Part 4: Who is at the table
I like how you articulated the four "horsepersons" of the SMP (Social Media Policies). There are the obvious choices. However, I would like to argue for the inclusion of the MemberCare/MemberHealth rider as well. Certainly we need to have policy that meets legal and regulatory standards, but if only those four are the designers and implementers of the policies, then I am afraid the result will be less than satisfactory.
MemberCare is a dynamic, changing, connection between the organization and their people. Resource people in this domain delight in talking, surfacing needs, and meeting them, or arranging for them to be met. Left unsupervised, they could sally forth into potentially problematic areas, in terms of the social media square.
However, in the planning stage of policy development, I would encourage organizations to bring in the MemberCare people to present ideas, look at potential road maps, and review the assets and liabilities of each. This dynamic interplay serves two purposes, at least. First, it puts the free ranging MemberCare ideas into an executive planning matrix, and, if you will, allows for some potentially good caring and development to go on right there. Second, it brings along the MemberCare person in terms of understanding more of the background of why certain things can’t be done certain ways. That will hopefully impact future planning strategies for the positive.
I guess if I could summarize, involving all the key players in policy development may not be fun, but learning about caring can be "quadra-directional" (!) – up and down, and side to side. And God knows we can use more practice time.
Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion
Because of the generality of the information on this site, it may not apply to a given place, time, or set of facts. It is not intended to be legal advice, and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations