The Enemy Within

Mar 1, 2010

Question: What can you do about an employee who publicly expresses views that conflict with the company’s mission?

by Fil Fraser

The Case: You’re the CEO of a mid-sized company, a proud part of Alberta’s oil economy though not directly connected to the extraction industry. A member of your team has become an outspoken environmentalist, taking a hardline position against oilsands emissions. She is careful not to mention your company, and in her statements she always underlines the fact that she speaks as an individual – as a concerned citizen. Still, she advocates – and is seen to be advocating – policies at odds with both the organization’s business model and its core values. What should you do?

The Panel
Ken Chapman: a lawyer, principal in Cambridge Strategies Inc., a public policy consulting firm, and a blogger
Heather Douglas: CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce
Janet Keeping: a lawyer and president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership

Janet Keeping: That’s a fascinating position for an employer to be in. It’s interesting to note that it’s still the case that employers can get rid of employees without giving reasons if they’re given enough notice or enough money in lieu of that notice. This is not true if your contract of employment specifically dictates differently; it’s not true if you’re covered by a union agreement or if you’re appointed to a public body pursuant to regulations or legislation. But most of us don’t work in those circumstances. Most of us work for employers and are not protected by any particular contractual or legal terms. And the old law still then applies to us. If this employer wants to get rid of this person because the employer feels that the employee is endangering the business, there’s no question that he or she can do it.

Ken Chapman: Too many organizations work on an old command-and-control from the top down model, the same way we see government working. If you step out of line, there are serious consequences. However, more enlightened companies and governments invite different points of view and encourage dialogue – not in an adversarial way – in trying to develop a better understanding, looking for real solutions with genuine input from a variety of sources. Having a wide open, free-flowing, respectful discussion on possibilities and alternatives by points of view and attitudes – isn’t that the essence of democracy? I think we’ve got to move past that 18th-century mindset. I see movement happening all over the place, especially in the oilsands industry. I see it happening in forestry, dramatically, and I see it happening in manufacturing. This is about good corporate citizenship.

Heather Douglas: My first response is to take an educational approach to the problem. This is a free country, and all employees, as long as they live up to the values of the company, are allowed to do what they believe.

If I have someone in my company who’s young and and passionate, well-educated and who really cares, they’ll tend to ask the hard questions, and challenge the values of the company, which is a good thing. If they cross the line, then their values no longer fit with the values of the company and you should encourage that person to find another position.

Keeping: It’s true that employees have a duty of loyalty to their businesses, to their employers. There’s no question about that. And that means that if this employer was actually producing in the oilsands or close to that industry and if this employee – granted in her off-hours, granted her saying it’s only her opinion – is loudly all over the place criticizing the industry, saying oilsands should not be produced, that’s one thing, and the employer would be perfectly within its rights to fire that person, maybe with cause. Clearly that’s disloyal. Clearly you don’t have to keep someone like that in your employ.

Chapman: You can take a very legalistic point of view and you can also take a very social point of view. There are expectations both ways. This is one of the toughest things people deal with and I’ve seen it being dealt with all the time. I’ve had employees do that, especially when you’re working for third-party companies.

There has to be a policy about it, there have to be some limits on it, and I think there has to be some discussion about it. Which trumps which: is it your job or your right of free speech and your right of association? In legal terms, your right of free speech and your right of association trumps the job. By the same token, so long as I’m not discriminating on any other grounds, do I have to have you working for me when you’re taking those kind of positions? I can argue this both ways. I’ve had direct experience with this issue in my own business. Some people in the oilpatch are acknowledging that they have a problem, that they do need to use their best efforts to mitigate the effects of their activities on the environment. Some of them even speak of some environmentalists with a certain amount of respect, sometimes saying they have a job to do and so have we. It’s good to have a diversity of opinion in your organization. It doesn’t have to be adversarial. We need to take it on the basis of good citizenship, and the rights and duties of good citizenship, both corporately, individually and governmentally.

Douglas: I would try to get her a special assignment up in the oilsands to let her see first-hand what is actually happening on the ground. The oilsands companies are doing a phenomenal amount of work, investing a phenomenal amount of money in order to be prudent in their treatment of the environment. I would try to make her part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I wouldn’t fire her off the top. I think she could be a valuable asset to the corporation.