Management. In Denmark, we thankfully have a free and independent press. Ethics in journalism is often a hot topic here – one of the more recent debates being about coverage of the Danish royal family. Journalism ethics is also relevant in relation to how reporters cover the business sector. The media’s mission to be first when it comes to ‘breaking news’ can at times cause press ethics and what’s in the best interest of the employees to collide.
What, for example, are the consequences when a company’s management is planning sweepings organizational changes and suddenly also has to deal with someone leaking to the press and thus to the employees?
The answer is simple. The leaders involved experience an unhealthy level of high blood pressure while trying to set an emergency plan in motion. A plan that doesn’t live up to expectations, as the details that were meant to secure the future of the employees aren’t yet finalised.
This is the scenario I experienced a Friday afternoon at the end of 2013. The employees had to go home uncertain of their future and in the worst cases, had to wait for answers for two whole days. Having to wait until Monday to have a reassuring conversation with every employee meant an increased risk of them coming up with their own answers and conclusions by talking with other employees and their families.
I was part of the top management team in a mid-sized Danish telecommunications company tasked with ensuring a successful transition to a larger telecommunications company. The transition, however, was not smooth, as there were a lot of issues in regards to geography, contracts and departmental considerations that needed to be outlined. But the most important issue at hand was to secure the employees and lay out their future role before they were informed about the new setup.
Unfortunately, it didn’t turn out that way. The futures of all employees wasn’t in place when the news was leaked.
A news outlet had gotten word of the fact that a mid-sized telecommunications company was about to become part of a telecommunications group, and they chose to run the story on a Friday afternoon.
Key figures and communications professionals asked the news outlet to withhold the news story until the management could gather all the employees and inform them about the transition to attempt to prevent uncertainty and communicate the reasons for the changes. The top management of the telecommunications company and group could have been ready to present the transition as a team at 3:30 p.m. Friday afternoon, but the primary concern for the news outlet was to publish the story as soon as possible. That’s the name of the game in the media industry, especially in the race to beat the competitors to the finish line, so the story was released at 3 p.m.
As the story broke, I witnessed how the employees gathered with confused and scared expressions on their faces. The upcoming changes of their work environment, as stated in the media, were considered uncertain rather than as the positive career opportunities they were, and as the management group would have unveiled half an hour later.
Since we were only able to pass on the news to the employees reactively, they didn’t have the good experience the management was hoping for. This was also the case for the group of key figures, as they were only able to make a delayed announcement about a major change in the employees’ working life; one which most of them weren’t able to cope with at 3:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, where the brain was already in a fight or flight mode.
How do we deal with the fact that the press in this situation sacrifices ethics at the expense of people?
On the face of it, the press was only doing their job. But this comes at a significant price when individuals and their families are affected. In this case, the need of the press to inform the public as soon as possible caused many employees unnecessary doubt and despair, seeing that we as the management had included and secured them in the new setup.
This example shows that press leaks that aren’t directly in the public interest but are still exposed to the public as soon as possible can be unethical. At times, leaks say everything about the people responsible, but they also say everything about the people or commercial institutions that use the leaks to promote their own interests, especially when it involves employees and their families.
The problem in my example isn’t the fact that the press ran the story, because that is after all their job, and it is an important one. It is the fact that leaks and the modus operandi of the press can affect people seriously.
I learned a lot from this situation, among other things that only a very few people should be involved in a confidential transition. I experienced the value of having a backup plan, so you as a leader know what to say under extreme pressure, and I learned that the fine line between the ethics of the press and employees, which will always come first to a leader, are defined differently in cases where the press choose a news story over people.
On September 7, this article was published in the Berlingske Business Newspaper via this link: https://www.berlingske.dk/opinion/naar-presse-og-medarbejderetik-kolliderer
Comments