When to respond

Recently there have been a number of stories about individuals using blogs as a tool for pursuing grievances. A case in point was an openly gay lawyer in Vancouver who quickly launched a blog in an attempt to embarrass his employer whom he felt had a work environment that was hostile to him. In the media discussion around this case, the point was raised about blogs and how organizations should respond to issues that arise in this way.

Every situation is different and in most cases I believe the best course of action is to engage in the conversation to ensure your message gets across. However the case I note above is a good example of when not to engage. In this case, the young lawyer decided to pursue a remedy to his grievance through public channels. This in itself is a very risky tactic and is one that would tend to cause people to question motives. Especially since it's quite likely that the law firm in question likely has clearly identified policies and procedures for addressing issues like his.

The law firm provided limited comment to the mainstream media covering this story and did not respond in the blogosphere. In the end, it proved to be a wise course of action. The young lawyer in question also must have realized that his blogging was tanamount to a scorched earth policy with his law career and quickly deleted the posts he'd made. All in all, I'd say the firm fared well in the controversy - largely because it's measured response (intentional or not) worked well in juxtaposition with the lawyer's high-risk strategy.