Social media and professional relationships: what would you do?

Does how you responded to this question depend on which part of the social work service you work in - for instance, if you work with children and young people, or in community-based settings? Or do you (or the agency that you work for) have a blanket policy that you do not 'friend' or engage with any service user on Facebook, full stop?

Policies are useful shortcuts that mean you don't have to spend a lot of time explaining yourself or working out whether this circumstance justifies that action, etc. Just as a parent might have a 'policy' of no sweets before tea-time, so the agency might have a policy that its workers do not engage in Facebook friendships with service users. What are the principles that such a policy might be based on and are these principles ethical or practical ones, or both?

In fact, professional befriending has a long established tradition: Probation Officers were required as part of their role to 'advise, assist and befriend' those under supervision (Probation of Offenders Act 1907). Before electronic social media, relationships developed and withered without the explicit act of 'friending' and 'unfriending'.

The act of declaring some-one a friend (or by ignoring a request, not a friend) makes it difficult to maintain the fluidity and nuance that characterises most relationships. Regular culling of friends might be necessary as the Friends list gets unwieldy. This illustrates the discussion early in this chapter, that social media are having a qualitative impact on many of long-standing notions, such as befriending and what it is to be a friend.

In the absence of a specific agency policy about friending, what would guide your decision whether to accept a service user's request to friend you? It is probably easier to think of circumstances where you would deny the request, so think of circumstances where you might accept. For instance, perhaps when you are leaving your job, or the service user is discharged from the service; or if the service user becomes a volunteer at the centre where you work, or even a paid member of staff; or they agree to be a co-trainer with you; or they know other people that you are already friends with on Facebook.

Does how you responded to this question depend on which part of the social work service you work in - for instance, if you work with children and young people, or in community-based settings? Or do you (or the agency that you work for) have a blanket policy that you do not 'friend' or engage with any service user on Facebook, full stop?

Policies are useful shortcuts that mean you don't have to spend a lot of time explaining yourself or working out whether this circumstance justifies that action, etc. Just as a parent might have a 'policy' of no sweets before tea-time, so the agency might have a policy that its workers do not engage in Facebook friendships with service users. What are the principles that such a policy might be based on and are these principles ethical or practical ones, or both?

In fact, professional befriending has a long established tradition: Probation Officers were required as part of their role to 'advise, assist and befriend' those under supervision (Probation of Offenders Act 1907). Before electronic social media, relationships developed and withered without the explicit act of 'friending' and 'unfriending'.

The act of declaring some-one a friend (or by ignoring a request, not a friend) makes it difficult to maintain the fluidity and nuance that characterises most relationships. Regular culling of friends might be necessary as the Friends list gets unwieldy. This illustrates the discussion early in this chapter, that social media are having a qualitative impact on many of long-standing notions, such as befriending and what it is to be a friend.

In the absence of a specific agency policy about friending, what would guide your decision whether to accept a service user's request to friend you? It is probably easier to think of circumstances where you would deny the request, so think of circumstances where you might accept. For instance, perhaps when you are leaving your job, or the service user is discharged from the service; or if the service user becomes a volunteer at the centre where you work, or even a paid member of staff; or they agree to be a co-trainer with you; or they know other people that you are already friends with on Facebook.

Consider how electronic social media have changed, or added to, the meaning of 'ask'. It is difficult to imagine a colleague asking, face to face, "will you be a friend?" or committing the request to paper in a letter; but electronic communication has introduced strict binary categories that were not previously present: categorically a friend, or categorically not a friend. So, in this system, if you are not 'a friend' are you 'not a friend'?

If you are already 'friends' with some colleagues, what is the difference between colleagues who are friends and colleagues who are not - what principles help you make these decisions? What factors would influence your decision whether to accept the colleague's invitation to 'friend' on Facebook? Here are some possibilities:-

• Differences and similarities (in age, gender, professional background, length of time in the team, etc.)
• Power and seniority (is the colleague a peer, a supervisor, a supervisee?)
• Local culture (are other people in the team or agency ‘friends’?)
• Policy (does the agency have a policy about colleagues’ relationships?)
• Consequences and meaning (what do you think the colleague’s invitation signifies? is it like being asked for a drink after work?)
• Attraction (personal, not necessarily sexual. Do you like him/her?)
• Your personal feelings about privacy versus your desire not to be left out
• Trust (is this someone who will share their data and yours in a responsible manner?)

Consider how electronic social media have changed, or added to, the meaning of 'ask'. It is difficult to imagine a colleague asking, face to face, "will you be a friend?" or committing the request to paper in a letter; but electronic communication has introduced strict binary categories that were not previously present: categorically a friend, or categorically not a friend. So, in this system, if you are not 'a friend' are you 'not a friend'?If you are already 'friends' with some colleagues, what is the difference between colleagues who are friends and colleagues who are not - what principles help you make these decisions? What factors would influence your decision whether to accept the colleague's invitation to 'friend' on Facebook? Here are some possibilities:-

• Differences and similarities (in age, gender, professional background, length of time in the team, etc.)
• Power and seniority (is the colleague a peer, a supervisor, a supervisee?)
• Local culture (are other people in the team or agency 'friends'?)
• Policy (does the agency have a policy about colleagues' relationships?)
• Consequences and meaning (what do you think the colleague's invitation signifies? is it like being asked for a drink after work?)
• Attraction (personal, not necessarily sexual. Do you like him/her?)
• Your personal feelings about privacy versus your desire not to be left out
• Trust (is this someone who will share their data and yours in a responsible manner?).

There will be readers who wonder why this is considered to be a dilemma, but for completely different reasons: those who see texting service users as integral to their work and those for whom it is a no-no.Texting permits a different type of intimacy between social workers and service users, perhaps a more casual connection that has advantages and disadvantages. It could make service users feel able to cancel appointments rather more readily as they don't have to tell the social worker to their face.

Texting means service users can contact social workers out-of-hours. You may not get the message until you turn on your work phone in the morning, but does it feel 'right' that texts can be left with you at midnight? How long after a text was sent would you expect to respond to it? Texts are open to misinterpretation, especially with abbreviated language.

On the other hand, a text to a service user is a very useful, not too obtrusive way of reminding them about an appointment or sending a word of encouragement when you know they are doing something they feel anxious about.

Would you think it is right to give some service users your work mobile phone number (thereby inviting the possibility of texts) whilst denying it others? If so, what criteria would you use to decide which service users are in and which are out, and would this be fair?

There will be readers who wonder why this is considered to be a dilemma, but for completely different reasons: those who see texting service users as integral to their work and those for whom it is a no-no.

Texting permits a different type of intimacy between social workers and service users, perhaps a more casual connection that has advantages and disadvantages. It could make service users feel able to cancel appointments rather more readily as they don't have to tell the social worker to their face.

Texting means service users can contact social workers out-of-hours. You may not get the message until you turn on your work phone in the morning, but does it feel 'right' that texts can be left with you at midnight? How long after a text was sent would you expect to respond to it? Texts are open to misinterpretation, especially with abbreviated language.

On the other hand, a text to a service user is a very useful, not too obtrusive way of reminding them about an appointment or sending a word of encouragement when you know they are doing something they feel anxious about.

Would you think it is right to give some service users your work mobile phone number (thereby inviting the possibility of texts) whilst denying it others? If so, what criteria would you use to decide which service users are in and which are out, and would this be fair?