The new BBC director general Tim Davie is to crack down on staff social media posts in the name of impartiality. Maybe that’s fair, it’s the BBC, but what about other organisations? Is heavy handedness, or risk aversion depending upon your point of view, the path to follow?
With all social media accounts, excluding those in the name of a specific company or organisation, it’s the individual who sets up the account, and it’s the individual who should matter most.
Just because your name is sometimes (LinkedIn) followed by your job title and who you work for does not mean the views and information you post represent those of the organisation you work for, nor should it be assumed so. Most people seem to understand this. Nor does it mean that the information you share or link to represents your own opinion, you may just find it interesting.
So why do some organisations bring in draconian rules and policies about what you can and can’t do on your own time on your own social media accounts? Are they really saying you shouldn’t have an opinion on anything that might be perceived as damaging to their brand, however tenuous?
You would have to question why any organisation would think that way.
If posts contravene the law, for example any form of discrimination or behaviour that is a hate crime, then fair enough. But if they don’t, then why not just let it go. Politics, sport, music, and the state of the world in general were all conversation topics in pubs, restaurants, and coffee shops prior to the advent of social media; digital platforms have just provided a more public medium for viewpoints and debate.
Everyone seemingly has a view on the response to COVID-19, and almost everyone had a view on the pros, cons, whys, and wherefores of Brexit, which will no doubt resurface as Deal or No Deal reaches decision time.
A strong and confident organisation will not pay too much attention to what their employees post on non-work related issues in their own time, apart from the caveats listed above. And it really isn’t any of their business, and the good ones know that.
A very strong organisation will also accept constructive criticism on work-related issues from its own employees, usually on internal digital platforms, and will encourage genuine two way feedback.
A weak and insecure organisation may encourage two way dialogue, but then employ control freakery and retribution against individuals who speak out and don’t toe the party line.
How many of you have worked for organisations that have destroyed months and years of efforts to encourage staff engagement by demonstrating they didn’t really mean it by the actions they’ve taken against a whiff of dissent?
Ironically, those which act in the most macho and draconian ways internally often seem to be the most timid in what they say, or rather don’t, in the public domain. Social media has provided a platform for individuals and organisations to make their views known, and to encourage debate around key issues. So use it.
Instead of wasting time on social media policies which often use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, why not go with “Don’t be a prat”, and leave it at that. A code of conduct should already cover the more serious transgressions, there’s no need to add to it.
There are many things for organisations to worry about, their own employees having minds of their own isn’t one of them. Differing views should be seen as a positive, not a negative. It’s how progress is achieved.
Simon Hope
writeoncue 