Social Media 1

[drawoh]

I continue to be involved in my local chapter of a technology association in Ontario, Canada. The association has expressed concern about its members posting on social media. I am trying to wrap my head around the issue. I may have to explain this to members.

Basically, I should be very careful about posting things to Facebook (or LinkedIn) along the lines of "I, Drawoh, CET (Certified Engineering Technologist) speak thus...", followed by pontifications on subjects I may or may not be qualified to discuss. I am fascinated with ancient history. My kitty is cuter than yours. This may be little more than being careful where I post my credentials. There is no need for my CET on Facebook.

There could be some history here, although I am not aware of anybody displaying credentials while making stupid posts.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[RenHen]

Different locale/credential but I definitely see people do this. On my feeds, it most often comes up when an infrastructure failure is in the news; suddenly tons people on LinkedIn with their credentials displayed as part of their name, or people on Facebook starting off with "as a professional engineer" are spitballing about the code compliance of some system they're entirely unfamiliar with based on some grainy news images or whatever. I occasionally also see it around local infrastructure politics (ie. "as a traffic engineer, I don't support xyz change to this local intersection")

 

[SWComposites]

As long as you are not implying that you are speaking on behalf of the technology association, or criticizing the association, then there should be no issue.

 

[RVAmeche]

Assuming you're not spreading some crazy tinfoil hat theory, I don't think there's any real concerns as long as its clear you're not actually involved like SWC says. Easiest way to avoid it is to not include your qualifications if you're just spitballing like everyone else

 

[RenHen]

Does this association have a code of ethics that includes a committment along the lines of [members will] "express professional opinions truthfully and only when founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction". That example is from the ASCE & I see similar reminders from them about social media commentary. If not, other commentors may be correct that it's primarily a PR concern on behalf of the association itself, but in the ASCE & some other professional associations, it can be unrelated to whether you're commenting about or on behalf of the association itself.

 

[MintJulep]

The association has expressed concern about its members posting on social media.

It's there an actual clearly articulated concern, or just a vague hand wavey type?

 

[drawoh]

Does this association have a code of ethics that includes a committment along the lines of [members will] "express professional opinions truthfully and only when founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction". That example is from the ASCE & I see similar reminders from them about social media commentary. If not, other commentors may be correct that it's primarily a PR concern on behalf of the association itself, but in the ASCE & some other professional associations, it can be unrelated to whether you're commenting about or on behalf of the association itself.

I think we are headed there. I am still not aware of a triggering incident.

 

[drawoh]

It's there an actual clearly articulated concern, or just a vague hand wavey type?

It was brought up by a higher level executive at my chapter meeting. We discussed it at length. I brought up Don Andrews, a Toronto area white supremacist and perennial mayor candidate. He was a public health worker, not an engineering technologist. His supervisor stated that he was a good worker. This is messy. On one hand, he is a capable public health worker. On the other hand, he would be an embarrassment to any professional organisation he belongs to.

 

[Sparweb]

Recently, APEGA failed to carve out a definition of software engineer in such a way to mandate an influx of >1,000 new members to its revenue roster.

In 2023, The Government of Alberta introduced legislation that changed the province’s Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act to...

That may be related to the triggering incident for your society's executive.

Otherwise, I think any professional organization's code of conduct should cover the member's responsibility to communicate truthfully and sincerely, regardless of the medium, but only when they're communicating in their professional capacity. As mentioned earlier, people like to whip out their credentials to get attention and recognition, but on social media, very little professional information is ever communicated.

Notice how none of our favorite correspondents on this forum put their 'P.ENG' in their signature line. That's wise.

 

[drawoh]

Recently, APEGA failed to carve out a definition of software engineer in such a way to mandate an influx of >1,000 new members to its revenue roster.

In 2023, The Government of Alberta introduced legislation that changed the province’s Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act to...

That may be related to the triggering incident for your society's executive.

I am reading your link. Is the title "engineer" restricted, or is this a fantasy of Engineers Canada? By the sound of it, it is possible to use the title "engineer" in a matter that implies you are licensed, and that is illegal. You are okay if you don't indicate or imply that you hold a license.

 

[CWB1]

One problem with the thought-police is that they attach value to the wrong things. Your value isnt in education/licenses/certifications/etc, its in your ability to solve the customer's problem - engineering! The former is a box-checking activity for hiring and regulatory purposes, and useless/valueless without the later. As such, claims that something "diminishes" the value of certs is petty bc they have no real value. Even amongst the poorly-informed general public, a quick way to make yourself look foolish is to support an argument with "in 40 years of..." "I have a Phd in..." "I am a...." or other irrelevant nonsense. In research and engineering depts that's typically the death of your reputation bc it shows that you're more interested in being correct than good engineering.

Along a similar vein, your employer's value is in the company's collective ability to solve customer problems, not in the individual employees' reputations. What employees do/say after-hours is irrelevant bc nobody cares other than those few who lack both logic and empathy for folks caught in the crossfire of their nonsense.

If somebody posed the OP's "concern" to me in-person, I'd prob dismiss it as a joke and walk away laughing.

 

[Sparweb]

walk away laughing

logic and empathy

Power distorts all logic. We all agree the matter is trivial, EXCEPT for the fact that the issue is repeatedly raised by people who have the power to wipe out a professional person's ability to earn a living. People who aren't easily held accountable for reckless use of words, or irrational decision-making. Somehow, the leadership of the professional regulators in some provinces are more "touchy" than others.

 

[drawoh]

One problem with the thought-police is that they attach value to the wrong things. Your value isnt in education/licenses/certifications/etc, its in your ability to solve the customer's problem - engineering! The former is a box-checking activity for hiring and regulatory purposes, and useless/valueless without the later. As such, claims that something "diminishes" the value of certs is petty bc they have no real value. Even amongst the poorly-informed general public, a quick way to make yourself look foolish is to support an argument with "in 40 years of..." "I have a Phd in..." "I am a...." or other irrelevant nonsense. In research and engineering depts that's typically the death of your reputation bc it shows that you're more interested in being correct than good engineering.

Along a similar vein, your employer's value is in the company's collective ability to solve customer problems, not in the individual employees' reputations. What employees do/say after-hours is irrelevant bc nobody cares other than those few who lack both logic and empathy for folks caught in the crossfire of their nonsense.

If somebody posed the OP's "concern" to me in-person, I'd prob dismiss it as a joke and walk away laughing.

If I have seen you work for fifteen years, your credentials should not matter. If I don't know you, I have limited information, hopefully including your credentials.

 

[jmec87]

APEGA addresses social media specifically in a few places in their "Ethical Practice" guideline. The first three restrictions seem reasonable. The last one (allowing them to punish you for off-duty conduct that does not involve the practice of engineering or use of title) could be abused.

https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/standards-guidelines/ethical-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=78261e0b_14

4.2.3 Presentation of Qualifications
- "Permit holders, licensed professionals, and members-in-training should present their qualifications and competence factually, without exaggeration. This includes ensuring correct and appropriate use of reserved titles and designations in all correspondence and representation, including on social media."

4.2.4 Providing Advice
- "Permit holders, licensed professionals, and members-in-training should advise on engineering and geoscience matters only on the basis of adequate skill, knowledge, training, experience, and honest conviction. They should not use their title or designation to bolster their views in areas in which they do not have competence, including in areas not related to engineering or geoscience. Using designations in social media posts, for example, should be carefully considered."

4.3.4 Expressing Opinions in Public
- "Licensed professionals and members-in-training should clearly distinguish between facts, assumptions, and opinions in their professional work and also in public discussion or published articles and comments (including social media) with respect to their professional work. When expressing opinions or taking part in public discussion, licensed professionals and members-in-training should disclose on whose behalf they are giving opinions or statements and use their professional titles and designations appropriately."
- "Licensed professionals and members-in-training can hold personal or political interests, but they should separate their personal views from their professional activities and be impartial and factual when expressing professional opinions."

4.5.5 Off-Duty Conduct
- "Licensed professionals and members-in-training are expected to respect the law in their personal conduct and should not engage in activities in their personal lives that may compromise their professional or personal reputations or discredit the professions. This includes behaviour on social media and in public settings."

I am reading your link. Is the title "engineer" restricted, or is this a fantasy of Engineers Canada? By the sound of it, it is possible to use the title "engineer" in a matter that implies you are licensed, and that is illegal. You are okay if you don't indicate or imply that you hold a license.

The use of the title "engineer" is restricted in Alberta. APEGA was probably interpreting the law correctly in its attack on software engineers until the Alberta government changed the law to explicitly give software engineers an exemption.

 

[Overvoltage]

Ugh....yes that's just ripe for misuse/abuse. It should have said "...and should not engage in activities that are criminal that may compromise..." and forget that second sentence altogether.

 

[drawoh]

Ugh....yes that's just ripe for misuse/abuse. It should have said "...and should not engage in activities that are criminal that may compromise..." and forget that second sentence altogether.

There was a message thread on Eng-Tips by someone with a criminal record for breaking and entering, a product of being young and stupid. They were wondering if it was possible to become a licensed professional engineer. The licenses and/or certificates are an indication that we will display wisdom when we make decisions, something we are not displaying when we punch the little woman in the face.

That second sentence is precisely what I posted about. The problem really is covered under "Expressing Opinions in Public".

 

[CWB1]

If I don't know you, I have limited information, hopefully including your credentials.

IME engineering managers either skim or completely skip credentials to focus on the employment history section bc that details what you have done at a professional level - Worked at X employer for Y years in Z position, responsible for tasks A, B, C on G, H, I products. IMHO its foolish to do so, but its certainly possible to "score" candidates using this history to determine who is most capable of completing the new job's requirements.

The other issue with considering credentials in hiring is that its subjective. Managers can only know a relatively small portion of the schools/organizations/companies offering credentials in their country/region, so good luck to folks who attended smaller schools/courses along with ex-pats and teammates overseas. Folks who attended great internal training programs at previous employers also wont have credentials whereas somebody who attended a lousy external program may be "certified." The other simple reality is that after a few years, we all have a rather lengthy atta-boy binder so weighing volume of credentials vs quality is deceiving.

 

[Sparweb]

Folks who attended great internal training programs at previous employers also wont have credentials whereas somebody who attended a lousy external program may be "certified."

Exactly what happened to my wife, who exploited every opportunity for training and professional development she could get from the major international petroleum company she worked for. After taking the mandatory retirement package she had no recognizable "credentials" to show for it.

 

[drawoh]

One problem with the thought-police is that they attach value to the wrong things. Your value isnt in education/licenses/certifications/etc, its in your ability to solve the customer's problem - engineering! The former is a box-checking activity for hiring and regulatory purposes, and useless/valueless without the later. As such, claims that something "diminishes" the value of certs is petty bc they have no real value. Even amongst the poorly-informed general public, a quick way to make yourself look foolish is to support an argument with "in 40 years of..." "I have a Phd in..." "I am a...." or other irrelevant nonsense. In research and engineering depts that's typically the death of your reputation bc it shows that you're more interested in being correct than good engineering.

Along a similar vein, your employer's value is in the company's collective ability to solve customer problems, not in the individual employees' reputations. What employees do/say after-hours is irrelevant bc nobody cares other than those few who lack both logic and empathy for folks caught in the crossfire of their nonsense.

If somebody posed the OP's "concern" to me in-person, I'd prob dismiss it as a joke and walk away laughing.

I have already replied to this, but I am thinking it through a bit more.

For fifteen years, You have been working with and supervising someone named Oglethorpe. You have a task to be assiged, and you know that if you give it to Oglethorpe, it will accomplished quickly and effectively. You don't care about any degrees, diplomas, licenses and/or certificates that are displayed in Oglethorpe's cubicle.

In the next scenario, I am your insurer or customer, and I am reviewing your QA. In QA, you have two strategies for assuring quality. You can have a trustworthy person write a step-by-step procedure for doing the task. This is now McDonald's gets french fries prepared by semi-literate teenagers. There is no reason to assume that anyone in a McDonald's restaurant knows how to cook. Your other strategy is to assign the task to a qualified person (QP). "Project managers shall be licensed professional engineers, or certified engineering technologists". I have written QA procedures that state that the company will assign the task to someone it judges to be competent, but this is weak. The credential must come from an external organization that I know and respect.

In yet another scenario, Oglethorpe needs to write an "I am right. Shut the f*ck up" letter or email. The recipient needs to know why it is time to shut up. I think credentials are mandatory for these things.

 

[Sparweb]

I think credentials are mandatory for these things

The two strategies you outline are valid and I've seen both in practice with success. Or more accurately, equivalent rates of failure that are low but not zero, when either trusting credentials or building trust from performance. I might say the failure modes can be different - getting more specific from my small sample size of experience won't be worthwhile.

Mr. Oglethorpe's authority still has to come from somewhere: his superiors in the organization. Those superiors, and the regulatory environment, as much as the personalities of Oglethorpe and other responsible parties in the organization, go a long way to determining how much authority Oglethorpe will be able to hold. In some companies, Oglethorpe will never earn much trust without the certificate on the wall. In others, Oglethorpe always does better than the other guy in the department who could do it. In either case, if the company is healthy, the chain of command can adapt the business processes to allow the most effective member(s) to perform.

QA practices are not written down in order to make them fixed, permanent forever. They're written down so that everyone can use them equally. Yes, there is a power given to certain words just by virtue of the paper (electrons) they are written on. But in the case of business practices, I've been at the pointy end of keeping such things up to date for many years of my life, and the big lesson for me is they never sit still. I write my own engineering procedures manual or I damn well better be able to fix the one I inherit from the previous guy in my role. Through that, I give powers (and limit them) to the people in my department.

Your last scenario (Oglethorpe's letter) may have the desired intent in *some* companies, but not most. Depends on culture. Sounds like Oglethorpe is too competent to have any need to be defensive.