Well, apparently not, as the experience of two high profile individuals—Rob Campbell in New Zealand and Gary Lineker in the UK—has highlighted. From their respective ‘bully pulpits’ they criticised their respective governments’ policies in other areas.
Rob Campbell was the government-appointed board chair of the government body (Te Whatu Ora) responsible for restructuring New Zealand’s public health system—perhaps the most significant of the current government’s policy and operational initiatives. He was critical in a LinkedIn post of the National opposition’s (and its leader’s) position on the government’s Three Waters policy. As a result, his political neutrality was called into question and he was subsequently sacked from his chairmanship of Te Whatu Ora and the Environmental Protection Authority, another Crown entity.
Gary Lineker, a famous former English football player, has presented the BBC's flagship football show, Match of the Day, since 1999. In a tweet, he publicly criticised the UK government’s asylum policy. For drawing the BBC (a government-owned broadcaster) into an impartiality row, the broadcaster suspended him.
Campbell argued it was perfectly legitimate for someone not commenting in their official capacity to make political remarks, as long as they did not undermine the public trust in their organisation. [1]
Lineker, the sports commentator, was addressing a matter with which, through his relationship with several refugee organisations, he had been closely associated. Lineker’s agent was reported as saying said his client believed he had a special agreement with the BBC’s Director General to tweet publicly on matters surrounding refugees and immigration. [2] However, his ‘sin’ on this occasion was to draw attention to ongoing concerns about the BBC’s political impartiality.
The Campbell case is of most interest in a governance context. It would have been a reasonable expectation, and second nature to most Crown entity chairs, that they do not enter public political debate—whether directly related to the organisations they lead or not. Like the Lineker case, it was a matter of perceptions of political impartiality. Campbell held a role to which the routine expectations of political neutrality applied even though, indirectly, he was defending the government’s policy he was responsible for interpreting and implementing.
Without going further into the detail of either case, as each situation unfolded it was apparent that there was a lack of clarity and room for debate about the expectations that went with the roles from which both men were removed (although in Lineker’s case, only temporarily).
Although both these examples concerned political sensitivities, boards must also be alert to the risk of inadvertent or inappropriate use of social media causing serious brand damage. [3] They should ensure that their social media policies are kept up to date and that they use concrete, unambiguous language that extends beyond what is little more than a guideline leaving too much room for interpretation. [4] Application of these policies must also be extended beyond staff to directors and senior executives.
While the integration of social media use into our lives has increased the temptation to chip into a debate or make a pithy comment to our social media ‘friends’, the risk of this going bad for individuals and organisations has increased. The chance of organisations being caught out is ever present and has underlined the practical impossibility of corporate leaders being able to compartmentalise their lives into ‘public’ (potentially problematic) and ‘private’ (anything goes). Once commentary is in the social media space, there is only a public dimension.
This area of corporate policy is evolving fast, and a rapidly expanding resource of policy templates and other useful material is available from even a simple search engine inquiry.
A good starting point is to consider when expressing what you might think is a private view might matter—for you or your organisation. Be very wary, particularly when:
- posting means it is no longer ‘private’
- a comment has the potential to fundamentally change the game (think Elon Musk tweeting about taking Tesla private)
- the nature of the employment relationship might matter (eg, employee, advisor, independent contractor, etc.). Could your ‘private’ comment have a bearing on your credibility in meeting your primary obligation?
- it confuses the message of another organisation you have responsibility for (particularly when you are senior enough that it matters what you say)
- it could undermine confidence in your judgement about what to say, where and when
- expressing views that would undermine confidence in you regardless of other circumstances (eg, racist or strongly partisan views)
- it is just dumb (eg, when you are already on a ‘yellow card’ and vulnerable to being ‘sent off’ which was the case with Campbell, apparently. [5])
- you may risk alienating others on whom you depend on to fulfil your obligations (e.g. fellow team members - think Israel Folau [6])
- you have agreed to terms of engagement that you later contravene (eg, a code of conduct – Israel Folau, again)
A broader lesson from these two case studies is that policy making is a central element of corporate direction and control. Boards neglect the importance and form of corporate policy at their peril. The starting point is policy indicating what the corporate leadership wants to achieve. But, equally important, as these two examples demonstrate, is policy to manage risk that is expressed proscriptively to make it clear what is off limits.
NOTES
__________________________________________________________________________
[2] See Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
[3] One case in point is the social media campaign for the US beer brand ‘Bud Light’ featuring transgender ‘influencer’, Dylan Mulvaney. As a result, conservative commentators called for a boycott of the beer. Sales slumped and the brand was thrust into the spotlight of the US culture wars.
[4] The following BBC policy extract is an example of a typically loose policy statement that often proves inadequate. Lineker was suspended because his comments gave the government further evidence for its concerns about the BBC’s political neutrality, but you can see why Linker felt that he was entitled to express the views he did. His actions represented a reasonable interpretation of the policy.
"15.3.13 Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable...The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts."
What appears to have been required from a corporate governance perspective, given a desire by board and management to shore up (even restore) the BBC’s reputation, was an explicit statement designed to prevent the expression of the kind of views that might bring the BBC’s political impartiality into question. Something, like, for example: ‘Individuals identified in the public mind as BBC personnel, regardless of their economic relationship with the Corporation, may not state whether in written or any other form that may become public knowledge, any views that may bring the political impartiality of the BBC into question.’
[5] Rob Campbell very disappointed over removal as EPA chair
