Dear In Practice,

I have been on Facebook and LinkedIn for years. I’m new to Instagram and I’m having a great time curating my profile and feed. I appreciate how these platforms provide news, information, and easy connections - but participating in social media these days seems increasingly fraught.

On Facebook I enjoy keeping up with friends and family, sharing personal updates, social concerns, and making occasional commentary. I try to compartmentalize the platform as purely personal by using a variation of my name and keeping my posts private. However, given the current climate, I’m concerned that anything I “like” or comment on could be taken out of context and/or transmitted broadly.

I maintain a low profile on LinkedIn, although I regularly receive invitations from visitors and others within my organization, asking to join my network. I always feel awkward about these requests. In contrast, Instagram feels like a different world and I’m not sure what boundaries to set given the nature of my professional role.

I value the opportunities to connect that social media provides and I don’t want to be isolated and out of the loop. Is there a way for me to manage my social media while also protecting the integrity of my role and reputation?

Protecting the Integrity of our Roles and Reputations

Courtney N. Wright, Ombuds, Erikson Institute

Yes, it is increasingly difficult to manage social media platforms in a manner that protects the integrity of our roles and reputations. However, it is helpful to remember that the risk of our communication being taken out of context and/or shared broadly is not new. We grapple with this possibility in all of our verbal and nonverbal communication with others.

I find it helpful to determine the professional and personal boundaries I want to maintain on social media platforms and align my profiles and privacy settings accordingly. In addition to the SOP, reviewing your organization's professional standards and social media policy may provide further guidance. Restricting your participation (e.g. comments, posts, "likes") on professional platforms to career achievements, professional association news, and best practices for conflict resolution safeguards the integrity of our role and reputation. In the current climate, nothing can totally prevent our actions from being taken out of context or shared widely, and potentially to our detriment. This reality should encourage us to remember we are always representing our office and should be able to defend our activities on social media.

Regarding requests from visitors to join your network, implementing a boundary of using LinkedIn for engaging only with individuals external to your organization can be helpful. Explaining this practice to members of your organization who send requests can help them accurately interpret your actions as a professional boundary rather than a personal rejection. In our opening statement we can explain to visitors how confidentiality can impact ombuds-visitor interactions outside of the ombuds office; and could similarly include a boundary around social media platforms. 

While there is no one-size-fits-all answer, I believe that with care and intention ombuds can navigate the challenges of social media while gleaning its benefits.

We Don’t Have to Disappear

Liz Hill, Director of Communications & Development, MWI

(Note: Ordinarily the editors limit published responses to 250 words, but because of the complexity of the issue and the thoroughness of this response we’ve elected to publish it in full.)

I hear versions of this question often. Social media can feel like both a gift and a landmine. It helps us stay connected, informed, and visible while raising legitimate questions about perception and boundaries, especially in a role built on trust.

Here is the thing I keep coming back to: being an ombuds does not require disappearing from the world.

Nevertheless, how we show up online matters. Whether we think about it this way or not, each of us has a personal identity that shapes how people understand our role and whether they see an ombuds as approachable and human. Thoughtful engagement on social media can help to make it easier for people to understand what an ombuds does and to imagine reaching out if they need support.

Social media itself is not the problem. The real question is how intentionally we use it.

One way to think about social media is that different platforms serve different purposes. LinkedIn, for example, is commonly treated as a professional space. It is a place to stay connected, follow news and ideas, and keep up with conversations across an organization or field. Connecting with someone on LinkedIn does not automatically signal an ombuds relationship or special alignment. It can simply reflect being part of a professional community.

Platforms like Instagram often raise a different set of questions. They feel more personal, more visual, and less contained, so it makes sense that boundaries can feel less clear there. Using Instagram in a personal capacity, even enjoying it, is not inherently inappropriate. Some people choose to treat it much like Facebook. It becomes a space for family and friends, used sparingly and with limited engagement. Others use platforms like Twitter, now rebranded as X, primarily to follow news and broader conversations with little or no visible engagement. That can be a perfectly reasonable choice.

I also want to note that many ombuds offices use social media well and appropriately. Programs use LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms to share information about services, increase visibility, and help people understand when and how an ombuds can help. When done thoughtfully, this kind of outreach supports access and awareness and is fully consistent with ombuds principles.

With all social media, even with private accounts, it helps to remember how easily content can travel beyond its original context. This is why establishing boundaries around how we engage on social media is often more important than simply deciding whether to have a social media presence.

One boundary some people find helpful is distinguishing between initiating and accepting connections. An ombuds may choose not to initiate connections with people they support in their role, while still feeling comfortable accepting a connection if someone reaches out. Accepting a professional connection does not mean work has happened or that impartiality has been compromised. As with so much in ombuds practice, clarity and consistency tend to matter more than hard rules.

It is also worth naming that concerns about social media can sometimes lead us to overthink risk. In practice, many connection requests are simply that. People are curious, interested in our background, or want to understand the role better. Accepting a connection does not obligate engagement, and it can be an opportunity to quietly reinforce what the ombuds role is and is not.

Concerns about bias usually do not come from the connection itself. They tend to come from how we engage afterward; what we like, comment on, or share. How visible or selective that engagement is often matters more than the connection alone.

Underneath much of this concern is worry about bias, especially perceived bias.

As ombuds, we know this already, but it is worth saying plainly. We are human. We have experiences, perspectives, and blind spots. The role has never required us to be blank slates. What matters is self-awareness and good judgment, particularly when it comes to how our neutrality may be perceived.

Social media does not create bias. It can, however, make our beliefs, values, and preferences more visible. A follow, a like, a photo, or a comment can take on meaning we did not intend. Even when there is no actual bias at play, perception matters because trust in the role depends on how our impartiality is understood. We cannot control perceptions, only our behavior.

It is also worth remembering that many ombuds are already known in their organizations through prior roles, relationships, and reputation. Trust is usually built over time, and people often reach out because of referrals or word of mouth. Our professional reputation often speaks for itself.

Expectations around social media vary by organization. Federal agencies and some public sector employers may have stricter rules, particularly where online activity could be interpreted as work related or official. Other organizations take a different approach. Knowing your own context, and how your online presence may be understood within it, matters.

At the end of the day, the questions we are really wrestling with are not specific to Instagram, or Facebook or any of the other platforms. They are about how we show up online more generally. When deciding what feels right, it can help to pause and ask a few simple questions.

• Who is this space for?
  Is it primarily personal, professional, or a mix, and am I clear about that?
• What am I signaling through my engagement?
  What might my likes, comments, or follows suggest, even if that is not my intent?
• How would this land if someone from work came across it?
  Would a reasonable colleague, community member, or leader see it as inconsistent with my role?
• Am I being consistent in defining or establishing my boundaries?
  Do I apply the same standards across people, topics, and situations?
• Does this support approachability and trust?
  Does my presence make the role feel more human and accessible, or more confusing?
• Am I comfortable if this travels beyond its original context?
  If this were on a billboard along the highway, would I be okay with it?
• If I notice a real or perceived bias I cannot set aside, what do I do next?
  Whom should I consult, and what options are available?

If you are comfortable with the answers, you are probably on solid ground.

Ombuds are not isolated on an island. To be effective, we need to be known, trusted, and connected within our organizations and communities. Social media does not have to undermine that. Used with care, it can normalize the role, support trust, and help people understand that ombuds are both professional and human.

We value the opportunity to engage with our membership on the dilemmas we face in our roles. Please let us know your perspective on this dilemma in the comment section below.