If you do not like the work that you get paid to do, there is always someone better to replace you. Life is too short to waste everyone’s time and money.

I totally agree that Cisco should probably follow up with explanations of why they might be a great company to work for, but presumably if the post was ever advertised etc, there’s a reasonable assumption that someone might agree with the positive side of working for a company if they’re attending an interview and getting a job offer from that firm?

And although we’re increasingly in a free-agent economy, I’m not sure everyone is in the financial or professional situation to necessarily operate as a free agent, and publicly badmouthing your current or potential employer is pretty certain to make you a free agent whether you want to become one or not! We all know there are some roles in companies which can be dull or mindless, but if you’re being paid to do those roles, then you have some element of responsibility to the company to keep criticism internal in exchange for your wages – if you take the criticism external due to frustration for example, you might be justified morally in doing it, but you also have to accept the fact that the company has the right to terminate giving you money.

It’s a really interesting time to be seeing what happens to the employer/employee relationship in private and public thanks to the growing levels of opportunity and interaction that fixed and mobile web is bringing. And I’d agree that a business like Zappos probably wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with due to their innovation in hiring and employee strategies, but would also have probably reacted in a more constructive way….

Oh and @Jessica – I make mistakes all the time, and regularly poke fun at colleagues and even my boss – but the important difference is that I think about what I’m publishing online and make sure that it’s not going to reflect badly on me, my colleagues, or my employer – even when my blogs are not linked in any way to my employment and don’t reflect their views or opinions. And the other difference is that I’ve got almost a decade of working with the company which means I’ve developed relationships with colleagues and bosses which means they’ll hopefully be more understanding should I ever accidentally cross the line, and I can also point to those years of work as possible justification for not terminating my employment.
(For the record, I’m definitely of the opinion that, for example, Facebook images of someone getting drunk or partying in their personal life shouldn’t be seen as a reflection on their professional abilities or demeanour, and companies are definitely over-reacting if they believe otherwise, but while things are still new and evolving, we have to accept that not everyone thinks that way yet)

The first tweet that started this whole drama aren’t unusual for new hires. Everyone assesses the prospects of a job. They use the information they have at hand. Clearly, if there was an inspiring opportunity for this prospect it remained unbeknownst to him/her. At the end of their interview they were offered…a job. Great. Good for all involved. They weren’t offered a mission, a purpose, a vision that mattered to them. They were offered a job, a fatty paycheck. And they assessed the fatty paycheck vs the commute and the day at a job they may hate.

I’m not sure why they feared they may hate the job. But clearly, their visit to the company left them with the fear they may hate it.

We’re in a free-agent economy. Gasp. They’re taking the job for the money. OMG! And it’s but a job to them. OMG! I’m shocked and dismayed at humanity.

What’s not clear nor mentioned is the responsibility of the company, the hiring manager, to communicate the opportunity. What’s the upside, the buzz, the sizzle, the Purpose, that makes this position more meaningful than a job, with a fatty paycheck and a long commute. What’s the purpose of this tribe, this community, they may be joining that makes this so much better than a job, with any paycheck, much less a fatty one.

Success in that endeavor pre-empts these types of tweets from new hires.

The hiring manager’s job is also to assess whether said prospect understands and values the opportunity, the values and purpose of the tribe and the community that make this company meaningful for them, and would add the greater meaning for the new member.

Success in that endeavor pre-empts these types of tweets from new hires.

Now. Let’s say hiring manager assumed success in their responsibility. And they were to find this tweet from their new hire. “Clearly what we have here is a failure to communicate.”

This failure is no different than a customer complaining on twitter about a product or service that failed to deliver. The company now has an opportunity to reach out and engage and communicate. Rather than a brooding threatening note in response (would you do that to a customer? And what is a prospective hire, but a prospective customer of your brand?) why not a note that accepts some responsibility for the failure to communicate why this company and why this position was so exciting, what opportunities awaited?

Success in that endeavor pre-empts the need for ‘that’ response from the tribe’s enforcer on twitter.

Granted, it’s twitter. And that means 140 character limit. But, if brands like Typepad and Comcast and Zappos and others can handle unhappy brand ambassadors with twitter, then surely a company as ‘versed’ in web2.0 as Cisco’s enforcer claims could surely turn this situation into an opportunity to showcase their excitement in text that’s meaningful to ‘others’ outside their company.

(The article is basically critical of Tim Levand’s response and the resulting internet witch hunt)

I totally agree that people targeting theconnor by trawling for information and reposting it are wrong to do so – but it has to be understood that absolutely anything you publish online can and will be found if people have a reason to take an interest.

I don’t agree that Tim Levad has been hypocritical – in my post, I mentioned that the lines blur if you’re been employed by a company for a while, and it depends on the specific company in question – if I claimed, (very hypothetically) that a task is boring, I’d be able to balance it with 8 years of working for the same company, and an established relationship with my boss etc. If you do it as a new hire, you don’t have anything to balance your comments with.

I’d also disagree that it was possible to handle this internally with any ease – contrary to the link, you can’t private message people on Twitter unless they are following you – so a public reply makes sense, with the only other option to trawl through the internet looking for ways to contact someone who has just criticized a job offer.

And also contrary to the article, which states employees of large companies shouldn’t speak on the company’s behalf – that’s exactly what the social media/social networking would enables and encourages businesses and employees to do.

As I said, I have sympathy for theconnor due to the internet vigilante mob that has sprung up around this, but it’s not a new phenomenon, and some awareness around making information publicly available was needed – the same internet response has also had some positive responses – for example, tracking a car stolen by a member of a popular car forum, or raising the alarm when a student was arrested overseas.

Tim’s comment may not have been as diplomatic as it might have been, but in the context of the situation, it makes a lot of sense, and certainly doesn’t make me believe him, or Cisco, to be unprofessional. As Mark said, the fact they caught it and responded builds their reputation, and I’d rather be interacting with company representatives capable of human responses than automated PR machines any day!