Atlassian leaders learn a Russian lesson in communication

Corporates need to be careful when they email staff about politics.

Scott Farquhar (left) and Mike Cannon-Brookes.

Were the Atlassian co-founders wrong to leap into the Ukraine crisis this week and message staff around the world to “speak with kindness and lead with heart”?

Some employees and customers reportedly felt Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar did not get the tone right when they included Russian employees in the shout-out rather than going in hard against their leader.

On Thursday, the duo put out another note condemning the war and pausing all new sales to Russia but the incident focused attention on the pitfalls that face companies when they press send on emails on political issues.

Monica Lunin, a Sydney-based communciations and leadership expert, says Atlassian learnt this week that internal communications are “no longer internal”.

“With the press of a button it can be sent to media outlets, to social media,” she says. “The commentary hits the airwaves with everybody weighing in on it - potentially out of context. So the fundamental question has to be, what is the purpose of the communication? If you’re going to broadcast a message to everyone in a company, what do you want them to do with that information? It can’t just be to inform, it’s usually more than that. So is it to suggest they need to do something differently, to think differently, to act differently? Is it a feel good message? If so, what are you trying to make them feel?”

That clarity of purpose is the first benchmark, the second is timing, says Lunin.

“It’s about the right message at the right time,” says the author of a new book, What She Said: The art of inspiring action through speech (Wiley). You can miss the mark by holding off on a communication and the wave passes, but also you can get a little trigger happy … possibly communicating in a moment of passion too quickly without thinking through the ramifications.”

CEOs and leaders should consider the ways the message could be perceived and shared outside the organisation and ask themselves: “Is that really worth the satisfaction of hitting send?”

Lunin cites the case last year of Annette Kimmitt, the CEO of law firm, MinterEllison, who was criticised when she emailed 2500 staff expressing disquiet that the fimr was acting for then attorney-general Christian Porter.

In her email, Kimmitt said: “I know that for many of you it may be a tough day and I want to apologise for the pain you may be experiencing”. She left the firm a week later.

But it’s not clear that the modern CEO can remain silent on big issues, says communications adviser Amanda Lacey, director of the POPCOM consultancy. She says people are “pretty hungry for information” and many workers expect their companies to address the issues.

Says Lacey: “We are a global community, and because (companies) have offices all over the world, (they) are expected to (take) a global approach. Millennials have grown up in a global community where they’ve had access to social media pretty much their entire lives.”

As a global tech company with leaders who have positioned themselves as thought leaders on issues such as renewables, it’s not surprising, she thinks, that Atlassian jumped in. As well with many software engineers based in Russia and Ukraine and in a “work anywhere” jobs market, big tech companies are inevitably impacted.

Lacey says leaders often fail to explain the reason behind their stance: “They’re often comfortable with communicating what needs to happen and how it will take place but they never really address the reasons why. I don’t think it’s deliberate, I think that most of the time they see it as self-evident. But even when it is obvious, answering the why is really important.”

Overall, she says, it was good Atlassian “put something out” even if they had to strengthen it later. “When you don’t say anything at all … employees set their own narrative and more often than not, it’s full of conspiracy theories and that leads to instability and anxiety in the workforce.”

Lunin says that it may be better to stay stumm. “If it’s not within your remit as an organisation, perhaps if you’re not global, if you don’t have any ties to Ukraine, Russia or Eastern Europe, is it your place to weigh in? “ she says.

“Is it just a feel good stance, is it is it a show of solidarity, in which case, maybe yes. But we have to think about whether it is the role of organisations to direct (on) these sorts of affairs.”

Rather, the best direction from a CEO might be to “encourage breadth of thought and understanding, perhaps to point people to sources of information, debates, reputable news outlets that provide well-rounded information”.

“Perhaps it’s appropriate to warn people against tunnel thinking, to warn people against echo chamber ideas,” Lunin says. “That’s more defendable as a CEO than immediately taking a stance one way or another. Let’s say, you’re an FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) and your job is to manufacture and distribute cosmetics, do you really know enough about a geopolitical issue to take a stance ? Because they’re all contentious.”

Ukraine is a clear example of where international rules have been violated and “rightfully” raises the ire of people around the world, she says.

“But many would say that even with the issue of Ukraine, it’s not as clear cut as many might think. So it can be fraught for CEOs to weigh in. If people within organisations are looking to their CEOs for direction, a safer choice, especially on contentious issues, is to open up and encourage broader debate and understanding.”

Lunin says many companies are now adopting the LGBTQI rainbow alongside their logo: “I think we’ve gotten to the point with LGBTQI rights, that it’s no longer contentious. And it’s almost an expectation of employees that their employers take a stance and say, we’re inclusive and we encourage diversity.” Such imagery is not a problem for corporates, Lunin says, if it’s no longer contentious. But she says: “Does it have meaning if it’s no longer contentious?”

While expectations have changed dramatically over the past 20 years, Lunin says: “I think this is new, having private companies issuing commentary on geopolitical matters early on in the piece. And I don’t think it’s the expectation of employees, on this kind of issue.”

She warns companies not to stifle debate by implying in communications that “you must think a particular way to work here” and questions whether CEOs passing comment on matters that have nothing to do with running a tech company sends a message that “this is how we think here”.

.