I think what’s so interesting about your post, is that the phenomena, in part, has to be related to the fluid nature of the employment market today. As you mentioned, the 3AM idea is now tied to the idea of the new opportunity – and today, that new opportunity is a different opportunity outside of the company that has your 3PM ideas. At a time when the idea of employment itself was tied to the notion of working for same company for 20 to 30 years, tying the 3AM idea to that company made sense – because that WAS the next step.

So yes, personal brands are certainly enabled through technologies – but I think the need to develop those “brands” is just as much a reflection of necessity.

As to loyalties, and what happens after a “break up”: the customer is always right. Customers and networks, in my experience, self-select the individuals over time that they want to work with, and anyone who doesn’t “get” that that is going to happen (e.g. controlling employers), miss the boat.. . .and eventually the business.

Thanks for the post! – VV

Ultimately, “who owns the idea?” is really a fair compensation/ROI problem that is a win-win in its natural state. If I’m a company owner, I might be pretty perturbed to find out that my employee investment is being undermined by a self-serving employee that is withholding ideas. If I’m an employee with a game-changing idea, I want to make sure that I’ve negotiated a side deal to reap both financial and non-financial rewards. As an owner, I want to boast to clients about my innovative, talented team members. As an employee, I want future employers/clients to know about my innovative, talented team work. It only doesn’t work when one party is trying to get over on the other.

“What happens when the person quits or is fired—does the network have to choose whose side to take, as if they were friends with two people who just broke up?”

But I think its more than whether the network has to take sides. “Whose network is it anyway?” is another key question. The network has been built on the premise that the individual has been working on behalf of the organization and has been built by the individual, ostensibly for the benefit of the organization, and due to the association of the individual with the organization. Whose network is it? And who can do what with that network?

You Can’t Take It With You? or can you?

When business relationships become personal relationships and corporate brands and personal brands overlay, these questions become more relevant and important.

My relationships and contacts are more than names, phone numbers and email addresses. When your reputation is more than your business title and the relationships go beyond basic business – meaning that you’ve developed the relationship in more dimensions than what initially brought you together – are there new responsibilities on both the businesses and individuals involved when the initial businessemployee/contractor relationship ends?

I am in the process of thinking and working this through now following a seven-year business relationship that has concluded.

Eric

This is a huge problem for technology companies. When you join a company like IBM, they require you to sign over all intellectual property (minus any specific exclusions you list right there and then) to them. So that 3AM idea is the 3PM company’s property when you’re a salaried white collar worker, and the company has the right to it first. So needless to say, when you join a company like that, it’s nice to have another business entity that owns your other IP (blogs, networks, etc) and state that up front.

I’ve heard stories where corporate recruiters have been asked to sign over their LinkedIn accounts when leaving a search firm or company they were recruiting for. I think it’s really important to set those things up before joining any company, and to make sure they walk out the door with you when you go.

@Amanda—Oh, hi! Just talking about you… Agreed on all points. The dynamic isn’t new, but the new social mediums amplify it and put it in everyone’s face… and that does represent a change… because whereas previously a few people who “got” it could take care of this thing more or less privately, now the deals need to be done in the open… and that means a whole lot of people are going to be involved then who don’t “get it.”

@Kari—I’m feel truly grateful every time I get through the words “individual” and “presentation” without misspelling or mistyping them. When I get “profersonalism” right, I do a little dance.

My 2 cents. While I’m not sure I buy the “company found liable for discrimination because the star employees network lacks sufficient minority rep…” There have always been company “stars” with personal brands and big networks and for the most part we haven’t “gone there” before.

Personal brands w/ big networks aren’t anything new. The difference now is the new medium, the Social Web amplifies each pretty dramatically and because no one owns it and everyone is an equal participant the employee can have just as much of a voice as the employer.

New advantages and disadvantages for sure but even in the old days the face of a company would leave and their posse would follow…

Already trying to think of a good way to refer others to this post. Everyone should read it!

This potentially changes the face of not just hiring, but business development and sales for both b2c and b2b companies. So may questions. This is truly exciting, cutting edge stuff.