First, here is the story: Michele Leqve, in a blog post entitled "Mission Accomplished," recounts how she killed a polar bear with a bow and arrow. As an animal lover, I find her tale distasteful. She unleashes dogs to chase and exhaust the animal, tracks it down and shoots the bear with three arrows to end its life.
 |
| Michele Leqve and her polar bear - © 2000 - 2009 WomenHunters™ |
I am not the only one disturbed by Leqve's pride in killing an animal whose species is considered Threatened and Vulnerable. A Change.org petition posted two days ago has collected over 5,000 signatures. Animal defenders have taken to blogs to criticize Leqve and promote the petition.
While I find it nauseating, Leqve apparently has the right to kill polar bears. And people have the right to criticize her and post petitions. I am less comfortable, however, with the way many are tying Leqve's actions to her employer, Delta Air Lines.
The Change.org petition is not targeted at Leqve or the site on which she blogs her brave hunting exploits--it targets Delta Air Lines. Why? Because Leqve is an employee of Delta. There is no evidence Delta supported the hunt in any way, nor does Leqve mention her employer on her blog. Incensed animal lovers discovered the connection by turning to LinkedIn in search of information about Leqve.
The Change.org petition doesn't demand any actions of Delta, so I am not entirely sure what petitioners believe the airline should do about the situation. Should Leqve be fired for this legal act? Should Delta request she cease her legal hunting or blogging activities?
Flipping this situation 180 degrees, I wonder if the petitioners want their employers monitoring employees' recreational habits. Would the bloggers currently targeting Delta submit to an evaluation from their employers assessing how workers' personal activities fit with brand and corporate messaging? Of course, almost all employers have some form of employment agreement or policies that prohibit certain activities, such as ones that create a conflict of interest or violate laws, but does anyone really want their bosses reviewing and approving (or rejecting) activities that fall within existing laws?
With greater transparency and availability of tools for social action, we are not likely to see this sort of activity slacken. Employers are going to have to be prepared to deal with criticism of employees' after-work actions. What can an employer do in such situations? There are no clear cut best practices, and every situation will need to be evaluated independently.
For the most part, it is probably best to do nothing unless absolutely necessary. Most customers and prospects will understand that the company cannot be held accountable for employees' legal after-work activities. And, while it is difficult to silently observe mounting criticism, it is helpful to remember that most social media "crises" have a very brief half-life. Should criticism of an employee mount within a brand's Facebook page, it may be necessary to make a simple statement noting that employees' personal activities cannot be discussed in public communication channels.
Despite my strong personal feelings about Leqve's actions, I did not sign the Change.org petition. I simply do not believe it is Delta's job to insert themselves into employees' private lives. I hope you agree, but if not, please do not complain to my employer!
9 comments:
I've never been a fan of that kind of stuff. I have a friend who hunts for sport and I always find it a bit sad to see dead mounted animals in his house.
But what troubles me more is the digital version of the mob mentality, and the new found power for people with nothing more than a strong opinion and an internet connection to abandon civility and wage previously unheard of overreaching and damaging personal attacks.
I've always contended that power can be an aphrodisiac, and when misused becomes tantamount to rape. We've seen it with dictators and politicians, and now also with ideological movements. If people can't get others to agree with them, vile vicious arguments in blog comment sections are no longer enough. Opponents must be punished... and with tactics like this that punishment can now extend to more than just a very public disagreement, but to do damage to their career, their livelihood, their ability to support their family, and in the case of a few of the posts in the comment section of that petition site, to kill her in the same fashion as she killed the bear.
The event causing the rucous happend 6 years ago. I suspect that this woman was employed by Northwest Airlines even before that. For this to suddenly become an issue seems like to employ the same type of hunting-for-sport tactics. "I have a weapon... now I need to go find something to kill."
Sad and troubling times and I fear for how it will end.
Unfortunately, there are really only so many ways to protest, indicate yr. displeasure and disgust, w/ this.
if, by signing the change.org petition, we do "damage to [her] career, is that in any commensurate w/ the "damage" done to the bear?
To Augie's point, this will lead to more monitoring of employees by companies looking to protect their brands. If you're a high-ranking executive, then I think you do have to accept that your actions reflect on the brand. But I'm uncomfortable with that standard being pushed to 'typical' employees.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Tom, I agree, this is troubling--but unavoidable. This is yet another example of how we have not yet scratched the surface of how social media will impact society, employment, brand development, reputation management, law, etc.
Unknown, I still content you do NOT want your bosses judging your activities. It sounds right now because you hate Leqve, but it won't sound at all right if you're tapped on the shoulder and shown the door because, for example, you publically criticized Delta, who happens (theoretically) to be your company's contracted and preferred travel vendor.
Chris, should we really hold executives to a different standard? Do they give up rights of free speech by getting promoted? I agree this is a much more sensitive issue, but I hope society does not gravitate to the idea that business leaders have less right to be passionate, open communicators than do others.
The fact is, people want evidence, or the illusion, that companies that they invest in, or the ones keeping them safe in the sky, are promoting the people within the organization who display good judgment. Think about the First Bank of Scotland advertising their hubris as the banks were displaying the earliest signs of catastrophe. If you want to live your life in a vacuum, you cannot really expect to have a public job. My actions, working in government, are regulated 24 hours a day, by law, under the threat of criminal charges. What I see here is beyond the pale of decency. She should at least answer for her actions to the customers of her company.
The fact is none of this would be happening if Michelle Leqve had not put her photos and vivid description of this incident into the public domain, and on the same page named her employer as Delta. If her arrogance and ignorance had any limits she would have realized that her actions and indeed her pride in her actions would bring with it the wrath of the public. However most people who find this whole thing totally distasteful have no way of venting their anger and disgust at her personally, so the next best thing go, to the people she names publicly as her employees and hope they at least feel a duty to protect and preserve animals. If not that, that they do not want to have an association with anyone who publicly seems to enjoyed killing.
What happens if Delta turns around and start contacting empolyers of the people who have signed this and made hateful comments and explain to them that they find their employees behaviour unacceptable. And ask them to discipline their trolls.
big thumbs down and never would fly or recommend people who actively support a killer worker
While I agree that mob mentality is an issue on social media, as Tom Snyder mentions in his post, it has only been with the rise of wider media access (from the early print press up to the present time) that the public have been able to use their combined voice for social change. Unfortunately this is the present form it takes. While I agree that the employer isn't responsible for her actions, or recreational persuits, many employers do have clauses in their employees contracts regarding actions that bring the company into disrepute - I think we can all agree that this has done just that. In my opinion, anyone who derives pleasure by killing any animal is not a good person, certainly not someone I would want anything to do with. I don't care what other "good works" the do to improve their image, killing is wrong and the cowardly way this woman did it (using dogs to exhaust the animal before getting close enough to use her bow) makes her a pathetic example of her species.
Post a Comment