* Audience behaviour. These are people who segment their professional and personal contacts by social networks. In this case, they are segmenters, and therefore do not accept their boss on more personal social networks (e.g. Facebook, Instagram). In turn, like the previous group, they’re driven by a self-verification motivation, posting their thoughts, whether controversial or not, as well as less conventional photographs, without too much hesitation. According to the authors, this behaviour maintains the level of respect from professional contacts, but may decrease the level of liking, as they have been ignored or rejected as friends on social networks by the person in question.
* Content behaviour. These are people who integrate their professional and personal contacts in their social networks. Like the open behaviour group, they are integrators. They do not mind adding professional contacts to their more personal social networks. The difference is that these people are driven by a motivation of self-enhancement, seeking approval from others, which implies choosing very well the content they post, which usually revolves around achievements, glamour, and everything that can improve the image of the person in question. They do not deal with controversial topics. According to the authors, these behaviours increase the respect and liking of professional contacts for these people.
* Hybrid behaviour. These are people who segment their professional contacts and people in social networks. Like the audience behaviour group, they are segmenters. In turn, and like the content behaviour group, they choose very well what content to show to their contacts, driven by a motivation of self-promotion (self-enhancement). According to the authors, these behaviours also increase the respect and liking of professional contacts towards these people.
In summary, there are two types of behaviour, open and content-driven, who choose to add their boss to non-professional social networks. The difference is that one group controls the content and the other doesn’t, thus generating different organisational implications.