Why disclaimers like this are a bad sign

For understandable reasons, we're seeing many people sharing their thoughts on Putin's invasion of Ukraine ???? on LinkedIn. In many cases, they're adding disclaimers like the one above. Which got me thinking...

On the face of it, these types of disclaimer are sensible. After all, when you're expressing personal opinions, you're not generally speaking on behalf of your employer. Yes, there are exceptions; I'll get to those later.

But something bothers me about the fact that people feel the need to include them. Whether that's because their employer has required them to as part of a corporate social media policy, or they're just doing it out of an abundance of caution.

Because it suggests either a lack of trust on the part of the employer or, at the very least, a perception on the part of the employee that, without it, they could get into trouble for expressing their opinions. Which, when you think about it, is somewhat worrying. After all, if someone is in a role where the views they express could genuinely be considered the company's position, they really ought to understand that what they say matters and not provide 'hot takes' that could conflict with the company's official position.

If you're a CEO, a Board Member, a Press Officer — or of requisite seniority and commenting on a subject directly related to your area of responsibility — then there is obviously room for confusion between an official position and your personal views. If you're in charge of a business division, then commenting on something that relates to that division means you're making a statement that is relevant to your work.

But if you're not, then the disclaimer doesn't help. If you want to mitigate the risk that an employee will say something unhelpful on social media, then help them understand the risks to them and the organisation. Don't give them a disclaimer that feels like an invisibility cloak.

I'm not a lawyer or PR expert—so any readers who are, feel free to correct me —but it doesn't seem to me that a disclaimer is a particularly effective shield in either the Courts or the Court of Public Opinion. If an employee engages in a racist rant on social media, you risk owning the problem if it becomes public. With or without the disclaimer.

I also think it's unhelpful from a cultural perspective. Because I think it encourages a distinction between an employee's personal opinions and values and what they're allowed to "bring to work". After all, if you think it's a message your employer won't agree with, then having to put a disclaimer on it when you speak about it in a personal capacity probably won't do much to encourage people to raise it internally. What better way to foster debate inside your company than to show that you're comfortable with it going on outside?

By way of illustration, last weekend, BP announced that due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, they would divest their share in Rosneft, a Russian energy company. In a note to employees published on BP's website, CEO Bernard Looney said:

A number of you have shared your concerns with me directly. I really appreciate?it – it’s important you feel you can do this in our company, so thank you.?

He's absolutely right. I'm sure BP came under enormous political and shareholder pressure. But I think the employee voice will also have played a part. And I don't think that's a discussion that should just have been happening inside the company. If we want to mitigate human risk and build sustainable businesses, then we need to maximise human reward — in other words, get the best out of our people.

So, if you're voluntarily using one of those disclaimers — and to be clear, if I wasn't self-employed, I might also feel the urge?— or you're responsible for imposing it as part of a corporate social media policy, ask yourself why. Much as it feels sensible, I think it's counter-productive.

By all means, restrict those whose words do matter. But if you want your employees to be free to express their opinions at work, then I'd argue it's not a good idea to implicitly restrict them from doing so in their personal capacity.

Particularly when they're expressing views on something as awful as we're witnessing in Ukraine ????

Christian 'my views & those of my company Human Risk, are perfectly aligned' Hunt

PS If you liked these insights, then why not subscribe to the Human Risk email newsletter??As well as a summary of all of my LinkedIn posts — like this one — you'll get research insights, practical tips and my recommendations for videos, books and podcasts that can help you better manage human risk. Sign up ???here.