#376 Freedom of speech for leaders?

Freedom of speech for leaders?

Problems, approaches and solutions to a long-running debate

Does the right to freedom of speech apply to leaders?

Discussions on this aspect have been ongoing for years. There is an urgent need for clarification here. More and more escalations arise from statements made by managers, and more and more effort has to be invested in resolving them. People quickly shout that nothing should be said these days - a fact-free position.

What is the best way to deal with this issue in your organisation?

Foundations

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. This right is guaranteed in every democracy and every organisation that supports democracy. However, nowhere is this freedom unrestricted by consequences. Laws set certain limits here. Ethics and morals, social consensus and the community within the organisation also set limits. Organisations themselves often have communication concepts that also set limits here. Arbitrary standards set by individuals who want to act by demanding cadre obedience and applying the leader principle are not legitimate. The network is complex, and so is the way it is handled.

Examples

There are well-known examples of prominent individuals utilising freedom of speech. This is their right. It is also the right of customers to react accordingly. Elon Musk declared the word 'cis' to be a swear word on his platform X, formerly Twitter. This term comes from science and is commonly used in discourse. Defining arbitrary words as swear words is unacceptable. As a result, customers left the platform in large numbers.

An employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Transport posted on social media that she was annoyed by school buses and that she would happily crash into one, especially as she believed that the safety of children was the sole responsibility of parents. Her employer dismissed her for this statement. The justification that she had said this in private was not accepted by the court. The dismissal was upheld.

Rainer Gartner, then a manager at Daimler, was accused of racism and insulting behaviour in China. The company fired the manager and communicated that such behaviour was incompatible with the company's values.

Realisation

First of all, every accused person is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Hearings, interrogations, and assessments are required until a final decision is reached. Every person enjoys these rights without exception.

The necessary training is the decisive factor for a thriving communication culture in the organisation. What professional boundaries do you set in communication? What ethical and moral boundaries are desired? What legal boundaries are there? How do you address customers? This week's podcast provides numerous practical examples (see links below).

Accompanying training or coaching regarding unconscious bias, the unconscious judgements and convictions that influence our actions, correctly and clearly defined policies and guidelines, and the professional communication of these round off a successful concept.

Conclusion: Freedom of speech was, is and remains a given in every democracy and organisation supporting democracy. This fact has not changed. However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussion. This aspect must always be remembered.

 ---

 More on this topic in this week's podcast: Apple Podcasts / Spotify

Is excellent leadership important to you?

Let's have a chat: NB@NB-Networks.com

Contact: Niels Brabandt on LinkedIn

Website: www.NB-Networks.biz

Niels Brabandt is an expert in sustainable leadership with more than 20 years of experience in practice and science.

Niels Brabandt: Professional Training, Speaking, Coaching, Consulting, Mentoring, Project & Interim Management. Event host, MC, moderator.