THINKERS50 RADAR
Arvind Karunakaran — Social Media Scrutiny & Accountability
Karunakaran studied how social media scrutiny affects the behavior and accountability of frontline
professionals
He conducted an ethnographic study of **911 emergency management organizations**, focusing
particularly on 911 call-takers and how they react when their work can be publicly criticized and discussed
on social media.
One key concept: “Obscured Accountability”
→ When increased public scrutiny makes employees more concerned about avoiding visible criticism than
about fulfilling their actual professional mandate.
Why is it interesting for a company? — The paradox
Traditional assumption:
More transparency + more public scrutiny
→ employees behave better
→ stronger accountability.
Organizations therefore tend to believe that customer reviews, social media comments, ratings and public
feedback will make employees more accountable.
BUT — Karunakaran identifies a paradox:
More scrutiny can actually lead to LESS accountability.
Employees may start adapting their behavior to **what the public can see and criticize**, rather than to what
is actually best for the organization or the job.
His study therefore challenges the idea that increasing visibility automatically improves employee
accountability.
WHAT DID HE IDENTIFY?
Karunakaran finds that social-media scrutiny can change frontline employees' behavior.
In his 911 setting, call-takers can become concerned about how their actions might appear to the public.
This can push them to **deviate from their professional mandate**.
And the effect does not stop with the employee being scrutinized:
Social media scrutiny :
Fear / anticipation of public criticism → Frontline workers modify their behavior → Deviation from professional
mandate → Consequences for other professionals
➤ Obscured accountability :
Karunakaran shows that these consequences can **cascade through the organization**, affecting
downstream professionals such as dispatchers and police officers.
MANAGEMENT
WHAT IS THE SURPRISING RESULT?
➤ More visibility ≠ more accountability
The surprising finding is that public scrutiny, which is supposed to make organizations more accountable,
can actually **make responsibility less clear**.
Employees may focus on: « How will this look to the public?”
instead of: What is the professionally correct decision?”
So an accountability mechanism can become **counterproductive**.
This is particularly interesting because previous research often emphasized top-down scrutiny : from
supervisors, regulators or certification agencies as a way of strengthening professional accountability.
Social media introduces a diff form of bottom-up scrutiny, coming from customers and the general public
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
For managers, the lesson is **not “ignore social media.”** It is to avoid managing employees purely in
reaction to public criticism.
1. Protect professional judgment
Managers should give frontline employees enough discretion to make decisions based on their expertise
rather than simply trying to avoid negative public reactions.
2. Don't confuse reputation with performance
A decision that looks bad on social media is **not necessarily a bad professional decision**.
Managers should evaluate: Was the employee following the professional mandate? rather than only: Did the
customer/public like the outcome?
3. Filter social-media pressure
Organizations should act as a **buffer between public scrutiny and employees** instead of automatically
transmitting every complaint or criticism to frontline workers.
4. Look at the whole system
A change made to protect one employee or department from criticism can create problems elsewhere.
Managers therefore need to consider the **cascading consequences across different jobs and
departments**. This follows directly from Karunakaran's finding that scrutiny of call-takers affected
downstream professionals as well. ([Sage Journals][1])
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
This effect is **not necessarily present in every organization or every situation**.
It is particularly relevant when:
* employees are **frontline professionals** exposed directly or indirectly to customers/public;
* their work is highly visible or can easily be discussed on **social media**;
* outsiders **do not have the full context** needed to evaluate a professional decision;
* workers have to exercise **professional judgment or discretion**;
* public reputation creates strong pressure on the organization;
* the work is **interdependent**, meaning one employee's reaction can affect other professionals
downstream.
So the message is **NOT**: > “Social media scrutiny is always bad.”
It is: Social media scrutiny can improve accountability, but under certain conditions it can paradoxically
obscure accountability by pushing professionals away from their actual mandate.** ([Sage Journals][1])
Arvind Karunakaran — Social Media Scrutiny & Accountability
Karunakaran studied how social media scrutiny affects the behavior and accountability of frontline
professionals
He conducted an ethnographic study of **911 emergency management organizations**, focusing
particularly on 911 call-takers and how they react when their work can be publicly criticized and discussed
on social media.
One key concept: “Obscured Accountability”
→ When increased public scrutiny makes employees more concerned about avoiding visible criticism than
about fulfilling their actual professional mandate.
Why is it interesting for a company? — The paradox
Traditional assumption:
More transparency + more public scrutiny
→ employees behave better
→ stronger accountability.
Organizations therefore tend to believe that customer reviews, social media comments, ratings and public
feedback will make employees more accountable.
BUT — Karunakaran identifies a paradox:
More scrutiny can actually lead to LESS accountability.
Employees may start adapting their behavior to **what the public can see and criticize**, rather than to what
is actually best for the organization or the job.
His study therefore challenges the idea that increasing visibility automatically improves employee
accountability.
WHAT DID HE IDENTIFY?
Karunakaran finds that social-media scrutiny can change frontline employees' behavior.
In his 911 setting, call-takers can become concerned about how their actions might appear to the public.
This can push them to **deviate from their professional mandate**.
And the effect does not stop with the employee being scrutinized:
Social media scrutiny :
Fear / anticipation of public criticism → Frontline workers modify their behavior → Deviation from professional
mandate → Consequences for other professionals
➤ Obscured accountability :
Karunakaran shows that these consequences can **cascade through the organization**, affecting
downstream professionals such as dispatchers and police officers.
MANAGEMENT
WHAT IS THE SURPRISING RESULT?
➤ More visibility ≠ more accountability
The surprising finding is that public scrutiny, which is supposed to make organizations more accountable,
can actually **make responsibility less clear**.
Employees may focus on: « How will this look to the public?”
instead of: What is the professionally correct decision?”
So an accountability mechanism can become **counterproductive**.
This is particularly interesting because previous research often emphasized top-down scrutiny : from
supervisors, regulators or certification agencies as a way of strengthening professional accountability.
Social media introduces a diff form of bottom-up scrutiny, coming from customers and the general public
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
For managers, the lesson is **not “ignore social media.”** It is to avoid managing employees purely in
reaction to public criticism.
1. Protect professional judgment
Managers should give frontline employees enough discretion to make decisions based on their expertise
rather than simply trying to avoid negative public reactions.
2. Don't confuse reputation with performance
A decision that looks bad on social media is **not necessarily a bad professional decision**.
Managers should evaluate: Was the employee following the professional mandate? rather than only: Did the
customer/public like the outcome?
3. Filter social-media pressure
Organizations should act as a **buffer between public scrutiny and employees** instead of automatically
transmitting every complaint or criticism to frontline workers.
4. Look at the whole system
A change made to protect one employee or department from criticism can create problems elsewhere.
Managers therefore need to consider the **cascading consequences across different jobs and
departments**. This follows directly from Karunakaran's finding that scrutiny of call-takers affected
downstream professionals as well. ([Sage Journals][1])
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
This effect is **not necessarily present in every organization or every situation**.
It is particularly relevant when:
* employees are **frontline professionals** exposed directly or indirectly to customers/public;
* their work is highly visible or can easily be discussed on **social media**;
* outsiders **do not have the full context** needed to evaluate a professional decision;
* workers have to exercise **professional judgment or discretion**;
* public reputation creates strong pressure on the organization;
* the work is **interdependent**, meaning one employee's reaction can affect other professionals
downstream.
So the message is **NOT**: > “Social media scrutiny is always bad.”
It is: Social media scrutiny can improve accountability, but under certain conditions it can paradoxically
obscure accountability by pushing professionals away from their actual mandate.** ([Sage Journals][1])