Corporate Control vs. Free Speech: Where’s the Line on Employee Social Media Use?

The textbook case of infantilisation of adults

How do we feel about companies dictating what we can and cannot say on our personal LinkedIn accounts? Where do we draw the line between personal opinions and representing our employer? What about freedom of speech? Employee privacy? And what happens to the employee experience when people are treated like children, monitored, and controlled?

What does it say about leadership when they try to silence employees? That they can’t lead? That they fear being exposed? That they’re clinging to outdated notions of control, thinking they can stop people from speaking up?

Of course, companies have the right to ask employees not to damage their reputation online, no one disputes that. But what happens when I simply like a post about poor management, and my insecure boss assumes it’s about them? Next thing I know, I’m sitting in HR. Should employees censor their thoughts just to avoid bruising egos?

Are organizations too focused on playing defense with social media, missing its potential to enhance their reputation through their workforce?

Before we dive into this one here is some good news for employers. LinkedIn is going down the drain and people are abandoning it by millions so employers don't have to worry about it for long. It lost its purpose. The content is terrible and it's no longer a tool for finding a job either. Now back to the topic of, should employers control your LinkedIn and other social media use?

Here is a more elaborated version where I talk a lot more about solutions and examples:

Let's start with this: If you believe that an employee speaking up or being passionate about certain topics is more damaging to your brand than restricting their social media use, or even firing them to silence them, that’s a clear sign of immature and incompetent leadership.

1 - First of all, it is a textbook case of infantilisation of adults that is defined as "Infantilization aims to preserve or create a childhood-like ignorance, incompetence, inexperience, dependence, and obedience by ignoring and breaching all sorts of boundaries to dominate and disrespect." Telling grown adults what they can and cannot do on their private LinkedIn accounts falls under this definition. Read about infantilisation in HR and management in my book.

2 - Is it HR's problem or more of marketing and legal? HR has nothing to do with this topic so I don't know why they are even involved. The use of social media is the job of legal and marketing HR might just be involved in disciplinary actions if it comes to that. BUT, here is the hard truth, good companies and professionals don't worry about negative comments, they turn them around.

3 - Such control questions the boundaries between employees building their personal brand, being curious about topics, networking and representing the company. Do we have clarity over that?

4 - Missing opportunities on both sides. Employees can miss out on work opportunities if they are inactive on LinkedIn and employers miss out on building their reputation through the workforce and on valuable information that needs their attention. A post about a bullying manager is extremely useful because they can identify the problem and address it instead of entirely missing the point and punishing the person who posted it.

5 - Here is the thing; you do more damage with the ban, control or active discouragement of the use of LinkedIn than good. Such a message in the form of a training or conversation sends a threat signal to the employees. Fear creeps in and they will shut down. Good companies don't worry about negative comments, they turn them around. There is no long-term benefit to banning or discouraging employees from using LinkedIn. And there is no long-term detriment to the company from negative employee comments. But you will do damage by banning or controlling its use.

6 - The solution must be tailored to your organisation but here are a few pointers you can think of. Instead of controlling it, you can just write on your company profile that "Under our DEI, we respect the diverse views and opinions of our employees but they do not represent us." That way we don't have to have the nonsense conversation about "it is a professional network and you work for us bla bla bla...." Next, you can add in the contract not to tarnish the company's reputation online (directly or indirectly) or provide confidential information. There is nothing wrong with that. Check the local law and legislation about defamation and incorporate it into this part of the contract and your training programs. HR, don't decide on this as you have no idea. Call marketing and legal and let them work out how online activities will be handled.

7 - Make sure people have somewhere to go to and are listened to when they have a problem so they don't end up on social media. This is when HR and whistleblowing platforms come into the picture?

8 - Watch the video because we must talk about the difference between me being curious about certain topics and my insecure manager thinking it is about him/her. Let's not control employees just because managers and leaders are insecure or because of the organisation’s inability to handle adult behaviour. Also, let's not ban and control everyone just because there is one person who doesn't know how to use social media responsibly. Deal with that one person and that's it. You will find that most of your people are ok or don't even use it. Let's not implement stuff just to deal with a few people.

Some companies get it right for brand marketing/EVP:

---

Check out what we do and how we help companies:

https://www.thestrengthscompany.com/

---

PODCAST: HR is measuring the wrong things!