should managers stay out of private Slack channels?

by Alison Green on March 17, 2025

A reader writes:

I’m the head of HR for my small(ish) international company. I’m a mixed-race woman and a mom. We have a variety of private Slack channels, including channels for parents, women, people of color, etc.

Our people of color channel is a relatively new addition started by an employee who wanted a safe space for folks who identify as non-white. I was explicitly excluded from the channel because I am HR and the people in that channel wanted it to be a safe space to talk about the issues they face. As a mixed-race person, I felt the sting of exclusion, but as a person in leadership totally understand the desire to have a place where people can vent and express themselves without worrying about the ever-seeing eye of management.

This makes me wonder, though, if I should recuse myself from the other private channels that I am part of (parents and women) for fear of my presence making those channels seem “unsafe.” I’d be sad to lose that part of my work community but I want my employees to not worry about leadership watching their every word. Alternatively, should I make sure that I’m in those channels in order to keep a watchful eye? I don’t know the right answer.

I answer this question — and three others — over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

Other questions I’m answering there today include:

  •  Colleague keeps asking if I’m “comfortable” with work I’ve agreed to take on
  • I can’t understand my coworker’s bad writing
  • Giving feedback to a job-hopper
You may also like:
{ 100 comments }

{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. spaceelf*

    You have to ask yourself, what benefit would it do to ‘keep a watchful eye’? In case someone brings up a problem in the workplace related to the Slack channel, perhaps, which would make sense but ultimately it seems as though people in general are wary around HR presence and your particular presence might make people unlikely to feel as though they can speak freely, or that you might take action regardless if they wish it or not. Best to steer clear, sadly.

    Reply ↓
    1. Exme*

      I also wonder if it could backfire the other way of people feeling like they made HR aware – because you are in the chat – but no action taken because you didn’t see a particular post or you didn’t read it as requiring a direct action/response.

      Reply ↓
      1. xylocopa*

        Oof yeah–you run the risk of people thinking “Well, someone from HR was in the Slack channel and didn’t respond to [whatever it is] so HR knows about it and thinks it’s okay / doesn’t care / etc.”

        Reply ↓
  2. bamcheeks*

    I think the Slack channels question is very similar to the “should ERGs include allies” question: it really depends on how these groups/spaces are constituted and what you’re priorities are. I have been in ones where the purpose was for people to be able to vent, offer mutual support and strategise on how to address power structures without the power structures being present. I’ve been in others where the point was to able to educate allies or offer feedback and suggestions to HR and managers, or where it was very valuable to have senior people who were members of the specific group networking with more junior people.

    I don’t think one is more correct or better than the other, but it is helpful to be clear about which you are doing, who the group is aimed at, and who will be there with what hat on.

    Reply ↓
    2. sookie st james*

      I’ve never held a managerial position, so am not clear on who has access to slack, or how, but my understanding is that no slack channel is truly ever ‘private’ and many, many employees don’t know that their manager/IT/someone senior could access their group chats or direct messages if they wanted to. So if OP1 chooses to back out of these groups, I’d be wary of presenting it as a 100% ‘safe space’ away from the watchful eyes of senior management, because unfortunately it wouldn’t be entirely true

      Reply ↓
    3. HannahS*

      Yes, this.

      My workplace has formally arranged mentorship and interest groups. Mentorship groups are specifically for people in certain groups (e.g. an Indigenous person training or junior in our field to be paired with more senior Indigenous employee,) and interest groups are open to everyone (trainees, junior and senior employees, members of specific communities, and allies.) Both of those groups are quite professional in nature. A mentoring relationship might allow for some venting and advice-giving, but it’s quite a professional relationship. The interest groups tend to have some informal mentorship too, but often have a clear agenda, and are also a meeting of professionals.

      There are also innumerable Facebook and WhatsApp chats that people set up that are outside of workplace; they are about venting, advice, support, and more “real” advice (e.g. “Is the culture at this location hostile to moms?” ) I’m in one specifically for mothers at my professional level; as soon as someone is promoted, they leave (and join a different group.) Those aren’t professional groups, and the standards of professional behaviour are–while not absent–much less present.

      Reply ↓
  3. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

    Ugh, I hate the term “job-hopper.” In many cases the person would have liked to stay at certain jobs longer, but was caught in a layoff.

    Reply ↓
    1. Generic Name*

      I see what you’re saying, but (at least to me) the definition of job hopping is someone moving from job to job *voluntarily* and in quick succession.

      Reply ↓
      1. SometimesCharlotte*

        I wouldn’t call 1.5-2 years “quick succession” There can be other reasons someone has to leave, for example, not getting raises or promotions. Some places the only way to move to senior roles or to even get a raise is to leave!

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah*

          The letter said that the longest stay of the 12 listed jobs were 1.5-2 years.

          I interpreted that to be that aside from the 1.5-2 year job(s?) there were also several jobs with even shorter stays.

          Only LW knows for sure, I suppose

          Reply ↓
      2. Great Frogs of Literature*

        The problem is that when you’re looking at a resume and someone has had six jobs (companies) in the past eight years — or worse, eight jobs in six years — none of them long stays, it’s hard to tell if it’s bad luck, a pattern of voluntary changes, or a pattern of not being very good at one’s job.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          Yeah, I’m on my seventh job in 15 years. Basically I have bounced backwards and forwards between “jobs which have material advantages over the current job, but are worse for lifestyle”, and “jobs which are at the same level as the current job but shorter commute / better work-life balance”.

          I definitely enjoy change, so to some extent someone who wanted someone to stay in the same place for the next five years would probably be right to not employ me! But equally, there are two or three jobs where I would have really liked to stay but left because of significant changes to working conditions or to my family situation which made the job untenable, and there are definitely some choices I wouldn’t have had to make if my employers had had a bit more grace around accommodating a parent of young children.

          Reply ↓
      3. I'm just here for the cats!!*

        I understand where you are coming from but there’s no way to tell from a resume if someone was laid off or left on their own.

        Reply ↓
        1. Generic Name*

          Yes. And as someone who interviews and hires people, I will ask a person to walk me through their career progression. In one case, we did not hire an individual had many (many) short stints because we concluded that he just wasn’t good at his jobs based on what he said in his interview. In another case, we offered the job to a different person who had short stints because his responses were satisfactory (COVID being one reason he had some brief tenures) and didn’t give us reason to worry he’d quit after a year.

          Reply ↓
    2. Lisa*

      I agree, but in this case I think it’s apt: 12 jobs all with the longest stay being 2 years. If those were all or even half layoffs this is the unluckiest employee in history.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

        yeah that’s a lot; it’s definitely going to raise questions for me and depending on how competitive the pool is, it might not be the best use of my time to explore those questions on the hiring side. In some jobs longevity really matters – of course someone with a track record of longer stays could leave quickly, but part of hiring is minimizing risk, and if a role requires longevity, 6 jobs in 12 years is a risk. Not all jobs require the same degree of longevity, and where it doesn’t matter it shouldn’t disqualify candidates with job-hopping histories.

        This would be different if they’d just had two or three short stays and at least one longer stay, but 12 jobs’ worth would be exceptional in many fields.

        Reply ↓
      2. Anataya*

        OP didn’t say how long this person has been working for – 12 jobs in 12 years might be egregious, but 15 years? 20? Some industries are fickle and layoffs are common (especially these days). It’s also common for people with disabilities (especially neurodivergents) to be laid off due to “fit” (80% of autistic people are unemployed or underemployed). And as we get older and ageism comes into play, layoffs can happen more too as you’re targeted for budget cuts and such.

        How many letters have we seen here with people talking about objectively terrible jobs or bosses, but they’re afraid to leave because of being called a “job hopper”? There are so many reasons to leave a job, some “good” and some “bad” (and we have to speak in code about so many of these things to boot). I think it’s weird to hold somebody’s job history against them.

        FWIW when I hire I don’t care about job hopping, because tenure on a resume doesn’t come with context. Their answers during the interview about their work and my assessment of how they can meet my needs are the most informative things.

        Reply ↓
    3. spcepickle*

      This is where a good cover letter comes in. When I review applications I always start with the person’s cover letter before I even look at their resume. This is where someone can explain that they have been laid off 12 times.

      Reply ↓
      1. Helewise*

        And honestly, that would be a red flag to me too. Getting caught in a layoff doesn’t necessarily say anything about your performance – if the department’s gone, then it’s gone – but if you’re on the list many, many times that gets to be kind of a different story.

        Reply ↓
        1. linger*

          Although if one of the criteria for the layoff list is “last in, first out”, that’s always going to disadvantage the person who’s just come in after being laid off from ExJob.

          Reply ↓
      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        That, and where will you get the 10 years of experience with a product the company doesn’t use but wants to add to its tech stack for that promotion (or even just to remain relevant)?

        Reply ↓
    5. Helewise*

      That’s something to explain in the cover letter. It’s the trend over time that matters, although it can be trickier to see if the candidate is early-career. And I get it; I jumped around some for good reasons when I was younger, but hiring and then getting someone new up to speed is a huge resource-suck. I need some assurance that they’re going to stick around for long enough to make that worth it.

      Reply ↓
    6. WillowSunstar*

      Also what if the person was just a temp? This term is discriminatory towards those who do contract work but would like to find something full time and permanent in order to have decent health care.

      Reply ↓
      1. Helewise*

        You can put the fact that it was a contract position on your resume, though. To me that’s a little different.

        Reply ↓
        1. Zelda*

          Indeed. When I have done temp work, I listed a single job with the agency as my employer, and then a description mentioning assignments at companies A, B, and C. The implication is that the agency didn’t have trouble placing me again and didn’t have reservations about sending me out representing them again.

          Reply ↓
  4. SometimesCharlotte*

    Ugh “job hopper” If someone is leaving a job every 1.5-2 years, there might be a very good reason for it. So many organizations, the only way to move up is to leave. It’s worth asking about it rather than just discounting them. They may be looking for someplace they can be longer but just haven’t found it! At my organization, non-represented positions don’t get raises. I’ve looked for an internal move every two-ish years. This time, there hasn’t been an appropriate opening so I’m starting to look outside. I can’t live on my 2022 wages anymore!

    Reply ↓
    1. T.N.H*

      But when you have a huge applicant pool there just isn’t a strong benefit to asking, assuming you already found equally strong candidates without the job hopping.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        ^ there could be a perfectly good explanation for a lot of issues, but depending on your candidate pool it’s not realistic to dig into each and every red flag on a resume. That’s just not how hiring works.

        Reply ↓
      2. Beveled Edge*

        If you drop candidates for made-up reasons, there’s no valid basis for the belief that the ones you kept are equally strong. It just makes the cutter feel better because they needed a way to narrow down the pool of applicants.

        Reply ↓
        1. Scarper*

          Worrying about why someone can’t stay at a job for longer than 2 years isn’t a “made up reason.” It’s a red flag. Maybe there’s an innocent reason for it (biotech industry, Covid, military spouse), but those reasons should be addressed in the cover letter or in the resume itself. If reasons are not addressed, it’s not a made up reason.

          Reply ↓
          1. Mango Tango*

            It’s definitely an outdated reason. The answer could be “they’re under the age of 45”, because the average tenure of millennials at a job is 2.75yr and Gen Z is 2.25yr.

            Reply ↓
            1. WillowSunstar*

              Also could be “they’re introverted,” because at least in the US, people who are quiet and shy also tend to get let go from jobs if they aren’t good at pretending to be extroverted. Or if pretending to be extroverted for multiple hours a day exhausts them. (Used to be me, before I lucked out and finally got hired permanently for a job and learned about Toastmasters.)

              Reply ↓
        2. Mango Tango*

          My guess is that people who don’t want to hire “job hoppers” (at least subconsciously) know that their workplace has the same problems that make people leave – limited growth opportunities, inflexible schedule, bad management, bad benefits, whatever it is.

          Reply ↓
        3. MaxPower*

          If I have an opening and need to hire one person, but get 80 resumes, of which 40 look like they’re candidates with the right skills, I’m going to have you use “made up” factors to winnow my pool down to a reasonable 5-10. I simply do not have endless hours to contact candidates.
          If you have good reasons for your multiple short tenures, you really should address that in your cover letter or find a way to work it into your resume (like putting that the company closed or the department was eliminated in the name/dates for the employer).

          Reply ↓
    2. Baunilha*

      My take from the letter is not that every job had a 1.5-2 years stint, but only one or two that long. If the candidate had, say, 5 jobs with less than a year in each, I can see why it would give the hiring manager pause.

      Reply ↓
  5. Amy*

    I do hope LW 1 isn’t mentioning feeling the “sting of exclusion” about this to anyone at work. Perhaps I understand the feeling but I don’t think it’s a wise one to voice as the head of HR. There are some trade-offs that come with some roles and this is an example of one.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yankees fans are awesome!*

      I read “sting of exclusion” as “It hurts to be excluded because I’m human, but intellectually I understand the necessity in this case.”

      Reply ↓
  6. Doug*

    I don’t think Slack is ever a totally safe place for employees, it relies on trusting those above them, and their successors etc. Slack actually stands for “Searchable Log of All Communication and Knowledge” and people at the top, commonly HR, can search through DMs or whatever. Even if the head of HR is great now, their replacement could decide to search 5 years back etc.
    I wouldn’t consider work-provided communication methods to be safe in general, even if they are at the moment.

    Reply ↓
    1. soontoberetired*

      which is something people forget. There’s nothing private about communication channels at work – work owns them, of course they can see them!

      Reply ↓
      1. Kuddel Daddeldu*

        In the US, that’s definitely the case! In the EU, there’s strong data protection that to a significant extent includes employees, so there are protected channels – and the protections have some teeth.
        Still, I’d rather vent in person than in any medium that leaves a paper trail.

        Reply ↓
    2. Susie and Elaine Problem*

      This. Even in private communication in Slack I am careful in what I say. In an ideal world my complaints about my incompetent manager would reflect worse on them than on myself but…

      Reply ↓
  7. Richard Hershberger*

    LW3: This totally is going to be a problem. It seems that the LW is more or less obligated to wade through the prose because of their training role, but out in the world a lot of people, upon being confronted by a wall of unpunctuated incoherent prose, are going to run a quick cost-benefit analysis of taking the time to figure it out, and opt instead to pass over it and move on with their day.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hannah Lee*

      I’m struggling with this with a co-worker from another department who is not in my reporting chain.

      If he keeps things short in email he leaves out necessary information. If he writes more it’s very confusing. Both require follow up back to him to clarify, instead of me being able to just.do.the.thing.

      His verbal communication is worse. I’d posted about him in comments a few weeks back, he’s got a habit of sending an email, and then immediately coming to my desk to talk to me about it and his verbal communication is very muddled, with lots of pronouns and shifting references (like in one sentence “they” refers to the customer and in the next sentence “they” refers to an internal supplier, but he gives no context for the shift, so I wind up having the back him up with a lot of basic “who?” “they did what?” “wait, who did it … was it the customer you just mentioned, or someone else?” “why?” “when?” questions, and then it’s still not clear what he’s asking or why)

      I’ve started both not reacting to him in real time “I’ll take a look at the email and let you know if I have any questions” and not providing anything (work, information) until he presents all the information clearly.
      Often what it turns out he’s asking has an associated process or form, so I just point him back to the shared policy drive, and directing him to fill it out completely.
      And even more importantly, I’m directing him back to his manager, senior people in his own reporting chain if he’s got questions. That’s both because if he needs retraining on something, those are the people responsible for it (and know their area better than I do) and if he’s got a fundamental communication or understanding issue, they need to be aware and deal with it so he improves.

      (Basically, I’m done spending time “helping” him communicate, trying to fill information gaps he leaves with my judgement, knowledge or research, or being his path of least resistance when he wants help with something. Not in a mean way, but in “my time is valuable” and a “it’s his job and his manager’s job to provide him direction if he needs it” way)

      Reply ↓
        1. Academic Physics*

          Agreed, I’ve taken to putting all of the action items in the TLDR at the top if I need students to do something.

          Reply ↓
    2. Slow Gin Lizz*

      As someone with ADHD who definitely did a lot of info-dumping in my emails in the past, I have learned that it’s necessary to keep emails and instant messages (especially for work) to one or two main points or else no one will read them.

      I’d suggest that OP ask the employee if he can do something like this, and frame it with “I” messages. As in, “I tend to have a hard time reading emails that have a lot of text in them. Would you mind using bullet points in your emails?” or “Would you mind just keeping them to one or two short paragraphs that include only an overview of the situation? If I need further details I’ll be sure to ask you, but sometimes I just need to know the big picture and getting all the details in a long email means I can’t determine what the big picture actually is.” That way, it’s not so much a passing off of work obligations (“I don’t wanna read your needlessly long email”) and more a “here’s what I need in order to do my work effectively” type of deal. I don’t think asking a colleague to organize their writing better is a tall order, but I think just asking them to write shorter emails with no other framing might be taken as “I don’t wanna read my emails” in a way that asking them to format the emails differently might not.

      (And, yeah, I tend to info-dump in my AAM comments too, don’t I? ;-) )

      Reply ↓
      1. Richard Hershberger*

        I have no problem with long emails. It is unformatted streams of consciousness that bring me to a halt.

        Reply ↓
        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Info-dumping, at least in my case, tends to be stream of consciousness. I am the child of an editor and have grammar in my genes, so mine does at least tend to be formatted correctly. But it’s like, I am thinking of all this info all at once and I just GOTTA get it all out there or else no one’s gonna understand what’s going on! (And yes, I know I just said I am good at grammar and then used gotta and gonna, but that’s how my brain thinks, lol.) And I know I’m not the only person out there with this tendency, since it seems like OP’s coworker also has this tendency.

          Kinda wish someone had showed me how to be clearer in my written communication ages ago instead of my having to figure this all out on my own more recently. Oh well.

          Reply ↓
          1. Festively Dressed Earl*

            (And yes, I know I just said I am good at grammar and then used gotta and gonna, but that’s how my brain thinks, lol.)

            It’s called a solecism and it’s CLASSY.

            Reply ↓
      2. Arts Akimbo*

        I recently had to write a report that I thought I had summarized succinctly in 3 pages. I was told to cut it down to basic facts because there would be a Q&A afterwards where people could ask for clarification on any points of confusion.

        My revised report ended up being under one page. LOL

        Reply ↓
    3. Bruce*

      For LW3 at first I expected this to be about bad handwriting… I college I worked as a night shift switchboard operator and the day shift operators told me I had to print my notes or they could not read them… I mostly print things to this day :-)

      Reply ↓
  8. CubeFarmer*

    “As a mixed-race person, I felt the sting of exclusion,” PLEASE. Race was not why you were excluded here. It was because of your role as a manager. I hope that you are not going around telling colleagues that you are taking this “exclusion” personally.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cookie Monster*

      I don’t think that’s what she’s saying. She seems to perfectly understand it’s because she’s in HR. But as a mixed-race person, she’s probably felt excluded in all sorts of situations throughout her life, and this is yet another experience of that, even if it’s for a different reason.

      Reply ↓
      1. Festively Dressed Earl*

        This. I’m mixed race myself, and throughout my life I’ve frequently been left out of a group of one race because of my other half. Even though LW 1 knows intellectually why she should exclude herself from this group, that doesn’t stop the hurt.

        Reply ↓
    2. sookie st james*

      I thought they just meant as a fellow person of colour who would otherwise belong in that channel, it was a shame to be excluded, not that their feeling of exclusion was somehow motivated by/worsened by their identity. They then go on to say that as a person in leadership, they understand. Your reaction seems stronger than is called for

      Reply ↓
    3. spaceelf*

      I think the letter writer understands why they’re being excluded just fine. It’s a human reaction to being excluded from a group they themselves might benefit from, but good HR people know better than to publicly speak on the topic. And the exclusion they feel might be a general one, one they might already feel in day to day life that is unique to some non-mixed or PoCs.

      Reply ↓
    5. Bike Walk Bake Books*

      LW’s meaning was clear: They feel left out of a group they belong to in a demographic sense and one where they would be with people who understand things they experience that are specific to their personal characteristics and identity. This in no way warranted an all-caps admonishment. I hope that you are not going around telling mixed-race people how to feel their feelings.

      Reply ↓
    6. Hroethvitnir*

      It’s a channel for POC, and she is a POC, so it stings a bit. Everyone involved is not white. She also knows she was excluded due to being in HR, and her first instinct was to think that makes sense, but she wanted to check.

      Either you got angry and wrote a rebuttal just because you saw the word “race”, or this is a wilful misreading. The letter was not unclear.

      Reply ↓
  9. Amy Purralta*

    That’s a lot of jobs over 12 years, but I will say I have had 5 jobs over the last 5 years. I was made redundant from three and left one after the three as it was toxic. I’ve been at my current place about 18 months. I think sometimes you need background to the job hopping.

    Reply ↓
    1. Tea Monk*

      Yes, a lot of jobs aren’t even set up for people to work there more than a couple of years due to work load and other factors such as vicarious trauma.

      Reply ↓
  10. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

    LW1 – I totally get the personal cost of excluding yourself because of your position. In my industry there are some really good affinity groups specifically for folks in leadership positions – maybe look for some of those in your industry (but not with your immediate coworkers)? that way you don’t have to give up the feeling of inclusion and your unique challenges being seen and discussed openly, but you’re discussing these issues in a space without such challenging intersections of power dynamics.

    Reply ↓
  11. Statler von Waldorf*

    The slack question legit confuses me. To be fair, I haven’t used slack, so I might be misunderstanding here. Do people really have an expectation of privacy and a safe space on software that the company pays for that they access using company equipment during working hours?

    I assume that everything I have ever written or done on a company PC is company property, and that I have zero ability to ban management from supervising or monitoring that. Is this not the case across the board?

    Reply ↓
    1. I don't work in this van*

      People absolutely do think that, and they absolutely should not. I’ve been at places where people got in trouble for “private” slack channels, and more than what they’d actually done, they were judged for not having the common sense to be idiots somewhere other than the company-provided platform.

      Reply ↓
    2. spaceelf*

      I think that’s generally true, but for this particular Slack channel to achieve it’s purpose, it makes sense to have an expectation of privacy.

      Reply ↓
    3. Hroethvitnir*

      There’s a difference between “management could look” and “management is actively reading every conversation”.

      I’m sure you would feel differently about writing emails if your manager read every one before it went out, even though you know they *could* look at them if they wanted or needed to.

      Reply ↓
    4. Cylinder of Chaos*

      There’s a difference between “management/IT could pull the records on this conversation if they really wanted to” and “inviting someone to actively participate in a discussion”.
      “Privacy” means different things in different contexts and in this case, it means that they don’t want management in their discussion group, not that it’s a secret club held in a Cone of Silence.

      Reply ↓
  12. Ginger Cat Lady*

    In many, maybe even most, companies these days, the only way to get better pay is to leave. People cannot survive with .8% COLA increments when inflation is much higher than that.
    If you’re looking for someone to stay longer than 1-2 years, you better be doing COLA at or above inflation + merit raises.

    Reply ↓
  13. Fluff*

    LW 1 – Kudos for feeling out the nuances here. As a POC, of course you want to belong to these groups. As a leader, you realize your presence itself will have an impact on those same groups.

    Please find a fellow leader you trust and with whom you can have safer conversations. Leadership can be lonely, especially when less people in leadership are like you. Perhaps there are similar groups in your professional organizations?

    Good job. I wish we had more of you in HR.

    Reply ↓
    1. spaceelf*

      That’s a really good idea. There simply must be HR professional organizations with similar spaces. Perhaps the OP can benefit from that in some manner.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        There are, but the vast majority of them require you to pay to be a member. HR often misses out on professional opportunities, especially morale boosting activities, because of situations like this. It is definitely part of the gig – but it’s also a high burnout field and this is a contributing factor.

        Reply ↓
        1. spaceelf*

          I mean, most of those orgs do, my industry is no exception. I can’t think of one that doesn’t charge some kind of fee. In a leadership role, it shouldn’t be a barrier.

          Reply ↓
          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            It could absolutely be a barrier. And regardless of industry the point is that it’s something other people are getting for free from their organization and this particular role is excluded from.

            Reply ↓
          2. Eldritch Office Worker*

            It’s important to remember that HR is treated as leadership even if they aren’t given the professional level and associated pay of other leadership roles

            Reply ↓
  14. Orora*

    The other caveat is that as an HR pro, if you become aware of possible harassment or discrimination through those channels, you are required to investigate. You don’t really get to take off your HR hat to participate. By not being there, you preserve plausible deniability that you didn’t know about any issues that may have been brought up there. This also helps the channel be more private.

    It might be wise to have a disclaimer at the top of private channels: This channel is not monitored by Company Management, but Management reserves the right to review all communications made using Company resources. To make a complaint of harassment, discrimination or other legal/ethical workplace issues, .

    Have it reviewed by counsel to ensure legality.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      As they should, but I do think there’s a difference between “someone could read this log” and “someone is in the room actively participating in the conversation”

      Reply ↓
    2. spaceelf*

      I don’t know about that. I do know that the nature of this Slack space is intended to be, based on what I’m reading. I’m not saying I think workplace communications are private or do not belong to the employer, but the point of this particular Slack channel is for sharing common experiences that are intended to be private. If the employer is offering this then it should remain private. If not, then someone needs to start an unofficial Discord or something.

      Reply ↓
  17. English Rose*

    The Slack question is really timely. We have similar staff networks and HR have recently launched a request for one HR representative to be included in each network (they haven’t been previously). Although I believe it’s supposed to be supportive, it’s coming across as a ‘policing’ exercise. So this is helpful wording why it’s a bad idea.

    Reply ↓
  18. Alan*

    Re #4, it’s interesting that some people don’t realize employee-chosen job hopping is a problem. I had one person tell me explicitly in an interview “I never stay more than a year or 18 months at a job because I get bored. I promise I’ll be really productive while I’m here though.” I’m looking for a team member for a three- (turned out to be five-) year project. It’ll take at least 6 months for you to get ramped up enough to be really useful and then 6-12 months later you’re gone? No way.

    Reply ↓
    1. Grasshopper Relocation LLC*

      I wouldn’t be looking for open ended roles if I were that person. There are plenty of time limited contracts in the NGO sector.

      Reply ↓
  19. Festively Dressed Earl*

    LW 3 might want to suggest that her report run emails through an app like Grammarly or Hemingway to make editing for clarity less daunting.

    Reply ↓
  20. In Her Shoes*

    I run a support group at my work for those going through fertility treatments and experiencing infertility.

    In one of our first meetings, an HR rep came on the line to introduce herself and to say she was there to listen. I appreciated her wanting to get involved, but I kindly asked her not to join again in that capacity unless invited. She was very understanding about it.

    Here’s where I stand and here’s what I say at the beginning of every meeting:

    “Everyone is welcome in this group. We ask that if you are in this meeting and are here in an official capacity (HR, Medical, etc), please reach out to us before joining the meeting and we can coordinate a time for you to join a meeting.
    Please respect privacy in our group: your own privacy by only sharing what you are comfortable with and everyone else’s privacy by not sharing anything you hear in the group.”

    You may want to reach out to the group leadership to see what boundaries they have. For me, the group I lead is more about inclusivity and feeling less isolated while going through infertility (something I experienced) than trying to keep people out, and I suspect the group you want to be a part of may feel the same way.

    Reply ↓
    1. Junior Dev*

      Genuine question: why is this a support group at a workplace? It feels to me like something that blurs work/life boundaries very badly.

      Reply ↓
      1. In Her Shoes*

        I work for a very large employer. We have all kinds of supportive groups at my job, a lot of them are tied to our employee resource groups. We have a single parent/coparenting group, a foster and adopting group, parents of teens group, parents of young children group, breastfeeding parents, and many others. I personally see it as a great way to connect with others on things we have in common.

        My motivation behind standing up the infertility/reproductive treatment group was to
        offer a supportive place for those in that situation and advocate for better fertility benefits, which I was successful in doing. We support each other, share information, invite guest speakers to join our meetings, and share information.

        It sounds like that’s not something you would be comfortable being a part of, and I respect that.

        Reply ↓
  21. Meg*

    Admittedly have never used Slack. But having a slack channel for any kind of personal issues, used while at work, seems like a recipe for disaster.

    Reply ↓
  22. leeapeea*

    #4 I see many comments here that bring up legitimate reasons for several short stints in a row. This is where a cover letter expounding on this comes in handy! I recruit for my company and if a candidate addresses several short stints, be it layoffs or new opportunities, then as a recruiter I have context.

    Reply ↓
    1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

      A good friend of mine had a resume for a while that looked a bit like this, although it wasn’t 12 jobs. She had started several positions with companies who made layoff decisions primarily based on LIFO (last in, first out) so she was always the new person and couldn’t get traction. Thankfully her credentials were strong enough that employers read her cover letter, invited her to interview, and she got a job where she’s now been for several years. But for a while, it wouldn’t have been unreasonable to read her resume without context and think “job hopper.”

      Reply ↓
  23. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    LW2 – “comfortable” is one of those words that can have a pretty broad range of meaning in a work context. It can mean “confident”, it can also mean “not confident but not apprehensive either”. It can also mean “has the bandwidth and the tools”. Etc. He may be asking it as a way to prompt you to ask for his advice about the subject – ie, he feels you might need help but doesn’t want to open his mouth first.

    I’d be concerned that what he says, what you hear, and what everyone else hears, can be pretty far apart. I’d want to ask this person, 1-on-1, what exactly they mean by asking that several times.

    Reply ↓
  24. birb*

    I feel like it’s dangerous to have a slack group on a work server that doesn’t have some level of moderation and rules, as opposed to a coworker discord / whatsapp / text group chat NOT hosted by the company. Even a separate slack NOT hosted on the company server would be a safer bet, but would possibly defeat the purpose for some people.

    If someone approached me asking about creating a group like this, I’d have these suggestions:

    1. Everyone in the group needs to be aware when they sign up that just because a group is private doesn’t mean that what is posted there won’t ever come to light. Group members need to understand that anything can be screen shotted by any other member anonymously, and that the company will have access to the slack even if no one in HR or management is a member if its hosted on their slack server. There is no such thing as actual privacy in a company hosted slack server.
    2. There need to be some stated rules of behavior, that this is for organizing / advocating or venting and not personal attacks against coworkers (even if they’re in the wrong). Someone really needs to take ownership of moderating the slack and removing anything that breaks group rules or doesn’t serve its purposes.
    3. There needs to be some understanding by everyone involved that things reported in the slack might be escalated by someone else. Venting about someone could lead to an investigation of their behavior whether that was your intention or not if someone else reports it to HR.

    Reply ↓
    1. Orora*

      Your comments are spot-on. As an HR pro, I’m required to investigate any allegation of illegal harassment or discrimination that I become aware of. That’s reason enough for me to stay out of those kind of channels — plausible deniability. Employees may bring up situations in those channels that might be illegal, and you can’t necessarily control what will happen to any information you put in the channel.

      tl;dr: HR should never be in those kinds of channels and off-topic channels should have a disclaimer that all communications made with company resources are property of the company and can be reviewed at any time.

      Reply ↓
  25. TeapotNinja*

    Yes, because it’s healthier to have an outlet for your frustrations than clamp it thing down. Employees will went anyway. The ony question is where.

    At my company managers all understand that’s happening and are even encouraging it.

    Reply ↓
  26. Lemon*

    LW #1 Oh no, PLEASE make sure everyone knows there is no such thing as a private work Slack channel, and remind them to stay professional on there.

    NEVER assume that management can’t or won’t read every word you write on Slack/Teams/email/etc.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS