Employee “Free” Speech vs. Organizational Censorship on Social Media: Balancing the Tension Between Free Expression and Safeguards to Foster Psychological Safety
研究调查了组织审查员工在社交媒体上的偏见言论如何影响不同政治倾向员工的心理安全，发现审查增加民主党人的心理安全但降低共和党人的，而组织价值观与审查实践一致时能平衡双方感受。
Free speech is a core principle in most democratic societies. However, the proliferation of prejudiced speech on social media has prompted intense debates about censorship. As a corollary in the workplace, and against the backdrop of online boundary blurring, we recruited a U.S. nationally representative sample to document that coworkers’ prejudiced social media posts concern Democrats whereas employer censorship of such posts concerns Republicans. To investigate this tension, we integrated boundary research into the psychological safety literature to theorize that organizational censorship on social media differentially affects liberals’ and conservatives’ individual-level psychological safety at work. We also theorized that psychological safety may be fostered—for all employees—by exploiting the tension between safeguards and free expression in organizational social media policies. Taking a multimethod approach, we first explored reactions to organizational censorship of prejudiced speech using open-ended responses (Study 1). Next, we demonstrated in preregistered observational and experimental surveys that such censorship increases Democrats’ psychological safety but decreases Republicans’ psychological safety (Studies 2–3). Finally, in a preregistered, conjoint survey experiment (Study 4), we examined moderators that could help manage this tension. We found that alignment between organizational values and censorship practices, as well as censorship of anti-Black speech, threatening speech, and references to one’s organization, can improve psychological safety for Democrats without undermining psychological safety for Republicans. As political polarization permeates societies worldwide, maintaining the social-relational fabric of organizations will require policies that balance ideological demands. We conclude by discussing implications for psychological safety, “free” speech, and organizational censorship. History: This paper has been accepted for the Organization Science Special Issue on Psychologically-(Un)Safe Climates in the Age of Digital and Social Tensions. Funding: This project was funded by the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business and Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2024.19506 .