18 Replies Latest reply on Apr 6, 2017 12:55 PM by fgomez

    When someone leaves the company...

    agustina.perez

      Hello: We have to go through and clean-up some of our users in our internal communities who are no longer with our company. After reading some of the threads on user management, it appears that the best process is to deactivate them. However, it seems that although their content remains (which is what we want), their user names are still visible which is what we don't want. Any suggestions?

        • Re: When someone leaves the company...
          John.Cloyd@JCSConsulting.com

          You can change their First Name and Last Name fields in the Admin Console to something that indicates the changed status without attaching the name.

           

          Some examples might be:

          • System Librarian
          • Archive Content
          • Former Employee (the direct approach).

           

          The content is still searchable based on all other criteria - but the name of the former employee won't be associated with it.

           

          You can duplicate the First Name and Last Name fields (I just tried in our system)... Meaning multiple former employees can have the same First Name and Last Name pairing.

          2 people found this helpful
            • Re: When someone leaves the company...
              elizabeth.guldbech

              Delia Brewster

              This looks like a good workaround! What do you think? 

                • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                  dbrewster

                  Although this is a good idea, it will not work in our situation.  The first name and last names of users come from LDAP whether active or disabled.  We do not have access to change names in the Admin Console.

                    • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                      John.Cloyd@JCSConsulting.com

                      So without knowing the specifics of why you want to remove the names I'm going to answer in generalities; and some of this is what I personally consider "Best Practices".

                       

                      1. Our standard recommendation when anybody leaves a community is "Deactivate". This keeps the content available and secure to any who might need it. (to G. Brett Miller's points).
                      2. If somebody asks to remove a name from a deactivated user there should be a pause while people justify "why remove the name". The name provides context for the content. You can often see the arc of somebody's "work" in the community by doing a combined search on their name combined with other keywords.
                        1. Be on the lookout for an answer of "we want all names removed" from deactivated users. This is corrosive and damaging to a community over time for several reasons.
                      3. Solve the problem in the smallest way possible. Can you edit the offending post(s) to remove the problem?
                        1. We were involved in a event where a community member (an independent contractor) had years of great activity and content. They were well-respected within the community.
                        2. There was a major disagreement and blow up and that contractor left. On the way out the door they responded into the middle of a discussion thread in a way that burned their bridges, scattered the ashes and salted the fields forever. Among many other problems with the post, it violated a whole bunch of community standards.
                        3. Several other community members replied to the "burn the bridges" post before we became aware of it (generally the responses were strongly in favor of company management and not in support of the bridge burner).
                        4. We put the thread into moderation to give everybody time to think and calm down
                        5. Executive management wanted him gone out of the community immediately (as in "delete him").
                        6. We proposed back (and our executives accepted) that we would edit the "burn the bridges" post to remove the parts that violated community standards while still letting it be clear that there was a disagreement. We put a note in the post that it had been edited by the community moderators and the CIO of the company added a small reply partially explaining it (provided the context for the strength of the following replies that disagreed with the bridge burner. We saved years of good content this way and allowed him to be represented by the bulk of his work which was positive and contributing to the community. As a side benefit the company looked better because we responded to the difficult situation with tact and restraint.
                      4. If you must remove the names, change the name to something generic. This will at least keep the content available.
                      5. Sometimes a combination will work - edit the offending posts and then still change the name to a generic.
                      6. Finally, and only if none of the above will solve the problem (or if the amount of work involved is unreasonable), consider deleting the user entirely
                        1. If you are at this point, your Human Resources Department, legal department and other executives are probably involved (or should be). Deleting somebody entirely (unless it is your standard, do it every time practice) may have implications far beyond the data deleted. For instance an attorney might be really interested in the fact that you deleted only their client's information, especially if their client is claiming that the deleted information might strengthen the client's side of a dispute.

                       

                      This still doesn't completely solve Delia Brewster's case where she can't control the first and last name due to LDAP constraints. My only thoughts here are:

                      1. Apply the above process to the former members in question. Perhaps #1 - just deactivate really is OK. If not...
                      2. See if IT will entertain the idea of applying the generic name change to the appropriate LDAP fields. If not...
                      3. Consider a Jive customization (but try hard to avoid a customization like this). There are at least a couple of paths that might work.
                        1. Once a user has been deactivated, stop updating Jive fields. Then after they are deactivated change them to a generic (but this has the problem that if a user re-joins the community they won't be automatically "re-joined" to the community by LDAP)
                        2. Create a customization that basically overrides the LDAP First Name, Last Name synch. You would need some way of putting people on this list and maintaining the list.

                       

                      Just my thoughts.

                      1 person found this helpful
                        • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                          christine.murray

                          What if you have SSO?  Is there a way that that connection can delete deleted users (from Okta) in Jive too?

                            • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                              John.Cloyd@JCSConsulting.com

                              Hi Christine - let me rephrase the question(s) you asked to make sure we are on the same page.

                               

                              Q. "If I deactivate a user in Okta, can Okta deactivate the user in Jive too"?

                              A. Yes - assuming you have Okta already configured to do what is called "Provisioning" and "Deprovisioning". Basically Provisioning and Deprovisioning means setting up a new user in an application or turning them off. Okta understands the difference between deleting a user and deactivating a user. All of our Okta experts are on the road today so I can't ask them whether you could configure Okta to automatically delete a user in Jive but I would be very surprised if the answer was "no".

                              1 person found this helpful
                          • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                            fgomez

                            Hey there! I created the following idea: There should be a way to transfer all content over to another user

                            If you think that idea would solve this, be sure to vote up! I think this should already be a feature, not an add-on.

                            Thanks!



                      • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                        gbrettmiller

                        If I may ask, why do you want / need to remove the user's name from the content?

                          • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                            John.Cloyd@JCSConsulting.com

                            I can't speak for Augustina - but we have had this happen with some of our clients when somebody (could be an employee, contractor or even an outside contributor) parts under difficult circumstances. I have seen outside contractors banned for unethical behavior, employees who were separated involuntarily, customers banned for violating community standards...

                             

                            Lots of possible reasons, but almost always you can't talk about particular details in order to preserve privacy (and sometimes for legal reasons too).

                              • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                                gbrettmiller

                                I understand why you would need to deactivate a users account when they leave, for whatever reason. Marking them as inactive prevents them from showing up in searches, prevents them from receiving notifications, etc but keeps their content available. The whole point of using Jive is to make sure that all of a person's knowledge doesn't walk out the door with them when they leave.

                                 

                                What I'm not sure I understand is why you would need to remove their name from the content they posted. Isn't the context of who posted something valuable in understanding / evaluating the value of the content?

                                  • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                                    John.Cloyd@JCSConsulting.com

                                    I generally agree with you - but there are times when the evaluation of whether or not keeping the name attached is a good thing (provides context, credibility etc) or is a bad thing (person was proven to be dishonest, did poor work, harassed/trolled other customers/employees or any of a variety of other reasons) isn't always answered "keep the name attached".

                                     

                                    In some circumstances the question becomes "If you can remove the name then the content can stay; if you can't remove the name then delete the user entirely" - which causes the loss of the entire content.

                                     

                                    And to your main point the retention and sharing of valuable content is the "higher calling". Sometimes removing the name gets you where you want to be even though it is damaging to other fundamental goals of working out loud.

                                      • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                                        gbrettmiller

                                        I guess I was thinking in the "bad" situation you describe that if you don't want the person's name attached because of dishonesty, poor work, trolling, etc, that the content itself would not be worth keeping either, so just delete the user. In other words, "If we want to hide the person's name, let's just delete him."

                                         

                                        Come to think of it, though, I wonder what impact that has on other people's content? For example, replies or comments to that person's posts. Hmmm....

                                         

                                        Pulling at threads always reveals something new to consider.

                                • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                                  triplettt

                                  For content that is still valid, but the original author is no longer with the company, we are using the Change Author tool to change the Created By to the new content owner.  This only applies to the content itself and not to any of the comments/replies below the content.

                                  • Re: When someone leaves the company...
                                    fgomez

                                    Hey! I created the following idea:

                                    There should be a way to transfer all content over to another user

                                    Please vote for the idea if you agree. This should already be a feature, not an add-on.