Abstract
This article presents an approach to teaching how social media impacts the public-sector workplace. Social media creates new challenges for both public administration practitioners and teachers. Yet, the topic does not yet have wide-scale discussion in the public administration education literature. After a review of four approaches to public administration (managerial, legal, political, and ethical), we developed a fictional social media case that was administered in an email survey to a sample of 50 graduates of a Master of Public Administration (MPA) program (37 responded and completed the survey). The case involves a local government employee whose employer wants to terminate because of the employee’s use of social media following a city council meeting. The results of our survey provide insight into how administrators would deal with the situation presented in the case and leads to the development of a series of questions for faculty using the case in their classroom. Our teaching case should provoke serious classroom discussions. Our study reveals the importance of the teaching and discussion of social media in public administration courses along with identifying continuing areas of future research.
Introduction
Keeping up with how changes in society and changes in technology might impact the discipline remains one of the biggest challenges of teaching public administration. Nowhere does this become more evident than in the case of social media. Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat) breaks down traditional boundaries between people, between geographical locations, between organizational and non-organizational settings, and between off-duty and on-duty conduct. Consider, for example, Randa Jarrar, a California State University (US) professor who brought significant public attention to her employer when she tweeted after the death of Barbara Bush that the former first lady “was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal.” She further remarked that she was “happy that the witch is dead” and that she could not wait until the whole Bush family “fall to their demise the way 1.5 million Iraqis have” (Flaherty, 2018). After this tweet, hundreds of outraged citizens inundated the inbox of California State University President Joseph Castro with angry emails and the university administration struggled with how to respond.
Social media use by public-sector employees impacts public administration, not only in the US, but also throughout the world as evidenced by the European Commission’s development of social media guidelines for staff members (European Commission, 2019). Yet, the public administration teaching and education literature neglects how social media impacts the public-sector workplace and how the topic can be taught in the classroom. Due to increasing attention to this germane issue faced by administrators in the public sector—and the lack of attention given thus far to such issues by public administration educators—this paper addresses the pedagogical gaps in public administration education related to social media. Specifically, the paper (a) explores how social media is impacting the public-sector workplace and thus public administration education; (b) discusses the political, legal, managerial, and ethical approaches to these challenges; and (c) presents and evaluates (through survey data) a social media teaching case geared for classroom use. While we focus on the US, our teaching case and approach adapts easily to non-US settings.
Using the four approaches to teach social media in the classroom
Stout (2018: 227) concludes that a universal public service perspective remains elusive and that instead, we should give our students multiple perspectives or lenses to view the world that they will encounter as public administrators. Accepting this view, the authors find utility in making sense of social media issues using Rosenbloom’s (1983) framework of multiple approaches to public administration. Rosenbloom (1983: 219) argues that public administration has been characterized by attempts to “maximize the attainment of mutually incompatible values” leading to three approaches: managerial, legal, and political. Similar to Stout (2018), Rosenbloom (1983: 219) argues that “it is unlikely that the three approaches can be synthesized.” However, he also asserts that such approaches should be utilized in the field of public administration “by building around the need to maintain values, organizational structures, and perspectives on the individual that tend to check and balance each other” (Rosenbloom, 1983: 225). Rosenbloom further argues that public administrators should recognize the validity of each approach, understand that each may be more or less applicable to different agencies and public organizations, and ground their decision making in such theory. Additionally, based on the growing importance of ethics in public administration, we have added a fourth approach of ethics to Rosenbloom’s original three. Classroom discussion of social media in the public-sector workplace should be based in sound theory and permit public administrators to navigate more effectively the intricacies and complexity of these issues. While Rosenbloom’s classic article is regularly cited in articles that discuss the conflicting demands of public administration and public management (Andrews and Van de Walle, 2013), we cannot find another study which uses the approach to examine social media nor an article which uses the approach in teaching a public administration topic. Accordingly, this study provides a unique perspective on this emerging issue in public administration while contributing to public administration teaching scholarship.
Social media and the managerial approach
The managerial approach focuses on efficiency and effectiveness in how public administrators deal with citizens and how they operate within their organizations (Rosenbloom, 1983). The New Public Management expands on these themes (e.g. Hood, 1991; Kaboolian, 1998) and reconceptualizes citizens as “customers.” The managerial approach focuses on a public-sector workplace running much like a private-sector workplace. Applied to social media, what a public employee writes or says on social media could potentially cause workplace morale problems, disharmony, and disruption and impede the efficient and effective running of the public-sector workplace. Importantly, courts do consider how off-duty conduct impacts workplace efficiency and effectiveness (as we discuss in the legal approach section). At the same time, a supervisor operating from the managerial approach (and an emphasis on organizational effectiveness) could want to retain an otherwise effective employee accused of bad conduct. Alternatively, a supervisor operating from the managerial approach and accepting of viewing public-sector workplaces like private businesses might not understand that public employees do indeed have unique rights as public employees.
Social media and the legal approach
Rosenbloom’s legal approach contends that public administrators must understand the legal context of the field and understand quasi-judicial functions. The legal approach is cognizant of the necessity of understanding and applying the law as well as understanding and applying court case decisions. Social media is legally complex and requires its own article, so only a cursory review will be provided here. One of the best sources was provided by University of Kansas Law School faculty member Rick Levy (when a social media controversy erupted at that university in 2013 after a Kansas faculty member made a political statement critical of the National Rifle Association). Levy (2014) details the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment and that local and state governments are subject to the First Amendment’s protections of free speech. Levy (2014) also asserts that while speech is not absolute and can be regulated (see Schenk v. US, 249 47, 1919), speech regulation cannot be content based or, if allowed, regulation must pass strict judicial scrutiny. As Levy further notes, “under strict scrutiny, a content-based regulation of speech has to be ‘necessary’ or ‘narrowly tailored’ to meet a ‘compelling governmental interest.’” (2014: 7). Part of this scrutiny involves whether a “less restrictive alternative” was available and whether the regulation of speech applies to other forms of speech or whether it does not apply to “some speech that causes the harm the regulation seeks to permit” (Levy, 2014: 7). Three US Supreme Court cases are particularly important in regard to social media. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968) provides public employees the right to political speech in a public forum on a matter of public concern. However, this is balanced by the government’s employment interest of maintaining an effective and efficient workplace (Levy, 2014: 9). Issues that are not of public concern are not protected speech as articulated in Connick v. Myers, 461 US 138 (1983). Finally, in Garcetti v. Cebellos, 547 US 410 (2006), the Supreme Court established that if public employees use speech in the context of their official job duties, that speech is not protected (Levy, 2014: 9). Pickering, Connick, and Garcetti provide an excellent starting point for public administrators to understand the basic legal framework with regard to social media. Although in recent years the Pickering test, being uniformly applied in various cases by lower courts, has been interpreted in dramatically different ways (Tufts et al., 2015).
A supervisor operating from the legal approach acknowledges the importance of honoring individual due process (Dresang, 2017: 271–273) while also decreasing organizational liability. Ultimately, it becomes the responsibility of the supervisor to carry out a social media policy in an equitable way that gives credence to court precedent and respects the free speech rights of public employees. An employee operating from the legal perspective understands that their speech can be grounds for termination if it is not of public concern. Furthermore, speech that addresses private matters is not protected and protections for whistleblowing are always tenuous.
Social media and the political approach
Rosenbloom’s (1983) third approach is the political approach, which focuses on understanding the importance of accountability, representation, and process. Instead of looking at citizens as customers, citizens are seen as part of groups with representational needs (Rosenbloom, 1983) and the administrator in this approach must seek accountability to citizens. There are several political aspects to social media in the public-sector workplace. Though many public employees are covered by the Hatch Act, public employees have rights to express their political views and social media is certainly one way that public employees can express such views. Additionally, social media is a way for employees to have influence in an organization. Employees might use social media to connect to other employees about organizational issues and management decisions. Efforts to restrict social media use of public employees could have political ramifications as employees believe that their group rights as public employees to speak up on political issues and even issues within the public organization are being stymied. Citizens may also demand that public employees who speak out on controversial issues be held accountable for their actions.
A supervisor operating from the political approach acknowledges the reality that social media provides a venue where employees can interact when off-duty. Thus, employees may discuss their work lives and other organizational matters on social media. Although limiting an employee’s use of social media is politically risky, when controversial speech from an employee goes unchecked by a supervisor, the political implications can also be negative. Unlike traditional workplace issues involving speech, social media changes “the medium, the reach, the speed, and the permanency of employee actions” (Tufts et al., 2015: 12). Furthermore, the supervisor understands that they are accountable to elected officials and the public. Because their actions may be placed “under the microscope,” a supervisor operating from the political approach will follow process understanding that not doing so could prove politically damaging for their city, the agency, and their own career.
A fourth approach: Social media and the ethical approach
Rosenbloom (1983: 225) also posits that other approaches “can be added in the future.” Based upon increasing interest in the field regarding the role of ethics and ethical decision making in public administration, the authors of this article add the ethical approach as a fourth approach to Rosenbloom’s framework. Bryer and Zavattaro (2011: 336) acknowledge a need “for more research involv[ing] the intersection of ethics and the technologies” in their article about the transformational nature of social media on public administration. Ethics arose in public administration as an area of inquiry in the 1980s and 1990s. An ethical approach to public administration focuses on such issues as conflict of interest, the appearance of impropriety, fiduciary responsibilities, and a wide variety of other ethical questions (see generally Callaghan, 2018; Cooper, 1998). Both the supervisor and employee, from this approach, seek to promote the public interest, seek transparency in dealings with citizens, and above all serve the value of democracy over loyalty to individuals. Social media and the public-sector workplace can involve serious ethical questions including the importance of public employees maintaining confidentiality and other fiduciary responsibilities. Additionally, as noted by Tufts et al. (2015: 5), “employee use of personal social media during the workday may be distracting from the tasks at hand and waste productive time.” At the same time, employee use of personal social media outside of the workplace has implications for the efficient operation of the organization. Keeping an employee’s private life separate from their professional life is challenging and intra agency policy that seeks to do so “does not necessarily lessen the ethical concerns” (Bezboruah and Dryburg, 2012: 491). Furthermore, public employees are generally expected to uphold a higher standard of ethics, causing their use of social media to carry with it more risk (Bezboruah and Dryburg, 2012). Tufts at al. (2015: 5) further note that “the hyper-public nature of most social media communications also makes public employees’ off-duty activities fair game for public scrutiny.” Moreover, the concept of whistleblowing (O’Leary, 2014) plays into the ethical approach. Public employees may use social media to make public concerns over public organization issues that might involve fraud, misuse of funds, unjust firing, the unjust disciplining of an employee or other possible governmental abuses. Adding this approach addresses this important dynamic of social media in public administration meeting the call to “give clearer direction for practitioners engaging in this area” (Bryer and Zavattaro, 2011: 336).
Methodology
We developed a teaching case, “Social media and the public-sector workplace: Facebook and the city planner,” to explore the four approaches applied to social media use and its impact on public administration. The case is fictional and set in the US. While “real-life” cases (see Thom, 2019) are effective in public administration courses, fictional cases sometime have the advantage of providing the opportunity for case writers to craft a case that meets the needed theoretical elements that the professor wants to explore in the case (Hatcher et al., 2018). Additionally, a fictional case allows for exploration of difficult issues while not having to worry about the confidentiality issues of a real-life case. The teaching case is an important element of teaching public administration with a strong pedagogical history in the field (e.g., Foster et al., 2010; Mudida and Rubaii, 2017; Thom, 2019).
In order to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of the case, we designed a survey that was sent along with a case to 50 MPA graduates of a single program. The survey asked the participants to identity their preferred approach (based on Rosenbloom’s framework) to public administration and various questions including their experience in public administration, whether their employer has a social media policy, and then several questions on how they would handle the fictional social media case that was presented. The survey, which was emailed using SurveyMonkey, was returned by 37 individuals (74%). The demographics of the survey participants included 61% who had worked in the public sector for more than 10 years (only one of 37 participants had not worked in the public sector). Of the survey participants, 57% were female and 76% had supervisory responsibilities. The teaching case below was embedded in the survey after some preliminary questions and the survey participants were asked to tackle the decision problem which was presented near the end of the case.
The initial questions asked on the survey included: 1. Does your workplace have a social media policy? (yes, no, don’t know options). 2. How concerned are you about “off-duty” social media use by employees at your workplace? (Likert scale). 3. Below are different approaches to dealing with administrative issues. Please rank the order of importance of each one (survey participants were given definitions of the managerial, legal, political, and ethical approaches and asked to rank from most important to least important).
Participants then read the case up to the end of the Facebook discussion (see below) and then were asked the following questions: 4. In this case, how confident are you that Johnny’s speech is constitutionally protected? (Likert scale). 5. If the city government fires Johnny for insubordination, how confident are you that the firing will be legally upheld? (Likert scale). 6. How much do you disagree or agree that Johnny should be retained because he is otherwise a good employee? (Likert scale). 7. If you are a personnel specialist for the city government, how worried are you about the political ramifications of firing Johnny? (Likert scale). 8. If you were you were asked to create a social media policy, how confident are you that you know what should be in the policy? (Likert scale). 9. Evaluate the degree of ethical issues in the potential firing of Johnny (Likert scale). 10. If you were the human resource manager in this case, what would you do? Describe below (open-ended question).
Participants were then provided the rest of the case (the aftermath of Johnny’s Facebook comments along with the social media guidelines of the city government (see below)) and then asked one final open-ended question: 11. Now that you have read Part B of the case, how satisfied are you with how you dealt with the case? Do you have any new concerns? Describe below.
Participants then answered the three demographic questions (length of time in the public sector, gender, and supervisory responsibilities).
We present the data in graphical form. While it would be possible to generate statistics, we are not trying to generalize to a larger population. Instead, we wanted to test the response to the case for pedagogical purposes and provide information to faculty who could use this case in their classrooms.
Case: Social media and the public-sector workplace: Facebook and the city planner
Brock and Alford (2015) contend that public administration education must be interactive and provide students with various analytical perspectives. We use cases to achieve these ideals. Hatcher et al. (2018: 274) note that the case is a narrative illustrating a “larger problem in public affairs” and present a decision-making dilemma for the student. Our case can be used in undergraduate and graduate courses that deal with general public administration, public personnel, and ethics. The case could be easily adapted to a non-US scenario.
His presentation was professional, it was backed with evidence, it was unemotional, and it was strongly received by a three-person minority of the seven-person city council. In other words, a four-person majority did not agree with Johnny that the zoning variance should be denied. The variance was granted 4–3 (see case details #2 later). Thus, Johnny McAlister’s recommendation (and that of the hearing examiner) was turned down. Johnny was distraught and believed that he had failed in his first time before the city council. Beth Espinoza, however, told Johnny after the council meeting that “you did a great job, you were professional, you presented your case well, you lost, don’t be worried, it was a political decision, you did your job. Go home, get some rest, and come back tomorrow. I am proud of you and you are going to be a great planner as part of our team.” Johnny felt better about this and his respect for Beth was increasing with each passing day.
Hey Johnny, what happened, you lost the vote, those guys on the council are a bunch of losers.
Don’t worry Johnny, you can always sell fries at McDonalds.
I guess that I should have used more colorful language and maybe used some props. Maybe told some jokes.
Those (residents from Johnny’s new home state) aren’t very smart, are they?
I only needed 51% to be smart.
Why do you think that you lost?
Your performance reminds me of the time when we were undergrads at South Dakota and you had too much to drink the night before the big 5-minute demonstration speech in Speech 101. You could never handle your beer…maybe, you should quit drinking before your presentations. Ha!
It was all political like my supervisor told me afterwards, I think the retail business and developer and the council members that voted against me are friends. I think there was a conflict of interest. Cronyism is an important issue that impacts our government’s work. @Perry, I didn’t drink before, I drank tequila shots afterwards.
Loser, loser, remember in the third grade when you vomited during the school play that you were narrating? Gee, at least you didn’t puke this time.
I am re-watching your presentation online, what were you thinking at 5:23 on the video, the part where you seem to blank out for a few seconds.
I think that I was wondering why I ended up in Idaho with the potato jokes and all the hillbillies and I was wondering what I was going to have for dinner.
Hey, Johnny, do you really think that Idahoans are not to smart? Um, are we really just hillbillies?
Hey Jill, it’s TOO smart, you just answered your own question.
Jill, who are you, the mayor’s wife? Or an offended hillbilly?
No, I am a colleague of Johnny at the city. I am a native Idahoan and I thought that Johnny understood our state and that he liked it here.
I do like it here. But some of the council members are dweebs. WTF, I had all the evidence on my side. What is going on, was this a good old boy, backroom deal, you know the council helping out the developer friend?
Johnny, what are you saying, corruption?
Whoa, it sounds like you work for a corrupt city government? Is that what you are saying?
Maybe we should change the subject, want to talk football or something?
That is a good idea. Anybody like the Denver Broncos?
The day after the executive session, Joshua Alm asks Johnny to resign. When Johnny refuses to resign, Alm delivers a termination notice to Johnny. Alm bases his decision on Idaho public personnel law, specifically the following (Idaho Statutes, 2019): “A rule for the disciplinary dismissal, demotion, suspension or other discipline of employees only for cause with reasons given in writing. Such rule shall provide that any of the following reasons shall be proper cause for the disciplinary dismissal, demotion or suspension of any employee in the state classified service.” The law then provides Point 5, which states “Insubordination or conduct unbecoming a state employee or conduct detrimental to good order and discipline in the employee’s department.” (Alm bases his decision on Point 5 among a list of 17 reasons that a classified employee can be dismissed for cause under state law.)
Other case details
A neighborhood resident who opposed the retail business zoning variance testified that a city council member was a former employee of the retail business and thus the city council and city government had a conflict of interest. The hearing examiner noted this in the report but made no comment.
There was no discussion among the city council members about any potential conflict of interest. When later interviewed by a local newspaper, the mayor argued that in a small town, political contributions are common and that city council members regularly vote on issues that involve constituents who provided campaign contributions. The mayor pointed out that some of the residents who did not want the zoning variance had given money to council members who voted both ways on the issue. The mayor also contended that most people in a small town know each other and that does not mean there is any cronyism in the city government.
City social media guidelines (adopted on 1 July 2014).
These guidelines are intended to guide employees in city government in using social media in a manner that maintains legal and professional standards. Social media are defined as online technologies used to share information, resources, and opinions. Examples of social media include social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn), content sharing sites (e.g. Pinterest, YouTube), micro-blogging sites (e.g. Twitter), and blogs, forums, discussion boards, and Wikis. Principles of freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas apply to these guidelines.
Every private person has the right to express their opinions and exchange ideas freely on all social media. However, public employees are obliged to follow institutional policies and uphold professional standards when using social media. Use of social media is guided by the same principles as the use of written or electronic media which include the following rules and prohibitions: Do not make use of the name of the city government, your department to endorse products, causes, political parties or candidates. Do not speak on behalf of the city government unless authorized to do so on social media sites. If you are in a confidential position (policy making), do not divulge confidential city information in an online forum or social media outlet.
Results
Table 1 shows how survey participants ranked the four approaches (managerial, legal, political, and ethical). Participants were evenly split on the importance of the managerial, legal, and ethical approach (with about 30% of participants choosing each approach as the most important). Conversely, participants were more united on viewing the political approach as the least important (55.56%). Surprisingly, the ethical approach was ranked relatively high with the fewest participants giving it the lowest ranking (2.78%) and a significant number of participants ranking it a 1 or 2 with a combined percentage of 58.34%. The legal approach, with rankings of 1 and 2, scored the highest in importance with a combined score of 63.89%.
Participants ranking of four approaches.
Note: Percentages may not add up 100% due to rounding.
Participants (nearly all of whom are in some type of management position in the public sector) were also asked if the agency where they currently work has an official social media policy. About half (52.77%) responded that they do. In conducting this study, the authors assumed that public agencies have been slow in responding to the growing need for employee social media use policy. While, again, our sample is of the graduates of one MPA program and not a random sample, our results suggest that some public agencies continue to lack social media guidelines/policies even with a proliferation of social media related public-sector workplace issues in recent years (Jacobson and Tufts, 2013). Those of us who teach social media in our public administration courses would benefit from future research exploring how extensively public organizations have adopted social media policies, whether or not those social media policies would survive judicial scrutiny, and if such policies are dovetailed with employee training.
Similarly, participants were gauged as to their level of concern for off-duty use of social media by the employees in their workplace. Interestingly, participants were overall not concerned with social media use of employees. A large majority (65.72%) reported that they were not concerned at all or only slightly concerned with employee social media use. Only 17.14% were either concerned or extremely concerned with employee use of social media. This finding could demonstrate a sense of apathy in our sample regarding the risks of taking improper employment action in cases of employee speech on social media or alternatively the administrators could view the risks of social media problems as being overly magnified by media coverage.
After reading the case, participants were asked a series of questions that evaluated their understanding of the managerial, political, legal, and ethical ramifications of firing Johnny. These results are presented below.
Managerial approach question
The upper left panel of Figure 1 shows participants’ willingness to retain Johnny as an employee of the city. Notably, no participants strongly agreed that retaining Johnny was the best option. However, 47.22% of participants agreed that Johnny should be retained. The qualitative comments, broken out by those who chose the managerial approach, are instructive. Several survey participants in this approach appealed to documenting concerns in writing and engaging in progressive discipline and counseling. One respondent stated, “I would not fire Johnny but perhaps a letter of reprimand for his personnel files and bring him in for a counseling session.” Still others said that what they would do in this case depended on the policy. For example, “I think that I would re-evaluate the social media policy and ensure that it is updated with what is acceptable or not acceptable.”
Participant responses.
Faculty discussion points: The division on the question of retaining Johnny could be explained by a number of reasonable managerial justifications that can be explored with students. First, Johnny was hired initially because of his talent and potential to contribute to effective operation of the city planning division. Beginning the hiring process again and having to train a new hire could violate principles of effectiveness and efficiency by requiring the establishment of another hiring committee and the use of limited agency resources. Second, some administrators in our sample did not see Johnny’s offense as so egregious. Thus, they disagree with the notion that termination is the only viable option. Something to explore with students is that although Johnny’s conduct was unprofessional, this incident might be best viewed as an opportunity to mentor Johnny with only minor consequences such as a reprimand letter in his personnel file. Third, faculty should explore that the lack of due process in terminating Johnny could pose managerial concerns moving forward in terms of the precedent it sets and the ill effects of that precedent on other employees of the city (the ethics of the due process question is explored later).
Legal approach questions
From the legal approach, participants revealed mixed preferences. Figure 1 (top middle panel) shows the level of confidence among the sample regarding the constitutionality of Johnny’s speech. Although participants were generally willing to retain Johnny, many were uncertain whether Johnny’s speech is protected by the First Amendment. Those who were extremely unconfident or unconfident made up 48.57% of the sample. Importantly, those who choose the legal approach as their preferred approach were the most unconfident (this data is not shown in Figure 1). Another important question in the survey concerned whether Johnny’s speech will be legally upheld if he pursues litigation against the city. The upper right panel of Figure 1 shows the level of confidence that the participants had in answering this question. Overall, most of those participating in the survey (55.55% combining confident and extremely confident) were confident that Johnny’s speech would legally be upheld in court (those preferring the legal approach were most confident).
In the qualitative comments about what should be done in this case, those who chose the legal approach focused mainly on working through the legal issues in the case. One example was: “While Johnny’s opinions are likely protected, his accusations of a conflict of interest (which could lead to a legitimate appeal and/or litigation and applicant) may not be. Such comments taint the due process anyway because if this conversation occurred immediately following the hearing it is still within the statutorily required appeal period in ______ (withheld to protect identity of the state).”
Faculty discussion points: There are several questions to explore with students and Tufts et al. (2015: 6) and Levy (2014) as helpful references. For example, one question concerns whether the city government had a “compelling government interest” (e.g. Pickering v. Board of Education) in taking action against Johnny? Furthermore, was Johnny’s speech a matter of “public concern” (e.g. Connick v. Myers) and were his comments made within his official job duties (e.g. Garcetti v. Cebellas)? The survey findings suggest that some public administrators may be uncertain regarding when and in what circumstances employee speech is and is not protected. One of the most evident, and potentially legally problematic, elements in the case to explore with students was the manner of Johnny’s termination. Johnny was not provided with any process to appeal the decision to terminate him. Additionally, the court may look at the seemingly retaliatory nature of the employment decision quickly carried out by the city.
Political approach question
In the case, the political approach plays a crucial part of the story as this local personnel issue goes public and ultimately receives nationwide attention. Participants were asked about their level of worry regarding the political ramifications in the case with the results displayed in Figure 1 (bottom left panel). Most of the sample (55.56% combining worried and extremely worried) felt that the pressure received from outside the agency (local policymakers, public, and the media) was something to take into consideration (those who preferred the political approach were most concerned). One comment from a respondent who chose the political approach as their preferred approach is illustrative of political concerns related to transparency and accountability: “Disclosing information that could impact his relationship with the city council and other colleagues and in doing so, he undermines his relationships and creates a lack of trust with the public.”
Faculty discussion points: Faculty teaching this case should point out to students that any move taken by the city could be perceived in vastly different ways in the court of public opinion and could thus reflect poorly on the city. When a public agency is under the microscope, understanding the importance of representation and accountability are key to ensuring that the agency maintains their legitimacy. Participants generally recognized the need to move forward carefully. In respecting the values of accountability and representation (Rosenbloom, 1983: 221), it is potentially in the interest of the city to conduct a more thorough investigation. They will want to demonstrate good faith in ensuring that proper procedures are followed, and that Johnny’s due process rights are respected, and that he is allowed to appeal the termination decision (see Dresang, 2017: 271–273). Furthermore, unlike what happened in the case, all of this should be done in full transparency instead of behind closed doors. Although this may not lessen the national attention the case has received, it will increase the legitimacy of the decision the city ultimately decides upon after the investigation.
Ethical approach question
The bottom right panel of Figure 1 displays how participants viewed the ethical dynamics of the case. Overall, 75% of participants (some ethical issues or significant issues combined) believed that there were ethical issues apparent in Johnny’s firing, with those who preferred the ethical approach the most concerned. Most of the qualitative comments from those who chose the ethical approach as their preferred approach focused on the lack of clear policy and whether the actions taken were arbitrary with only guidelines and no actual policy.
Faculty discussion points: There are three ethical dimensions that faculty using this case should point out to students. First, the alleged corruption between city council members and various local business was perhaps the most glaring potential ethical violation in the case. The duty to be impartial, as noted by Callaghan (2018), where public officials strive to be fair in representing the public, was seemingly violated by the city council in voting for the zoning variance. Other conflicts of interest including the allegations of “kickbacks” to various council members and the allegation of some members’ previous employment with the commercial businesses providing the campaign contributions raise many questions. Second, Johnny’s potential whistleblowing (O’Leary, 2014) also provides another interesting ethical angle to this case. Students should consider whether Johnny intentionally participated in whistleblowing or whether he was just inappropriately venting to friends. Additionally, students question whether the information that he shared was confidential or already public knowledge and in doing so, the student should explore some of Cooper’s (1998: 170–172) public administration virtues. Third, Johnny’s actual firing is another important ethical dimension for faculty and student exploration. Overall, the lack of due process for Johnny, the lack of transparency, and the uncertainty surrounding the reasons for his termination all serve as examples of potential ethics violations.
Conclusion
Social media and its role in the public-sector workplace will remain a salient topic for years to come. Tufts et al. (2015: 194) demonstrate that social media is impacting governmental workplaces because of the “blending of personal versus professional roles.” As a result of this blending, social media use by employees leads controversies at the core of key public administration principles. These principles include (a) the conflict between acceptable off-duty conduct and the impact of this conduct on the efficient running of the workplace; (b) the free speech rights of public employees; and (c) consideration of confidentiality, accountability, and professional boundaries. Though a research literature is emerging (e.g. Jacobson and Tufts, 2013; Tufts et al., 2015), the public administration teaching and education literature has been silent on how to teach issues surrounding social media and public employees. Our case study and evaluation starts to fill this important pedagogical gap.
We are left with several general conclusions. First, our survey participants varied widely in how they would approach the teaching case and in their recommendations. This reinforces the importance of both using multiple approaches theoretically (Rosenbloom, 1983) as well as pedagogically (Stout, 2018). Second, given that 55% of our survey participants were not confident in their ability to create a social media policy, future studies in public administration education should establish more specific guidance to public administrators on best practices for social media policies that both manage organizational liability and acknowledge the free speech rights of public employees with Levy (2014) being a good starting point. Second, as Tufts et al. (2015) point out, even though social media controversies are novel, good public administration practices ultimately should win out. Tufts et al. (2015: 204–205) write in this regard that in social media issues, public administrators “should use the same good judgment, careful documentation, and consistent approaches they are already applying in other areas of their practice.” Our survey participants noted that problems that occurred in this study’s teaching were often exacerbated by a lack of good public administration principles used by the players in the case. Third, there are international dimensions to our work. Though our teaching case is set in the US, we believe that our case and results are relevant to public administration internationally, though as Stout (2018: 232) points out, translating administrative theory from Western to non-Western nations can be problematic.
We encourage public administration faculty around the globe to use the literature reviewed in this study, the teaching case presented, our evaluation questions, and discussion points to explore the intersection of social media and public administration education.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
