,discerning, perceptive or empathic, forceful, powerful, etc.) reflect these guidelines?”followed by a list of the 12 groups of descriptors found in the model rated on a one toseven-point scale (1 – not at all describes; 7 – very much describes). The full version ofthe coding instrument is available in the Appendix.

The results were tabulated by averaging the raters’ scores for each of the 12descriptors for a given guideline. The next step included calculating the means foreach of the four quadrants (see Table I). Since rays at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o’clock areshared between the two neighboring quadrants, their scores were counted in means ofboth quadrants. The quadrant scores could range from 4 (low) to 28 (high). If aguideline received a score of 28, it meant that all five raters assigned the guidelineswith the highest possible score of 7, across all four sets of descriptors. Similarly, if aguideline received the minimum score of 4, it means all the five raters assigned theguideline a score of 1, across all four sets of descriptors.

Upon the completion of the guideline rating process, the data was analyzed usingSPSS to ensure inter-rater reliability which resulted in an acceptable interclasscorrelation coefficient of 0,817 ( p¼ 0.000). Additionally, a test of rater bias (also knownas a test of assertion), measuring whether raters used any range of scores morefrequently than expected in rating the guidelines, showed no relationship between therater and level of scores assigned (w2¼ 5.698, df¼ 4, p¼ 0.223; ns). This test suggeststhat diverse groups of readers can be trained to use the model with consistent results.Finally, a two-way analysis (ANOVA) of variance was conducted in order to evaluatedifferences between rater’s quadrant scores and guideline scores. The analysis showedsignificant differences among the quadrants in the company codes used in this sample(F(53.815)¼ df 7, p¼ 0.000).

The subsequent analysis and discussion aims to answer the following researchquestions:

RQ1. Which transformational, instructional, informational and relational aspectscan be found in the SMG?

RQ2. Do the SMG reveal any common characteristics?

Discussion and findingsTo answer the research question:

RQ1. Which transformational, instructional, informational and relational aspectscan be found in the SMG?

We first examine guideline scores by quadrant. Quadrant scores ranged from 9.8to 20 for the transformational, 13 to 23.2 for the instructional, 14.6 to 25 for theinformational, and 16.2 to 23.6 for the relational quadrant (see Table III).With respect to the transformational quadrant, only one guideline (Guideline 10)received a high rating (20.0) while several other guidelines (Guidelines 2, 4, 5 and 8)in this quadrant received a fairly low score (o12). Nevertheless, the vast majority ofscores ranged in the middle, which leads to the conclusion that, according to the raters

166

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(and opposite of our expectations), the guidelines cannot be qualified as particularlyinsightful, powerful, mind-stretching or visionary. This suggests a lack of guidance andleadership to employees in case of dilemmas regarding their personal or the company’ssocial media presence. Quite the contrary, the majority of the guidelines has been provedto be average in their transformational dimensions, with only one guideline (Guideline 10)that stands out in this dimension. It is interesting to note here that the guideline inquestion belongs to a company from the media services.

Similarly, scores for the instructional quadrant are also grouped together, which isexpected given the fact the two quadrants share a dimension of the CVF labeled“dynamic content” (see Figure 1). Seven guidelines had a high score (21, 20.6, 22.6, 21.2,20, 23.2), and although none scored below 12, three had a score below 15 (13, 14, 14.2,respectively). Overall, the analyzed guidelines did not reflect a particularly stronginstructional dimension, which implies that their capacity to convey facts, detail anddirection is average. More specifically, the majority of the guidelines cannot becharacterized as interesting, stimulating or engaging nor are they action oriented andpractical, which reflects a lack of persuasive and motivating element, much needed incase a company wishes to provide guidance with respect to social media presence.

Higher scores can be observed in the informational and relational quadrants thatshare the “conventional structure” dimension. In all, 15 of the 20 guidelines receivedhigh scores (scores over 20) for the informational quadrant and 14 out of 20 for therelational (scores over 20). None of the guidelines recorded low scores (below 12).This means that the majority of guidelines were scored as high in terms of providingclear and well-structured information. However, this raises a question: are characteristics

Guideline Transformational Instructional Informative Relational

1 12.6 16 21.6 20.62 10 13 19.2 173 12.4 16.4 22.8 21.64 10.6 15.4 25 19.85 9.8 14.2 25 18.66 13.2 17.4 24.4 207 16.8 21 20.2 21.88 11.2 14 23 18.29 18.4 20.6 19.8 22

10 20 22.8 22 23.611 18.4 21.2 20.2 21.812 16.8 20 21.8 21.613 17.8 19.8 18.6 20.414 19.6 23.2 17.4 21.415 14 19 21.2 19.816 15.6 18.6 20.4 20.417 13.6 17.4 22.4 2118 12.4 18.6 22.2 20.419 13.4 18.6 21.8 2020 12.4 15.2 14.6 16.2Grand mean 14.45 18.12 21.18 20.31

Notes: aThe quadrant scores’ minimum value¼ 4 (low); quadrant score maximum value¼ 28 (high).A guideline’s maximum quadrant score (28) suggests all raters assigned the guideline a maximumscore of 7 across all four descriptors in the respective quadrantSource: CVF assessment of 20 corporate social media guidelines

Table III.Guideline CVF scoresa

by quadrant

167

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

such as rigorous, precise, controlled and focussed, logical, organized be dominant ina company’s SMG? Clearly a group of guidelines in this subset strongly reflect thisdimension; however, it is questionable whether the company objectives regarding theirsocial media presence can actually be met with these types of guidelines in place.

In terms of competing values, a tension exists between the opposite “transformational”and the “informational” quadrant, as well as between the “instructional” and “relational”quadrant. As previously suggested in the literature (Quinn et al., 1991; Stevens, 1996)although quadrants 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 are considered opposites in terms of their maincharacteristics, this does not imply that a certain business document, ethical code or SMGshould have a dominantly high score in one of the four quadrants – quite the contrary – awell-balanced and effective SMG should score high in most (if not all) quadrants.However, the research suggests that one dimension is frequently traded for another,and in this case, strong scores are seen in the informational quadrant contrasted withrelatively low scores in the transformational quadrant.

To answer the second research question – Do the SMG reveal any commoncharacteristics, grand means (reported at the bottom of Table I) confirm our findings:overall, the guidelines are clearly stronger in relational and informational dimensionsthan in the transformational or instructional ones. That is, the guidelines communicatefacts clearly, consistently and in trust-building ways, while they exhibit fewer changeoriented and transformational characteristics.

In order to fully explore the above mentioned interactions between the dimensionsof the CVF, scores of three guidelines are presented within the CVF (see Figure 2),chosen because they have overall high scores across all four quadrants (Guideline 10),overall low scores across all quadrants (Guideline 20) or clearly represent thetransformational – informational interaction (Guideline 5).

Guideline 10 received high scores in all four quadrants. Moreover, it had the highestscore overall in the transformational and relational quadrant, and high scores in theinstructional and informational quadrant. Rater comments were reviewed to provideadditional clarity and reasoning for such high scores. The guideline featured a shortintroduction stating its main purpose stated as “here to help you understand [y].”The second point is that the guidelines clearly differentiated between the “do’s” andthe “don’ts,” however – the “do’s” are presented first in a bulleted list. Accordingto the raters, the entire guideline is written in a “friendly and honest language” with afrequent use of the word “we.” Most raters highlighted the sentence “See the worldthrough others’ eyes, participate, find your muse, and expand your horizons!” as veryengaging, stimulating, inspiring and fresh. The exclamation point has been interpretedas a call to action, which resulted in the highest overall scores for this guideline in thetransformational quadrant, and, to a certain degree in the instructional quadrant.In order to provide additional guidance and advice, links to other documents wereincorporated into the guideline such as “Terms of Service,” “Best practices,” “FAQ” and“Privacy policy” which add both to the instructional and informational dimensionsof the framework. Finally, the guideline’s high relational score is a result of theassessment of the language being used (honest, open) with an entire paragraph in thefinal section being labeled as conveying credibility. Overall, the guideline has beenrated high in all quadrants because it instructs, inspires, motivates and engages thereader but requires compliance to a certain degree in order to manage privacy andcopyright issues.

Guideline 20 received ratings below the grand mean in the transformational,instructional, informational and relational quadrants. The guidelines, named Personal

168

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Blog Guidelines, begin by addressing all the employees and focussing on providinggeneral information, e.g. who the guidelines are developed for, and referring to the legalimplications of blogging. The guideline continues in the same tone, again referringto legal responsibilities of employees and non-disclosure obligations. Contrary toGuideline 10, the language is reported as relatively cold and impersonal, with frequentuse of words and phrases such as “at your own risk”; “legal responsibility”; “personalliability”; “disclosure.” However, the initial rigidity is later softened by the “Bestpractice guidelines” section: “These four recommendations provide a roadmap forconstructive, respectful, and productive dialogue between bloggers and their fellowYahoos. These are not “rules” and thus they can’t be broken. There is no hiddenmeaning or agenda. We consider these to be “best practices guidelines” that are in thespirit of our culture and the best interest of all Yahoos, whether they blog or not.We encourage Yahoos to follow these guidelines, but it is not mandatory to do so. It’syour choice. We really mean that.” This section, described as open and candid causedthe guideline to have a score of 16.2 in the relational quadrant (also the highest for thisguideline). Overall, the guideline seems inconsistent when it comes to its content andlanguage used, which resulted in relatively low scores across quadrants. Still, some ofthe previously mentioned interactions between quadrants can be observed when

Selected Guidelines’ Scores per Quadrant

Guideline 5 Guideline 10

aware

empathic

insightful

innovative

interesting

conclusive

6.2

4.6

6.4open

credible

accurate

rigorous

focused

practical

3.45.8

5.24.2

3.65.26.2

6.65

3.2

4

65.8

3.83.8

4.2

2.2

1.8 3.4 5.4

6.2

4.45.4

6.4

3.83.6

4.82.42.6

2.61.8

76

54

3

2

10

Guideline 20

Notes: aGuidelines 5, 10 and 20 were used because they either scored exceptionally high/low across all quadrants (guidelines10 and 20) or represent a clear dynamic between opposing quadrants(see guideline 5). bTo ensure a clear representation, only the first item in a descriptor set has been used in the figureSource: Research conducted on 20 corporate social media guidelines awailable online

Figure 2.Selecteda guidelines’scores per quadrantb

169

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

examining Guideline 20’s representation. We see the opposing tensions play outwhen comparing scores in the transformational and informational quadrants, as theguideline received lower scores in the transformational, as opposed to the opposite,informational quadrant. This tension can be seen more clearly in the case ofGuideline 5, which scored extremely high in the informational quadrant, and describedas being very precise, focussed and disciplined as opposed to the transformationalquadrant where it received the lowest scores and was described as “not having anycreativity, stimulation or perception.” The formal and cold tone combined with thepoor use of pronouns only contributed to such ratings.

Conclusion and future research directionsIn this paper we analyzed corporate SMG using the CVF that has been found suitablein exploring the main characteristics of SMG. The majority of the guidelines wererated as being average in each of the four respective quadrants of the framework(transformational, informational, instructional and relational) which implies theguidelines barely manage to stimulate change, direct action, provide facts or emphasizethe importance of building trust. It is important to note that in the context of social media,all of the aforementioned characteristics could be qualified as crucial for the successfulimplementation of a companies’ social media strategy.

Companies must not only define visionary social media policies and strategies,but also communicate them effectively to their employees. This research offers severalpractical implications for managers and marketers that are developing and implementingsocial media strategies. First, it identifies the common characteristics of social mediapolicies. Second, it stresses the importance balance in various dimensions of theguidelines (as noted earlier in the literature review and description of CVF, a goodguideline scores high in each quadrant of the framework rather than trading off onecharacteristic for another, thus being more complete and comprehensive). Finally, byproviding a detailed examination of three guidelines (Guideline 5, 10 and 20) themanagers can gain additional insights into the guideline content, characteristics and canlater use the framework to reveal the gaps, point to opportunities for improvementor take the findings into account when developing new guidelines. A possiblelimitation of the research could be the previously mentioned issue of interpretability ofthe features of the framework. The quality of the research, therefore, highly dependson the quality of the training raters receive prior to the guideline rating process.Additionally, the researchers were limited to the guidelines available online. Thealternative approach would be to establish a direct contact with companies in order to geta larger sample of guidelines to be analyzed, which requires more resources. Finally, thisanalysis can be broadened by identifying the internal and external factors that mayinfluence the characteristics of the guidelines (e.g. corporate culture or industry).

References

Ang, L. (2011), “Is SCRM really a good social media strategy?”, Journal of Database Marketing &Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 149-153.

Banks, D. and Daus, K. (2002), Customer Community, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.

Barlow, M. and Thomas, D.B. (2010), The Executive’s Guide to Enterprise Social Media Strategy:How Social Networks Are Radically Transforming Your Business, John Wiley & Sons Inc,Hoboken, NJ.

Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2007), “Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: some initial considerations”,Sociological Research Online, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 17-22.

170

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Bernoff, J. and Schadler, T. (2010), Empowered: Unleash Your Employees, Energize YourCustomers, and Transform Your Business, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. and Shapiro, D. (2012), “Marketing meets Web 2.0, socialmedia, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy”,Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 261-271.

Booth, N. and Matic, J.A. (2011), “Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to shapecorporate brand perceptions”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 184-191.

Cameron, K.S. and Ettington, D.R. (1988), “The conceptual foundations of organizational culture”,in Smart, J.C. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 4, AgathonPress, New York, NY, pp. 356-396.

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Basedon the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Casteleyn, J., Morrart, A. and Rutten, K. (2009), “How to use Facebook in market research”,International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 439-447.

Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S.J. (2008), “Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketingissues”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-244.

Cova, B. (1997), “Community and consumption: towards a definition of the ‘linking value’ ofproduct or services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 297-316.

Cressey, D. and Moore, C.A. (1983), “Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 25 No. 53, pp. 53-57.

Day, G.S. (2011), “Closing the marketing capabilities gap”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4,p. 183.

Demir, C., Unnu, N.A.A. and Erturk, E. (2011), “Diagnosing the organizational culture of aTurkish pharmaceutical company based on the competing values framework”, Journal ofBusiness Economics and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 197-217.

Facebook Company Info (2012), “Facebook Newsroom”, available at: http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId¼22 (accessed April 20, 2012).

Fielding, N., Lee, R.M. and Blank, G. (2008), The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods,Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Fuller, J., Jawecki, G. and Muhlbacher, H. (2007), “Innovation creation by online basketballcommunities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 60-71.

Grunig, J.E. (2009), “Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalization”, PRism,Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-19, available at: http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_ journ.html(accessed April 10, 2012).

Hardey, M. (2011), “Generation C: content, creation, connections and choice”, InternationalJournal of Market Research, Vol. 53 No. 6, p. 749.

Hoffman, D.L. and Fodor, M. (2010), “Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing?”,MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 41-49.

Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediatedenvironments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 50-68.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges andopportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Kietzmann, J.H., Silvestre, B.S., McCarthy, I.P. and Pitt, L.F. (2012), “Unpacking the social mediaphenomenon: towards a research agenda”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 109-119.

Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010), “Networked narratives:understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-89.

171

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Kwan, P. and Walker, A. (2004), “Validating the competing values model as representation oforganizational culture through inter-institutional comparisons”, Organizational Analysis,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-37.

Langlois, C.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1990), “Do corporate codes of ethics reflect nationalcharacter? Evidence from Europe and the United States”, Journal of InternationalBusiness, Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 519-539.

Li, C. (2010), Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead, JoseyBass, San Francisco, CA.

LinkedIn Press Info (2012), “LinkedIn Press Center”, available at: http://press.linkedin.com/node/1104 (accessed April 20, 2012).

Mandelli, A. (2008), “Consumer involvement in organizations in the ‘organization ascommunication’ perspective: a multidisciplinary research agenda”, Observatorio (OBS),Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 111-119.

Mandelli, A. (2010), “Beyond brand control in social media? Branding and reputation managementin markets as mediated conversations”, paper presented to the conference, thought leaders inbrand management, Lugano, April 18-20.

Mandelli, A. and Accoto, C. (2010), Marca e Metriche nei Social Media, Universita Della SvizzeraItaliana, Lugano.

Mandelli, A. and Vianello, S. (2009), “Consumer’s involvement in organizations in the era of socialmedia: open research questions”, in Cardoso, G., Angus, C. and Cole, J. (Eds), World WideInternet Book, University of Macau Publishing, Macau, pp. 25-33.

Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009), “Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotionmix”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 357-365.

Matthews, M.C. (1987), “Codes of ethics: organizational behavior and misbehavior”, Research inCorporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 9, pp. 107-130.

Meerman Scott, D. (2010), The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Blogs,News Releases, Online Video, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly, John Wiley &Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

Miller, A.M. and Tucker, C. (2013), “Active social media management: the case of health care”,Information Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 52-70.

Moon, M. (2009), “Using social media to build a global market – an interview with LeonWittenberg of Soho – Social Media Consultancy LTD”, Journal of Digital AssetManagement, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 274-285.

Nielsen State of the Media (2011), “The social media report – Q3”, available at: www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/social-media-report-q3.html(accessed April 10, 2012).

Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in valuecreation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.

Qualman, E. (2013), Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and DoBusiness, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

Quinn, R.E. and Kimberly, J.R. (1984), “Paradox, planning and perseverance: guidelines formanagerial practice”, in Kimberly, J.R. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Managing OrganizationalTransitions, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, pp. 295-313.

Quinn, R.E. and McGrath, M.R. (1985), “The transformation of organizational cultures: a competingvalues perspective”, Organizational Culture, pp. 315-334.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towardsa competing values approach to organizational analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 29No. 3, pp. 363-377.

172

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Quinn, R.E., Hildebrandt, H.W. and Rogers, P.S. (1991), “A competing values framework foranalyzing presentational communication in management contexts”, The Journal ofBusiness Communication, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 213-232.

Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010), “Production, consumption, prosumption – the nature ofcapitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 13-36.

Rybalko, S. and Seltzer, T. (2010), “Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: howFortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter”, Public Relations Review,Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 336-341.

Sanderson, G.R. and Varner, I.I. (1984), “What’s wrong with corporate codes of conduct?”,Management Accounting, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 28-31.

Schmidt, S.M.P. and Ralph, D.L. (2011), “Social media: more available marketing tools”, TheBusiness Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 37-43.

Smith, A.N., Fischer, E. and Yongjian, C. (2012), “How does brand-related user-generated contentdiffer across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26No. 2, 102-113.

Stevens, B. (1996), “Using the competing values framework to assess corporate ethical codes”,Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2006), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration ChangesEverything, Penguin Group, New York, NY.

Twitter Turns Six (2012), “Twitter Blog”, available at: http://blog.twitter.com/2012/03/twitter-turns-six.html (accessed April 20, 2012).

Vilkinas, T. and Cartan, G. (2006), “The integrated competing values framework: its spatialconfiguration”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 505-521.

Weber, L. (2009), Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build YourBusiness, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

Wilson, H.J., Guinan, P.J., Parise, S. and Weinberg, B.D. (2011), “What’s your social mediastrategy?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 Nos 7/8, pp. 23-25.

Wright, E., Khanfar, N.M., Harrington, C. and Kizer, L.E. (2010), “The lasting effects of socialmedia trends on advertising”, Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 8 No. 11,pp. 73-80.

Yeung, A.K.O., Brockbank, J.W. and Ulrich, D.O. (1991), “Organizational culture and humanresource practices: an empirical assessment”, in Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds),Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 59-82.

Further reading

Gronroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: acritical analysis”, Marketing Theory,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-301.

Kozinets, R.V. (2010), Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), “A competing values approach to organizationaleffectiveness”, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-140.

173

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Q1. Rater code (1-5)

Q2. Guideline code (1-20)

Q3. Fore each guideline, indicate the degree to which the guideline reflects the followingcharacteristics on a 1-7 point scale:

Guidelinecode Company Guideline title

1 Nordstrom Social Networking Guidelines for Nordstrom Employees2 CISCO Internet Postings Policy3 FORD Digital Participation Guidelines4 BAKER&DANIELS Social Media Policy5 BBC – personal use Social Networking, Microblogs and other Thir Party

Web sites: Personal Use6 BBC – BBC use Social Networking, Microblogs and other Thir Party

Web sites: BBC Use7 Daimler AG Social Media Guidelines8 DELL Global Policy on Social Media9 FEDEX Discussion Guidelines and Rules of Engagement

10 Flickr Community guidelines11 Forrester Forrester Research’s Social Media Policy12 IBM IBM Social Computing Guidelines13 Intel Social Media Guidelines14 MCSFT – Channel9 Channel 9 Doctrine15 15. MCSFT – Tweeting Social Media Policy – Tweeting guidelines16 Ogilvy PR Global Social Media Guidelines17 Reuters Reporting from the internet and using social media18 Coca Cola Online Social Media Principles19 Roche Social Media Principles20 Yahoo! Personal Blog Guidelines

Table AI.List of companies andtheir respective SocialMedia Guidelines used inthe research

Guideline characteristicCompletely

disagree Completely agree

Aware, discerning, sensitive, perceptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strongly worded, empathic, forceful, powerful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Insightful, expansive, mind stretching, visionary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Innovative, creative, original, fresh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Interesting, stimulating, engaging, absorbing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Conclusive, consequential, decisive, action-oriented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Practical, informative, realistic, instructive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Focused, clear, logical, organized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Rigorous, precise, disciplined, controlled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Technically correct, conventionally sound 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Credible, believable, plausible, conceivable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Expressive, open, candid, honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table AII.Coding instrument

174

JCOM18,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

About the authors

Morana Fuduric is a Doctoral Student in Communication Sciences at the Universita dellaSvizzera italiana, Switzerland where she works with Andreina Mandelli on relationshiporientation in social media and implications on company performance. She received her masterin marketing communication management at the University of Zagreb, Croatia where she worksas a research and teaching assistant on several projects and marketing courses. Her currentresearch interests focus on marketing communication management, marketing strategy and non-profit marketing, with a particular interest in social media strategies and social mediacommunication management. Morana Fuduric is the corresponding author and can be contactedat: morana.fuduric@usi.ch

Dr Andreina Mandelli is an Adjunt Professor of Marketing, Digital Marketing, DigitalCommunication and Consumer Behavior at the Universita della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland.She received her PhD in mass communication at the Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.She has been teaching marketing courses at the SDA Bocconi since 1995. She is a SeniorResearch Fellow at the “Center for Digital Future”, Annenberg School for Communication, USC,Los Angeles, USA, and a founding partner of the research network World Internet Project (WIP)and Business Information Technology Studies (BITS), coordinated by the Annenberg School forCommunication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles and UCLA. Her current researchinterests focus on the phenomena of innovation in communication, marketing and consumerbehavior, with particular reference to the changes brought by new technologies and modesof network communication.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

175

Communicatingsocial media

policies

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Janice C. Sipior, Burke T. Ward, Linda Volonino. 2014. Benefits and Risks of Social Business: AreCompanies Considering E-Discovery?. Information Systems Management 140925181011008. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a A

t 08:

57 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)