The more things change, the more they stay the same.” – Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
In 2018, our SRA Update discussed The Culpability of Free Speech. Years later, the topic is worthy of revisiting; though much has changed since original publication, the core message stands firm.
What’s changed? In 2018, Facebook had over 2.23 billion monthly average users (MAU) compared to 2.96 billion in 2022. Twitter reported growth from 298 million MAU in 2018 to 368 million in 2022. TikTok catapulted from 271 million MAU in 2018 to over 1 billion MAU in 2022.
What’s stayed the same? No matter the medium, we have always had the right to free speech, but never before has the freedom of opinion been accessible to so many. But what happens when instead of judging, we end up being judged?
The Culpability of Free Speech: 2018’s SRA Update
If you had to pinpoint a turning point, it was perhaps the launch of CNN in June of 1980. Prior to CNN, news programming delivered relatively factual information for an hour or two a day. After CNN, although it was an amazing accomplishment to cover events live as they happened and to have an endless stream of information, it created a demand for opinion. How else would you fill 24 hours of news for 365 days per year?
A decade later, the abundance of the accessibility for opinions skyrocketed with the growth of easy-to-use Web browsers in the mid-1990’s. As of 2018, Facebook has over 2.23 billion monthly active users – all voicing their opinions.
We have always had the right to free speech, but never before has the freedom of opinion been accessible to so many.
As an employer, what is your culpability for the free opinions of your employees?
Most hiring managers are quite savvy when it comes to researching potential new hires; they check out pictures on social media, they judge extracurricular activities, and they may even choose to end the interviewing process based on things discovered online.
What happens when instead of judging, we end up being judged?
Consider the ramifications of an A-Player researching whether or not to interview with your organization, and seeing what to them is a controversial article shared from an employee within the firm. Consider one of your key accounts, someone who has done business with your organization for years, distancing themselves based on a persistent string of what they perceive to be annoying comments online. This is not limited purely to social media; consider the consequences of a potential client reviewing your firm, and viewing information on your website that makes them feel like their business may not be welcomed at your firm because of differing beliefs.
Now, go back and re-read the prior paragraph. Notice the following:
- “seeing what to them is…”
- “what they perceive to be…”
- “makes them feel like…”
In other words, we are not required to take responsibility for the feelings and reactions of others, but we should take responsibility for being the catalyst for those feelings and actions.
This does not mean that individuals should not have the ability to express freedom of speech, and of course great things have come from it. The challenge that remains is one of authority; who is to say what is appropriate and what is not? Is that really the responsibility of senior leadership and human resources to balance the potential damage to a company’s image and reputation against their desire to foster a supportive workforce that doesn’t micromanage the actions of every employee? In some extreme examples, termination over controversial behavior could be easily rationalized. In others, it does not require malice of forethought to make prospective candidates, clients or other employees feel uncomfortable.
If guidelines should be established, ask the following questions:
- Is what I am about to share positive in nature or negative?
- If negative, what is my desired outcome?
- If positive, what audience might still have a differing opinion and am I okay with that audience feeling alienated?
- When entering into an online debate, ask yourself: how often has your opinion been changed by a similar form of communication? Likely answer: never.
- Would I be comfortable voicing this opinion to someone in person, or would I adjust my message or tone if I was discussing this face-to-face with an individual?
- Insert the opposite perspective or belief; how would you feel if you read it online from a vendor? Would you question if you would want to continue to work with that client?
- Is it worth it?
In many organizations, focused training on understanding multiple perspectives is limited. This skill is about authentically learning about others and better understanding their point of view on a specific topic or situation. The ultimate goal is to consciously and genuinely listen to the perspective of others and see it simply as a perspective. As a leader, consider operating by the Platinum Rule: “Treat others the way they want to be treated.” The Platinum Rule accommodates the desires of others, and shifts the focus from “this is what I would want, so I will treat everyone the same way” to “let me first understand what matters to this individual, and I’ll figure out a way to give it to them.” Operating from the Platinum Rule doesn’t require leaders to change who they are, it doesn’t require submitting to the demands of others, but it does require an understanding of what drives people and recognizes the options for interacting with them. People do what they do because of them more than because of us. Widening our perspective can increase awareness and social sensitivity.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” –Anne Frank
No Replies to "The Culpability of Free Speech, Part 2"