“What would Google do if an employee speaks out of turn in public?” 

Unless it was the largest self-depreciating corporate publicity stunt in years, you may have recently witnessed the answer to this question.

Now that you ask…

“Last week I accidentally posted an internal rant about service platforms to my public Google+ account (i.e. this one). It somehow went viral, which is nothing short of stupefying given that it was a massive Wall of Text. The whole thing still feels surreal.

Amazingly, nothing bad happened to me at Google. Everyone just laughed at me a lot, all the way up to the top, for having committed what must be the great-granddaddy of all Reply-All screwups in tech history.”

- Steve Yegge, Google Employee, 21 October 2011

• Mr. Yegge posts a late-night rant on Google+ about Google and compares it with Amazon, a prior employer. Neither Amazon nor Google come out well: both are praised and criticized indiscriminately.
• He intends to publish it as an internal memo for employees on Google+.
• The article is then accidentally published to the public. This “for Google only” document quickly goes viral, popping up all over tech forums and news websites.
• Readers immediately copy the leaked memo for posterity, which pays off as the original is eventually replaced by an explanation and apology.
• Readers collectively shout out to Google to keep Mr. Yegge in employment and use his wise, although obviously stinging words to its advantage.

• He acknowledges that he posted an incredibly long-winded document and that he probably should not have and that it was a genuine mistake.
• He has somehow managed to keep his job. Actually, to be more specific: ”Nothing bad happened to me at Google.”
• He indicates that Google is “already figuring out how to deal with some of the issues I raised.”
• He continues to clarify statements made about Google and Amazon and then changes the conversation to a story about Jeff Bezos.

1. The workforce is satisfied.
2. The workforce and management is in mutual agreement about the specific values, drivers and culture of the organization that they together, well… are.
3. Chaos.
4. OPTIONAL: A position to fill.
5. OPTIONAL: Rewarding successful referrals (not just hires, but a “match” between person and organization, or Greg will be disillusioned and out the back door before you can say “introduction”).

Chaos?
If Mr. Yegge, an obvious Google cheerleader, is able to speak out of turn about his employer, this proves that Google does not have any real power over him telling or not telling people anything about Google. Oh, there are non-disclosure clauses and Google could fire him, but that would not make them any better off. And it would be after the fact, Pandora has already opened the box. This case explains in a perfect manner the concept of chaos in Employer Brand Ambassadorship, and why you as an employer have to accept this.

Here is a question for you: who appoints an Employer Brand Ambassador? I’d like to meet the manager that makes them kneel, knights them and says “rise, Ambassador, and spread the word.” The answer is obvious: there is no such person.

Glassdoor.com is a perfect example: there is no such thing as control over what people are saying about you, not even your own. Remove accountability by introducing anonymity and people are going to speak their mind whether you want to or not. Unless they are wholeheartedly on board, It. Will. Come. Out.

Back to Google
Did Google do the right thing? And where does this leave you in your decisions?
I am starting to believe that this is a matter of personal opinion, but I think that although occasionally (as Mr. Yegge has pointed out) life might become a bit too exciting for my taste, I would generally find it a lot easier to spread the word about working for me if I knew my employees were encouraged to speak their mind….and generally said nice things anyway.