Should the EU Institutions have a blogging policy?

[Gerry Murray]

Continuing on with a big talking point from Thursday's Open Beer evening, should the EU Institutions have a blogging policy like many Corporates have introduced?

I furthered my understanding and appreciation for the Commission employees last night when several officials reinforced the fact that the institutions are very rules-based organizations. This sentiment also comes out quite a lot when I'm training EU officials - things seem to be quite black and white in many parts of the Commission.

Yet, it's clear that many officials are itching to express themselves in the social media space and bring their exuberant personalities to the fore!

So, how can you forward thinking officials start to have social media 'legalized' in the institutions?

Would blogging guidelines be a good starting point or would they tie people's hands up even further?

Should you just take a risk and go do it, using social media tools to build a groundswell of support?

Would the debate itself generate at least some good 'whys' for enabling officials to be active in a professional capacity in the social media space?

[Benedictus NIEUWENHUIS]

By surprise I stumbled this morning on an internal presentation given earlier in the year from which I copy just one part:

"Can we use social media?
YES
Staff as Ambassadors(ref: administrative notice (38/2007 from 17/07/2007)"
Comment on the slide
"You have the mandate to speak on the behalf of the Commission. Also in social media.
The Commission allows its staff to be active on the web in a professional capacity. This is clearly stated in the administrative notice (38/2007 from 17/07/2007) on "staff as ambassadors". This administrative notice does give staff greater freedom to speak on the internet as long as they observe:
- the Commission's position is the point of departure
- clear frame of reference in terms of subject matter
Objectivity, impartiality, loyalty to the institutions and non-divulgence of not yet public information
'Speaking' on the Internet
There is essentially no difference between a Commission member of staff attending an event, visiting a school or delivering a speech and the same person taking part in a discussion forum or contributing to a blog. When 'speaking' to external audiences via the Internet, the same guidelines apply as mentioned above (remit, clear frame of reference, key staff obligations). Likewise, you are strongly encouraged to introduce certain personal elements and structure, relying on your good judgement and common sense. "

That says it all....

[Philip Weiss]

I find this pretty clear and straightforward. It looks from yesterday's discussion as if maybe not everyone working in the institutions is aware that there is this degree of freedom in using social media. The good news is that there is nothing to stop motivated individuals from embracing these tools within the institutions. So let's use the tools as a way of promoting them. As they say: 'Tthe medium is the message....'

[Hugh Barton-Smith]

Now I wonder if we shouldn't say "the messages are the medium"?

[Caroline De Cock]

Being the lawyer I am, I do wonder about "The Commission allows its staff to be active on the web in a professional capacity." Does it mean you have no "personal capacity"? I have always thought of civil servants in social media as either (1) spokespersons of their department, Commissioner, etc (eg @eurelex) (2) the "human face" of the faceless institution. Ambassador gives an after taste of "officialness" that is worrisome in term sof freedom of speech.

[Hugh Barton-Smith]

As I understood it while preparing officials headed out on the enterprise experience programme, the term ambassador was intended to make them aware of representing the institution, not as a mouthpiece, but as an individual: putting a face on the institution simply by virtue of identifying oneself as working for it (as corporate entities have been heard saying "our staff are our best ambassadors").
People were encouraged to realise they could respectfully but distinctly distinguish their personal view from that of their employer.

[Hugh Barton-Smith]

And in this week's Commission En Direct, a pull-out guide on writing for the web.

Very basic do's (write text that helps readers find what they want) and don'ts (avoid history lessons and legal background), but it's a good start: it even promotes the use of natural language by suggesting officials do a Google image search on "enlargement" to see what first might spring to the mind of a native speaker... :-)

[Mathew Lowry]

Thanks, Dick, for finding this. I've actually been arguing for the Institutions to develop clear social media guidelines for staff since I launched Blogactiv 2 years ago, so the text you found there is a start.

But only a start. Typical guidelines are a bit more detailed - I've been thinking of identifying a few relevant ones on my blog, but haven't had the time.

However, the text you quotes looks promising - there appears to be more freedom than most officials I know realise. Caroline's point about professional capacity, however, needs addressing somewhere. The whole point of social media is that you have to me an authentic person when you're online, not just a spokesparrot.

[Mathew Lowry]

PS Dick can I repost the above presentation material elsewhere?

[Mathew Lowry]

So I blogged the guidelines, adding in content from a recent For Immediate Release podcast and some stuff from the New PR wiki than I could comfortably put here: Astroturfing the Berlaymont

[Benedictus NIEUWENHUIS]

Of course, you can, it's already public (not the whole PPT but that may come, the rest of it is nothing really new).

[Mathew Lowry]

I knew that, but I thjought I'd ask out of professional courtesy. What did you think of the post?