Employees Leaking Company Conversations

Marc Benioff, CEO at Salesforce

It can be an uncomfortable situation when a leader is asking employees why new hires aren’t being sufficiently productive. Then, when company conversations end up in front of the press and on Twitter, what then?

Salesforce’s co-founder, chairman and CEO Marc Benioff is wondering too.

Communication Intelligence discusses the unapproved release of company-employee talks. Yet, first, some backstory.

Benioff was unhappy that his communication with employees ended up before the eyes of the media and was disseminated on social media.

“I hope you will agree it is also disappointing that our private conversations here were almost immediately given to the public media.

“I wonder how do we reinforce that Trust is our highest company value?

“How do we demonstrate the power of Trust and Transparency without an immediate public disclosure. It gets to the heart of who we are at salesforce,” he wrote.

His responses were shared with CNBC. Why did this happen to Benioff and his company and other leaders and organizations?

This discussion includes Josh Glasstetter, director of communications at Insurate; Phil Gomes, chief communications and marketing officer at Bloq, Priscila Martinez, CEO of The Brand Agency and Omri Hurwitz, CEO at Omri Hurwitz Media.

Benioff felt disappointed and maybe betrayed by the leak of company communication. Leaders consider it unprofessional and unethical. Yet knowing how to inform and remind employees that a breach is wrong without setting off a bigger fire inside and outside of the organization, with the team, media and public relations can be treacherous landscape.

There is risk involved, Glasstetter cautions, to speak negatively to a decision to share private company communication.

“I understand Benioff’s frustration, but there is no better way to guarantee a leak than to admonish employees for leaking. It almost always backfires,” he says.

Glasstetter’s point is one that Martinez agrees.

“Calling attention to a leak will inevitably set off a bigger fire,” she says. “Individuals creating leaks have a strong motivation that outweighs the possible consequences for them personally. As such, no amount of responsible communication will deter a bigger fire when a leader calls out that behavior.”

Instead, she has a different recommendation for leaders.

“I advise my clients to proceed with calling out a leak in a way that assumes their second message will also be leaked. Leaders should most certainly set that standard for what is acceptable and not within an organization, but it comes with the very real risk that message will also be shared,” Martinez says.

Glasstetter points out that the size of the meeting and choice of communication platform also increases risk for Benioff and Salesforce.

“He’s the CEO of a large company with tens of thousands of employees. Anything he says on an all-staff Slack channel that is even remotely newsworthy or antagonistic will be released to the press.”

Gomes brings up a strong word to describe what happened at Salesforce and happens with other companies.

“Piracy occurs when distribution mechanisms are flawed,” he says.

“Buying CDs was inconvenient, so there was Napster, which led to Apple professionalizing the electronic distribution of music. Downloading movies off of Limewire was awful, so Netflix and Amazon Prime made it inexpensive and simple to enjoy that content.

“With that framing, and barring examples of true scandal and legitimate whistleblowing, leaks like this Salesforce post on Slack are basically ‘internal communication piracy.’”

The problem can be less what it looks like and more about what isn’t immediately considered.

“It points to flaws in internal communication more than it does a breakdown in an employee's sense of right and wrong, even if both might be present here,” Gomes says. “So, the solution isn't for the leader to say ‘Don't leak. It's bad.’ People who leak information already know this, at some level. The solution is for the leader to ask ‘What about my company's culture is making it difficult for employees to come forward?’”

Hurwitz addresses the challenge through a different lens and offers alternative ways of responding.

“Clearly explaining the reasons why leaks are unprofessional — and the potential negative consequences they can have for the organization — such as damaging relationships with clients or partners, undermining trust and teamwork within the organization, and harming the organization's reputation.

“Providing examples of how leaks have caused problems in the past, if applicable, and explaining how the organization has addressed those problems.

“Encouraging employees to speak up if they have concerns or problems, but to do so through appropriate channels, such as by discussing their concerns with their supervisor or human resources representative.

“Offering employees training or resources to help them understand how to handle sensitive information and how to communicate effectively within the organization.

“Addressing the underlying causes of leaks, if possible, such as by addressing employee grievances or improving communication within the organization.”

Dissatisfied or angry employees are increasingly deeming it acceptable to share internal communications that aren't related to scandal. Leaders have to determine what is an ethical, effective response that will be received positively or at least not in a manner that further fans the flames of disagreement or dissension.

“For one thing, it's so easy and the level of friction is low,” Gomes says. “A leaker no longer has to wait until 10 pm to use the photocopier and sneak documents past the night watchman in their pants, for example.

Glasstetter agrees.

“There are endless reasons for why employees share internal communications, and it’s never been easier to do,” he says.

“Corporate communication tools such as Slack have converted internal conversations and deliberations into extensive, searchable digital archives. They have also collapsed hierarchies and facilitated new types of conversations at scale, which at times can be divisive.”

The reality should be clear, he asserts.

“If the upsides are self-evident, the risks should be as well.”

There is also the new workplace and the psychological change regarding connection that should be discussed.

“For many employees, work-from-home has meant reduced managerial oversight and attachment to one’s employer,” Glasstetter says. “The pandemic has also seen economic uncertainty, political polarization, social instability and increased scrutiny of companies and organizations. These are some of the many factors that have motivated employees to release internal communications.”

Gomes too has noticed a new development that might have become a variable for sharing company communication without permission.

“We also lionize leakers these days as heroes of transparency, even if we sometimes fail to ask whether those employees did anything to fix the issues that concerned them before resorting to breaking confidentiality,” Gomes points out, adding what he believes could be helpful.

“The best solution is to create an internal culture of approachability — where issues can be broached and rationally discussed without penalty or consequence.”

To Hurwitz, the justification to leak communication can be due to “a lack of trust in leadership or management, which may make employees feel that they are not being heard or that their concerns are not being addressed.”

That’s not all. There is also the possibility of “personal motivations, such as a desire to discredit the organization or to gain attention or recognition.”

An effective strategy to prevent or mitigate this type of behavior, Hurwitz suggests, is to: 1) Foster a culture of trust and open communication by actively listening to employee concerns and addressing them in a timely and transparent manner. 2) Establish clear policies and guidelines for handling sensitive information and communicate them to employees. 3) Provide employees with training and resources to help them understand their responsibilities and the potential consequences of sharing sensitive information. 4) Take appropriate disciplinary action when leaks occur, but also consider the underlying causes of the leak and try to address them to prevent future incidents.

Benioff wanted to stress what he believes is the professional and company value and standard of trust — as well as transparency. He didn’t think the leaking parties demonstrated it and it wanted all employees to know it.

“Benioff is making a very reasonable argument,” Glasstetter said, “but it won’t be effective.”

Reasonable, but ineffective. He explains.

“For many employees, the company’s stated values of ‘Trust and Transparency’ go hand-in-hand with ‘public disclosure.’”

Gomes questions if there is alignment between what companies are communicating as values and what employees are seeing and feeling.

“I feel that Benioff's response shows legitimate concern for the company's internal culture. But one still has to ask ‘Is that concern reflected in the day-to-day employee experience?’ You have to approach the leak itself as at least some evidence — however anecdotal — that it might not be,” he says.

Glasstetter says a different approach than what Benioff chose would provide higher odds of inspiring the desired employee behavior.

“The best defense a company has against leaking is to treat its employees well and provide a quality product to customers. Companies can take reasonable steps to protect information and instill discretion in employees, but they will be on a stronger footing if they can demonstrate real harm to the company–above and beyond the CEO’s discomfort.”

The reality, respected or not, he says, echoes what Martinez also stated, which is “Well-known corporate leaders should assume that anything they say in a large forum, virtual or otherwise, will become public and proceed accordingly.”