Criticising your boss online

I never fail to be amazed how naive some people are.

Let us say for example that your name is Steven Harrison or Laura Atkinson (not intended to be real people incidentally - if these are your real names, please do not think that I am talking about you). You work for a company called Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd.

You are not happy with things at work. Finally one evening you go home and sign on Facebook as "Steven Harrison" or "Laura Atkinson" and make some comment upon the lines that "Mr Smith of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd is a complete jerk!", or "Ms Brown of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd couldn't run a frigging booze-up in a brewery!".

A day, a week, a month goes past. Maybe even longer. Then at 10 o'clock one morning you find yourself called into your boss's office. One not very noisy but very one-sided conversation later (this might last a bit longer if there is a union rep in attendance, but do not expect much help from the union in these circumstances) you find yourself gathering what personal effects you had in the building and wondering how unemployment claims work as you walk out of the building for the last time.

"But this is a democracy. I have the right to freedom of speech", you may claim.

Maybe. But the company also has a right to expect commitment and loyalty from its employees. A democratic right. And if you cannot offer these qualities, then the company may well look at the situation in such a fashion that they have to decide that you really cannot help them to become the company that they want to become.

But if Mr Smith really is a jerk? And if Ms Brown couldn't actually run a frigging booze-up in a brewery? Well in this case they are the owners of the company, and in a democracy one of the sad facts of life is that they have the democratic right to run the company into the ground, maybe even into permanent non-existence! This may sounds strange, but this is how capitalism works in a democracy. Quite frequently. Unless the shareholders (if such exist independently) do summat to stop them at least.

And as uncomfortable as you may be with the situation, and as bad as unemployment usually is, you really are better off out of there. And you will then have more of a democratic right to say all you like about Mr Smith and Ms Brown, provided you do not cross the line where free speech ends and libel starts. That is if you can still afford to pay for your Internet service.

And if it is not the top boss that you are criticising, but the head of a department for example?

Say you work in a packaging department and your supervisor has the habit of acting like Mussolini on a bad day.

Go back home one night and describe the individual on Facebook as "a mean petty Fascist with no soul". For example.

Don't expect any plaudits from the company this time round either. They may not fire you, but a reprimand may still be forthcoming. And nor should you expect much else.

The line management were appointed by the company. They took the decision to place that person in that role, the person has their trust. Why would they have appointed him/her to fill the role in the first place if he/she were not up to it. Company morale may suffer if the individual has all the personal grace of a Genghis Khan or a Lucretia Borgia, but there must have been a reason.

Again by taking a pot shot at this individual you have also taken a pot shot at the company. Their decision is under fire. The criticism may this time be indirect, but it still exists. And then they may well have every confidence in the supervisor and no confidence in you. If they want an assessment of you, who do they ask? Got it in one!

You may find that you are seen as a slacker and a lounger who finds three times of the day interesting - coffee breaks, lunch time, and whenever it is time to leave in the evening.

That isn't you? Of course it isn't, but according to your immediate superior in the hierarchy, you are, and who are they more likely to trust?

There are ways to tackle the problem. If you are a union member, talk to the union rep. If not, then go over your supervisor's head and talk to his/her boss. If enough people do this and there is the general consensus that the person concerned isn't quite what the company expects or believes, they may take a closer look and eventually make a change. Companies want efficiency eventually, and the more content the staff employed, the more efficient they are likely to be.

But going home and simply writing a critical comment upon social media achieves nowt useful, and is more likely to bring acrimony down upon you.

I make a personal point of never naming names when problems arise. I have worked for a number of companies over the years, either as permanent staff or as an external consultant. Some companies have had very good management and I am not afraid to mention the companies where I have had good experiences (BGC in Amsterdam, Motorola in München, Rockwell Automation in Capelle-aan-der-Ijssel, Hydro IS Partner in Oslo - plaudits to all of them). Name the individual managers, project leaders usw? No, I will not go that far, I do not want to embarrass them.

Then there were the companies which I could name as having some dreadful people in charge when I was there. But I will not do that - never mind the individuals who would rate a score of -5 on a scale from 1 to 10.

There are ways to do this. Public humiliation of others in the social media though - washing the dirty laundry if you prefer - what good does it achieve? Eventually you are more likely to find that you will only besmirch your own reputation.

That isn't fair? Maybe not, but companies that want to succeed do not like losing good people. And when some of their better personnel start walking off in other directions, they will gradually recognise the need to change - eventually.

But no amount of poisoned barbs on the Internet will have that impact, in fact they are more likely to exacerbate the situation rather than improve it!