Senior colleague refuses to be photographed - what to do

[Waferbiscuit]

We all have be photographed for work with the photos used for internal comms including our intranet. This is a pretty standard approach in large organisations as it helps to identify people. Photos are perfectly fine, generic photos and we get to select the one that is used.

Staff member is very senior but refuses to be photographed as 'doesn't like it/doesn't feel comfortable'. May be an anxiety thing.

Can they opt out? Should this opting out be supported or is this indulgent? Seems to me part of what you sign up for when you're in a senior role.

Staff member is not part of witness protection program, doesn't work in the community and AFAIK no safeguarding or privacy issues.

@Gwenhwyfar Well that was your opinion. There can be many senior positions without being right at the top of a public representative. But the whole public life thing is pointless anyway because OP said the photos were for internal Comms.

And if HR is allowing it they aren’t meeting their most basic requirement.

If an my senior member of staff is allowing it they are acting discriminatory. You trying to defend it is discriminatory.

Theres absolutely no valid reason that every Senior member of staff needs their photos published. Visibility isn’t a valid reason.

Just be the conversation happening you are alerting people that not allowing them to use your image is a problem. Even asking people why, is discriminatory.

Besides which visibility is far more than your photo on an email, newsletter or LinkedIn.

Sounds like your company is stuck in dark ages.

HR allowing what? HR are for the masses, the CEo isn’t managing their employee relationship with their executives using HR.

I think we’re probably all making assumptions about the level this person is at based on the level we work at, but if you haven’t seen someone managed out for being difficult (not just for one example, usually many) then you’ve not been exposed to many exits. If you sign a compromise agreement you waive your right to tribunal etc. there is no legal issue.

😂 I love that you think you have all the information on this individual.

if they don’t want to be photographed what business is it of yours? Why does it bother you so much? I suspect you are the office busy body.

HRs most basic function is protecting the company. Which includes from claims of discrimination and constructive dismissal.

If YOU know this your culture. Your HR team should know and addressed it and made clear that damaging someone’s career progression over wether a photos must be taken or not, is opening the company up to risk.

No, contracts do not over ride law.

It’s really clear you have no clue what you are talking about. I have seen people managed out, for all sorts of reasons. And many win at tribunal.

What’s the big deal? If she doesn’t want to have her photo taken that’s up to her. You can’t make her and should be more respectful of her choices.

No. Because we didn't insist on ridiculous demands, and people (at all levels) had the right to opt out of photos except on their personal ID

This is a bit naive. However it does depend on who the person is, and the extent to which they don’t fit in with the expected culture of the company.

It could be a one off, it could well be the start of someone who isn’t a good fit for the culture and will continuously rebel against cultural expectations.

depending on who they are-
-normal employee/ junior management- likely no one cares

-middle management- probably no one cares, they might not be popular or expected to progress.

-senior management ie director- could go the way of middle management or the way of the executive depending on loads of factors

-executive team- if an executive is going against cultural expectations then it will be more strategically concerning and the ceo is likely to want to exit them quickly, before their leadership impacts large parts of the organisation.

as you know at senior levels people rarely fight like dogs to keep their role.
turns out it’s a poor cultural fit, doesn’t work for them, doesn’t work for the company.

They can leave, reputation untarnished, with a bit of cash and a good reference and go to look for a job that is a better fit without bad feeling.

perfectly everyday stuff.

if on the other hand this person ONLY doesn’t want their photo taken and fits into the cultural expectations perfectly in any other way, then it’s less of an issue. But as myself and other posters have communicated, in our experience, people who refuse corporate cultural expectations often can just be difficult people in all kinds of ways, so that’s a possibility too.

It’s not specific to this scenario 😂 I’m not saying people are exited everyday for refusing to have their photo taken. But for not meeting corporate cultural expectations, yes, all the time

People have very good reasons for not wanting to be identified online and workplaces need to accept this without being intrusive. I keep a very low profile online, never post any pictures or locations for a reason that I really do not want to share with anyone.

No it’s not naive. it’s factual.

You may be ok with you company culture. Which is great. It doesn’t mean it’s legal.

Senior and executives are meant to I licence company culture. Not toe the line. If they know there’s something that could end up damaging the company publicly it’s their job to challenge it.

As I know, people at senior and exec levels don’t fight like dogs to stay. You are right. They do however pose a huge risk when they put a claim in. They very rarely just walk away without a pay off. A companies culture comes from the top. Senior staff and executives will ah e had more exposure to that culture and have more evidence of discriminatory behaviour.

Having to pay someone off is damaging to the company. Having it dragged to tribunal is hugely damaging to companies which is why they pay people off.

Those things are still damaging to a company.

Your last paragraph sums this up. And is what makes it discriminatory. Just because something is company culture it doesn’t mean it’s right, doesn’t mean it legal and doesn’t mean the company hasn’t opened itself to massive risk. It used to be culture in many companies that sexual harassment and sexism was ok. That’s slowly changing in many companies. Because people leading those companies don’t accept it and understand employment laws.

So again, your Hr and senior and executive team should all be thinking about protecting the company. If you like it there, that’s great. I find it strange that someone would enjoy working for a company they know is discriminatory. But you like it. That doesn’t make it legal. It’s doesn’t make it right and it exposes the company to risk.

And it’s worth repeating. Just because it’s in an employment contract, it doesn’t mean it over rides the law. Putting something in someone’s contract does not protect the company if they are being discriminatory.

@Wednesdaysdrag i don’t really understand why you think I would only know about one company? I’ve been working 30 years I’ve worked across hundreds of companies. Compromise agreements aren’t a failure at all, they’re a regular occurrence.

the executive shape and implement the companies culture. They have to be been aligned on what that looks like to be successful.

I had this in one large organisation, the jobsworth insisting on having my photo on the intranet complained to the dept manager when I point blank refused (there was nothing about having my photo taken or published in my contract). They were sent packing as I had a key role in the dept and couldn’t risk losing me, unlike the staff member trying to bully me into having my photo taken.

Yes, and you are still working like it’s 30 years ago.

You have had some rough luck working for companies of all of your companies were like this.

Discriminating against someone, getting rid of them and paying them off to keep quiet is opening the company to risk.

Exactly, executives shape and implement the culture. Meaning they can change the culture and don’t have just going along with existing culture, especially where the culture is discriminatory. And you are saying you have only known poor executives who create a culture that opens up their company risk. That’s a shame for you.

Discrimination is not what successful looks like. Failure to recognise the changing nature of firing people or purposely damaging their career is not success.

Thinking you can write something in a contract and it overrides the law is not what success looks like, I am afraid.

You can't just change a contract someone has signed to suit you.

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract

I am not sure why you care? I couldn't care less who out of my colleagues have their photos up or not.

I think it’s really sexist that many jobs expect to have photos of employees to put in the public domain and also a professional social media presence for staff, that is run by them personally.
I don’t mean a corporately run social media presence for an individual person, which only happens at much more senior and protected levels
Public exposure for your professional role like that is not needed for loads of jobs where the employers want it for the free PR value.
It is not something that men or women should be forced to take on by employers if they don’t want to. And we know the risks are greater for women so it’s very inappropriate for employers to have it as a blanket expectation of staff conduct or worse, to make it mandatory.

That isn't true actually. An employer can vary a contract at any time (subject to appropriate notification periods). It is then up to the employee whether they accept it or leave. Similarly, an employee can notify an employer that they wish to vary their contract and it is up to the employer whether they accept it or not. In both instances though, it is the employee who ends up leaving.

There are obviously other surrounding regulations, however that's the pub of it. I've done this many times, all perfectly legal.

No what I’m saying is if the executives agree that visible leaders are what they want and need, that’s the culture they are setting. They will not change something they set.

it isn’t a moral judgement, it’s real life.

Visibility isn’t about your photo on an email and your face in a newsletter.

When has anyone asked the question ‘how can I get promoted?’ And had the response ‘you need to be more visible, add your photo to your email’

So we have come full circle. Your executives have set a culture that exposes the company to risk. HR know. They know and doing it anyway. So the aren’t fulfilling one of their fundamental roles.

That doesn’t mean a Senior member of staff can’t come in and change that culture or point out they are leaving the company vulnerable.

Everyone is talking about the real world. And in the real world trying to stifle someone’s career over a photo, under the guise of ‘ usability’, is exposing the company to risk. You accept it. They accept it. But it’s still there. In the real world.

I agree - visibility is about interaction with people - both within the company and externally. It’s about be available to your team, customers and stakeholders.

in my work complaints about lack of visibility have increased since WFH - it’s not about a photo in an internal magazine or on a company website. It’s about seeing the person, knowing the person, feeling comfortable to raise issues and have face to face discussions.

The most ‘absent’ and non- visible colleague I have ever had had her photo splashed everywhere and was all over LinkedIn. Her team rarely saw her, she rarely turned up to meetings, refused to speak to more junior staff, wasn’t visible

I hate having my photo taken.....lt makes me feel very uncomfortable, l don't know why, as there are small mountains of photos at my parents home, taken until l was about 21ish...
Having wedding photographs done was an ordeal, the photographer seemed to take for ever, l did ask if he could be quicker, he was very obliging.....If l look at photo's of me, l think l look awful to everyone else and wonder why l look so different in a mirror, than l do in a photo...l am just odd & that's me unfortunately

By that logic, should the person in your example also be allowed to WFH permanently so that nobody sees them in real life?

Unless it’s an official document such as passport or driving licence you can’t force anyone to have their picture taken

I'd say your assumption is misplaced. And I really don't understand the point you're making about them supporting a policy that doesn't exist.

A senior role doesn't come with some universal JD that says 'must do photos'. It matters not a jot, surely. I presume you have a problem with them in some other way, and this is just manifesting in another way?