Genuine question, though (and not "asking just to make a rhetorical point because I've already decided on an answer"): is that really the case?
I know the boilerplate "tweets do not represent the views of my employer" thing is a cliche at this point, but I always assumed it was at least partly true. If you're not tweeting directly from AcmeCORP's socials, wouldn't there be some understanding that you're not a direct mouthpiece for the company?
Right, but does it follow that "attending on behalf of" equates to "representing the company's official views and opinions"?
I guess what I'm really asking is whether an outside observer would genuinely assume her tweets were indicative of VMware's official stances on anything, or whether they'd assume she was just one cog in their employee machine. Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.
It equates to being paid to make the company look good. I wouldn’t take their comments or tweets as official policy, necessarily, but attracting negative attention by dragging on a speaker on the company dime isn’t a great look.
Should it be fireable? I’m having trouble there. But they certainly wouldn’t be sent to events for a long, long time.
Fair enough. As much as I'll defend her right to express those views, I do think making those tweets wasn't the greatest call—especially considering the fallout that ensued :P
Given that it caused the Chief Software Officer of a major customer to view it negatively, I think that proves an outside observer viewed it as representing some of the company's views.
For something like government, it doesn't really matter what the official stance of the company is. If you think a single employee is going to try to sneak a backdoor into the software you're buying and the company isn't trying hard enough to prevent it, that's a showstopper.
1. in the interests of (a person, group, or principle).
"votes cast by labor unions on behalf of their members".
Similar: as a representative of, as a spokesperson for, for, in the name of, in place of, appearing for, representing, in the interests of
2. as a representative of. "he had to attend the funeral on Mama's behalf"
3. on the part of; done by. "this wasn't simply a philanthropic gesture on his behalf"
I'm not a tweetin' man myself, but if I were doing business with a company and one of their employees was publicly trash-talking me, I'd probably get pissed and complain to my contacts at that company
I wouldn't explicitly dig around to try and figure out who a pseudonymous person is to try and get them in trouble though
It is also unclear to me what role the author played at VMWare. Random, faceless dev, or an external relations role with a much tighter association to the company.
If the company sends you to the event, it’s fair to say that you’re there “representing” them. If you’re there on your own dime, that may be different.
I’m on the fence on this one. The tweets were in poor judgment. Especially tagging the speaker. That’s needlessly antagonistic.
But, if this person were on my team I’d have tried to protect their job - though I probably wouldn’t be sending them to any shows in the future on the company dime.
There’s probably a lot of additional context that isn’t available in this post that might sway me one way or the other. The fact they were brought in via acquisition matters, IMO.
This would be no different than wearing the uniform of a supermarket and going on a political rant with a megaphone.