This product has already been purchased.
- Directors are now public figures by default, and their digital footprint can be as consequential as their board decisions.
- As personal brands collide with corporate accountability, boards are being forced to set clearer boundaries around what directors say, share and stand for.
- The real risk isn’t just what’s posted, it’s failing to decide, in advance, where the board stands when it matters.
The question for boards is no longer whether directors should engage publicly, but how to ensure that engagement strengthens rather than undermines the organisation.
In short order, boards have gone from being criticised for being in an ivory tower to needing to navigate a 24/7 public square.
“This isn’t a communications question anymore – it’s a governance question,” says John Connolly FAICD, whose eponymous consultancy works with the chairs, boards and chief executives of some of the world’s largest companies.
“When directors and executives have public profiles – on LinkedIn, in media, at conferences, on social platforms or a company’s own website – they carry the company’s reputation with them.”
Even with private Facebook and Instagram profiles, directors need to assume their whole self is on show. “Everyone has a personal brand and when you’re a director, there has to be alignment between your personal brand and the board roles you choose to take on,” says Genevieve Hawkins GAICD, founder of Mentally at Work business advisory, author and experienced NED.
According to Hawkins, there’s no statute of limitations on social media history, whether it’s an unhinged post or a lazy “like”. In fact, she says, modern director recruitment must include not only analysis of a candidate’s experience, but an audit of their digital footprint, hunting for any ticking timebombs and ensuring their values match that of the organisation.
“You need to look at their public position, what is known publicly about them and their presence on social media – and take all of that into consideration for any board role,” says Hawkins.
Cheryl Chan FAICD, founder of Remotely Legal and an experienced NED and chair, views the issue through a dual lens.
“I think about it from a director, governance and risk perspective,” says Chan. “As an employment lawyer, I often deal with the other end, giving advice to companies when someone has gone rogue with a social media post.
“As directors, our primary obligations are around governance and to the owners of the organisation we serve. Increasingly, there is also an expectation we will engage on social media with stakeholders broader than that group – such as employees and customers – primarily through LinkedIn.”
Silence is not neutral
The social media and public commentary guardrails for directors are often unclear. Employees usually fall under clear, enforceable policies – as evidenced by precedents where workers have been dismissed for social media commentary – but specific social media policies for directors are surprisingly rare.
Connolly says companies need social media policies developed specifically for boards and executive leadership teams. “Otherwise, you’re saying to the board and the ELT (executive leadership team), ‘don’t post’ and that’s hard given your LinkedIn profile is your personal employment ad and every headhunter in the world uses it as their first pass.”
Asking directors to refrain from engaging on LinkedIn not only hobbles them professionally, but it also misses the advantage of their public profiles. “Board roles aren’t always advertised and LinkedIn is a forum to demonstrate your expertise,” says Chan. “There is a balance where you can amplify agreed company messages and your own messages. It actually helps demonstrate your independence as a NED, showing you have thought leadership beyond the organisation where you’re on the board.”
Hawkins says while we all benefit from guardrails, a policy for directors should address the risks and opportunities of public commentary in the context of the board’s overall strategy.
“Intentional social media commentary carries weight,” says Hawkins. “Seeing it as an opportunity is a valuable starting point, otherwise we get caught up in ‘should I or should I not say something’ versus having the confidence to engage with the issues that are really important to comment on.”
In a world of cancel culture, adds Hawkins, boards must be particularly aware that with issues directly concerning their organisation, “staying silent is not neutral”. Boards need to discuss the issues directors will engage with as part of their strategy.
“You may or may not choose to speak or post publicly, but you must talk about it and agree on a board on what our position is, why and how we defend it, if we’re asked,” she says.
On (personal) brand and on message
“The practical challenge is making it workable, because directors are adults who don’t want to submit every LinkedIn article for approval,” says Connolly.
He suggests this simple traffic-light framework as a safety net:
Green: Thought leadership on industry trends, professional achievements or sharing company-approved news – requires no prior review.
Amber: Commentary on public policy, social issues that touch on the industry or nuanced discussions about competitors – should trigger a quick check with the company secretary or communications lead.
Red: Any commentary on market-sensitive information, ongoing legal proceedings or personal political endorsements – must be strictly reviewed and usually avoided if it can be linked back to the organisation.
Directors need to stay alert to the old-school risks of verbal commentary, which technology has the power to blow up. “Increasingly, town halls are going to be videoed and posted,” says Connolly.
“I go to many AICD events and I notice people are careful, particularly those on listed boards,” says Chan. “Sometimes I see remarks from speakers being posted online before their speech has ended – be prepared that these things are reported heavily and often in real time.”
For all this caution, it’s still possible for directors to support or oppose certain issues or causes, although Hawkins says there should still be guidelines and the comms team needs to be involved.
“And then it must be crystal-clear that you are making this commentary not as a representative of any of the organisations where you sit as a director, that this is you as a community person,” she says.
Even then, a director expressing views in a private capacity can still affect a business. Hawkins notes, however, that the key is for the board to consider the risks and benefits of social engagement in advance.
In a maelstrom of fraught issues, she urges boards to discuss them and agree on a public position so directors are clear on how they may – or may not – engage. “It’s going to raise some uncomfortable conversations, but you can’t put your head in the sand.”
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content