Teaching Professional Use of Social Networking Sites Through a Hypothetical Case Study

Introduction

Social networking sites (SNSs) like Facebook, Instagram, Slack, and Workplace by Meta assist employees in collaborating and communicating with internal and external stakeholders (Bizzi, 2018). Work relations and decision making can be improved through SNS (O’Connor et al., 2016). When employees interact with their colleagues and other external stakeholders through SNSs, they feel motivated and have more innovative ideas (Bizzi, 2018). SNSs create a space for the “wisdom of crowds to create a collaborative knowledge platform” (Al-Omoush et al., 2021) that enables collaboration and interaction across spatial and temporal boundaries as well as organizational hierarchies. However, research studies also caution organizations about the detrimental effect of SNS communication among internal and external stakeholders impacting their relationships, behavior, and perceptions (Cistulli & Snyder, 2019; Snyder & Cistulli, 2020). Employees are finding it difficult to demarcate the rapidly blurring boundaries between their professional and personal lives on SNS (Abril et al., 2012; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Organizations create policies for the private use of SNSs also; for example, McKinsey’s Code of Professional Conduct (McKinsey, 2019) cautions employees to be mindful of stating their opinions and (political) views even on their private social media accounts. There are numerous examples of employees losing their jobs because of the unmindful use of SNSs (Gagliese, 2022; Barraclough, 2023). Employees have been asked to leave the organization for posting unprofessional pictures, sharing decisive posts, or commenting on posts related to political issues (Gagliese, 2022; Barraclough, 2023).

Considering this probable detrimental effect of the unprofessional use of SNSs, researchers have advocated teaching SNS use in higher education institutes in terms of sharing information and creating professional networks (Friess & Lam, 2018; Jannett, 2013). Even with the high usage of SNSs in the personal context, students need help in understanding the professional use of SNSs (Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014). Students need structured interventions to learn the skilled use of SNS or “e-professionalism” (Yap & Tiang, 2014) and master the art of transferring the acquired SNS from the personal to the professional context (Sapkota & Vander Putten, 2018). Faculty need to train the students for the rapidly changing technology-driven workplace (Mehra, 2023). Business graduates are being taught professional use of SNSs (Henry & Venkatraman, 2013), and journals have asked for more research in integrating SNSs into BPC curricula (Knight, 2017, 2019). BPC faculty have embedded SNSs in their BPC curricula as service-learning-based projects (Sharma, 2022c), or analysis of CEOs’ apologies (Mehra, 2023). However, these projects and assignments do not focus specifically on teaching the difference between the personal and professional use of SNSs. This aspect of SNSs is an incidental learning in these projects and assignments. Another pedagogical tool, simulations could have been used to discuss the unmindful use of SNSs; however, case studies provide more opportunities for analysis and discussion than simulations. In simulations, students simulate or “act out” what they have to do in the real-life business world, whereas in this case, the focus is on “what not to do” with SNSs. Since the blurring of boundaries between the personal and professional lives on SNSs is a crucial issue and unmindful use of SNSs can lead to loss of employment and can tarnish an organization’s and the employee’s reputation, a hypothetical case study was developed to focus on this aspect of SNSs. The aim of the article is not only to share the case study and the teaching note but also to contextualize it with a thorough literature review and discussions. Additionally, the article shares the experiences of the students who analyzed and discussed this case study as well as recommendations for the faculty who might wish to use the case study. Hence, the prime objective of the article was to facilitate BPC faculty in using the case in their courses. The rest of the article discusses the literature review related to SNS and BPC curricula, presents the research methodology, the case study, discussion questions, experiences of teaching the case in a business school, the results of the post-and-then-pre survey, and recommendations for the faculty who wish to include the case in their courses. The Teaching Note of the case study is given in Appendix 1.

Literature Review

Case Study Pedagogy

Previous studies have advocated developing an authentic context for teaching professional use of SNSs (Hurley & Kimme Hea, 2014; Melton & Hicks, 2011; Sapkota & Vander Putten, 2018). Case study is a pedagogical tool to create real-life and professionally contextual learning in the classroom (Kim et al., 2006). It is considered a superior pedagogical tool in comparison with the lecture method. In the case study method, students analyze the situation and the context presented in the case, infer views from the given information, and present their decisions and views on highly volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous problems. Various streams like business, medical, engineering, and law find case studies useful in presenting complex and authentic challenges to students. In case studies, the problems are presented with intricate details, and the solution can be found by the students by applying theoretical concepts and critical thinking (Ambrosini et al., 2010). Often, cases do not have a clear-cut, right answer and students need to apply logical, contextual, and critical thinking to decide or form an opinion (Greiner et al., 2003). Through case studies, students can experience complex and unstructured problems that might not be a part of client-based projects (Garvin, 2007). Through cases, faculty can present realistic and complex situations that are not possible to experience otherwise in real life so often (Ward & Hill, 2017). In the safe environment of the classroom, students can vicariously experience these complex problems and situations that are impossible to encounter in client-based projects without serious consequences (Ensminger et al., 2021; Hatcher et al., 2018). Since client-based projects follow a lengthy process, it is not feasible to have projects for all aspects of a curriculum, and hence, case studies are used in management courses (Liang & Wang, 2004). Through cases, students internalize the theoretical concepts as well as their practical implications in business and work-life situations (Hartman, 2006). In the present context also, professional use of social networking sites can be integrated into the BPC curriculum with a client-based project also as done by Sharma (2022a). In client-based projects like Sharma (2022a), it is not necessary that students encounter a conflicting situation that explains the professional and personal use of SNS. Considering the benefits of case study pedagogy and the shortcomings of client-based projects and lecture methods, the researchers developed a hypothetical case study to make students critically think about the professional and personal use of SNS.

Research Methodology

The case study development and discussion in the classroom in a BPC course was a part of the action research methodology. Action research serves a dual purpose: take action to improve a process and offer theoretical and practical implications about the action taken (Jove, 2011; Plant & Slippers, 2015). Here, the targeted process is the way the students learn about the professional use of SNS and change their perceptions of SNS as a professional tool of communication and their skillfulness in using SNS in a professional context. The change in students’ perception and the usefulness of the case study were assessed by statements marked by the students in a post-then-pre-survey design (Howard, 1980). After going through case study reading, discussion, and feedback, the students marked their perception of the statements on a Likert Scale of 1 to 5. First, the students recorded their immediate response after reading and discussing the case study as POST. Then, they recorded their perceptions of the same statements with a hypothetical PRE stage considering they had not read or discussed the case study. This survey design ensures no pretest stage sensitivity and eliminates response shift bias (Lam & Bengo, 2003; Russ & Drury-Grogan, 2013).

Discussion on Using the Case in the BPC Course

The case has been discussed in two sections of the PGDM course with 62 and 64 students, respectively. The students had no prior information that a case would be discussed in the class. The case opened the discussion of the professional use of SNSs, and no discussion or lecture was conducted before the case discussion. The students got 20 to 30 minutes to read the case silently. After reading the case, the students were asked the first discussion question, “Should Twinkle be fired by the company?” By a show of hands, in both sections, almost 100% of students said that she should not be fired. Then, they get time to discuss the reason for saying no with their peers in groups of five students. The student in groups shared their opinions and views about the case and why the protagonist should not be fired. Largely, the students viewed the protagonist’s reply to the influencer’s rant as a suitable and truthful response to the situation. Most of the students said that they also would have replied in the same manner as done by the protagonist. The class was highly animated at this juncture. In a way, most of the students failed to understand the personal and professional use of SNSs.

Here, the second question is posed to them, “Was the Facebook Live video shared by Sherry a personal or professional social media communication?” Then, the students start to think critically about the incident and see the case from a different perspective. The class was almost equally divided in this question. Some students started to see that the rant of the influencer was feedback on the service she had encountered as a customer. Whatever could be the format or the language of the feedback, it was customer feedback and hence professional communication. The students were divided into two groups: those who considered the influencer’s rant a professional communication in the form of feedback and those who did not. Here, students spent about 15-20 minutes to debate over the issue, but largely everyone agreed that it was professional communication. At this point, again groups of five students were formed and the groups were asked to formulate a reply to the influencer’s rant in a professional manner assuming the role of a PR or a customer care personnel. The groups get 20 minutes to discuss and write their answers. All groups read out their answers to the whole class. Here, the students were asked to examine the response they had written, and the response given by the protagonist. The students then realized the difference between using SNSs as a person in an individual capacity and as a professional representative of an organization. At this point, again, a show of hands revealed that the majority of the students see solid reasons for firing the protagonist. At this stage, the teacher discusses the three questions once again based on the case analysis and readings. The detailed case analysis is given in Appendix 1 (Teaching Note).

Results of the Survey Questionnaire

Five statements were created to assess the effectiveness of the case study in changing students’ perceptions related to the professional use of SNSs. The students filled in the survey twice after the case study discussion. Once, consider the experience post the case study discussion, and after that, consider if they had not participated in the case study discussion. The value of t is greater than the critical value of t for all five statements (critical value of t = 2.3565, with df = 125).

The case was developed to change the perception and attitude of the students toward the professional use of SNSs. The students have a carefree attitude toward SNSs and freely share their opinions, views, and self-generated content (photos, videos, and text) in their personal context. However, there must be a strategic and restrained use of SNSs in the professional context. After discussing the incident shared in the case, the students realized the risks related to sharing information and media without strategic thinking on SNSs in a professional context (Statement 1). The students realized that creating and managing a presence on social media in the professional context requires a different approach than the one used in the personal space. Various aspects of rhetoric like audience analysis, critical thinking, and strategic communication (or hiding) information must be incorporated into the professional use of SNSs (Knight, 2017, 2019; Sapkota & Vander Putten, 2018). In the present case, the protagonist was in trouble because of the unmindful sharing of private organizational information with the public on SNSs. After discussing the case, the students understood the consequences of using SNSs without thinking critically and strategically (Statements 3 and 4). Finally, one of the major obstacles to training students in the professional use of SNSs is the students’ fallacious perception that because they use SNSs skillfully in their personal context, they do not need training or academic discussion of SNSs (Sheppard, 2009; Vie, 2015). While researchers advocate the inclusion of structured and planned interventions by BPC to help students transfer their SNS skills from the personal to the professional context, the students do not see the need for this transfer and see no difference in the personal and professional use of SNSs (Mina, 2017; Pigg et al., 2014). In the case discussion, when students compose a reply in groups as a PR or social media manager after thinking critically and strategically and considering the consequences of their reply, they understand the difference between their reply (professional use) and the reply by the protagonist in an emotionally agitated state (personal use). Here, the students realized that communicating over SNSs in a professional manner requires additional training and practice. Although they use SNSs in their private life, they need structured training and academic discussion for the professional use of SNSs (Statements 2 and 5). Overall, survey results indicate that the case study discussion has been successful in creating awareness among the students about differences in the personal and professional use of SNSs (Table 1). It also made the students accept that they need training and academic discussions to develop skillfulness in using SNSs in the professional context.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Results of the Post-and-then-Pretest Related to the Student’s Perception of Their Abilities and Training Required to Use SNS Professionally.

No.	Statement	Posttest		Pretest		t	df
		M	SD	M	SD
1	I am aware of the potential risks of sharing personal content on social networking sites.	3.36	0.887	2.43	.973	3.544	125
2	The skills required to use social networking sites for personal use are the same as those needed for professional use. a	2.18	0.934	3.59	.912	−4.327	125
3	I need to work on managing my online presence professionally on social networking sites.	3.82	0.918	2.11	.929	5.083	125
4	Using social networking sites professionally requires a different approach compared to personal use.	3.53	1.006	2.09	0.984	4.198	125
5	Since I use social networking sites so much, I do not need academic discussion or training in using these sites professionally. a	2.29	0.892	3.79	0.891	−3.934	125

a

Scoring on statements 2 and 5 is inversed, as they are related to the fallacious perceptions of the use of SMC in a professional context.

Recommendations for BPC Faculty to Include the Case in Their BPC Course

Future Research Avenues and Limitations

The case study discussed in the course had been created for a specific context to discuss a particular topic. Although the analysis of the survey questionnaire revealed that the case discussed had created awareness about the need for well-designed training for the professional use of SNSs, future studies can validate these results and the effectiveness of the case by discussing it in other contexts. The case study has worked in a specific context with a particular set of participants. At present, these findings are limited in terms of generality. The case can be used with undergraduate business students and master’s or postgraduate business classrooms with many students with work experience. Further, we used the case to introduce the topic “professional use of SNSs” and there was no prior discussion of SNSs before discussing the case. In future studies, BPC faculty can use the case to test the acquired knowledge of SNS professionalism after delivering lectures related to the topic. Similarly, HR and Business Ethics faculty can also measure the effectiveness of the case in creating engagement and awareness in their class. The case study can also be converted into a simulation by assigning different roles (the protagonist, the social media influencer, the manager of the protagonist, HR, PR, etc.). It can be used in business writing or business ethics courses. Although the case study would highlight the importance of the professional use of SNS through analysis and discussion, the students will get to practice the professional use of SNS in the simulation.

Conclusion

Unmindful and unprofessional use of SNSs can lead to job loss and tarnish the reputation of the employee and the organization. However, students use SNSs extensively in their personal lives and might not understand the boundaries between the personal and professional use of SNSs. The students also might not consider SNSs a serious academic topic that needs to be discussed in the course curriculum. Although researchers had used projects and assignments to teach SNSs in BPC courses, a case study was developed to focus specifically on the difference between the personal and professional use of SNSs. The case was discussed, and its effectiveness was measured with a survey questionnaire. The survey results and the subsequent discussions revealed that the case had been successful in making the students realize that a different skill set is required to use SNSs in the professional context. Through the discussion questions, the students also understood that they cannot use SNSs without strategizing and critically thinking about their responses in the professional context. The student also felt the need for academic discussions and guidance to transfer the acquired SNS skills from their personal to professional context. The case study can be used by BPC faculty as well as HR and Business Ethics faculty to highlight various aspects of the professional use of SNSs.