
It was not.
Our HR team wanted employees to share more about company culture, hiring updates, internal events, and project wins on LinkedIn. We were not trying to turn everyone into corporate influencers. We only wanted people to feel more comfortable writing about work when there was something worth sharing.
The usual problem was the blank page. Someone attended a company event, joined a volunteer activity, completed a project, or had a good team moment. They were willing to post, but they did not know how to start. Some people worried about sounding too formal. Some worried about saying the wrong thing. Some simply did not have time to turn a rough thought into a clean post.
So we set up a ChatGPT Project for it.
The idea was simple. Instead of every employee prompting from scratch, HR would condition the project with shared context: company tone, basic social media guidelines, examples of acceptable employee posts, phrases to avoid, and reminders about confidential information. Anyone using that project would start from the same set of instructions.
At first, it worked well.
Employees could paste in a few rough notes and ask for a LinkedIn draft. Someone could write, “We had a team volunteering event last Friday, I helped with registration, make this sound natural.” Another person could ask for a short post about joining the company, a project milestone, or a hiring announcement. The drafts came out cleaner than what most people would write from scratch.
For HR, this looked like progress. More people were willing to share. The posts were more readable. The tone was more consistent. Employees were not staring at a blank page anymore.
Also Read: Quantum’s ChatGPT moment is coming — and it’s worth trillions
Then we noticed the issue. Some drafts sounded a little too official.
An employee might only want to say they enjoyed a team event, but the draft would turn it into a polished statement about company values. A hiring post might sound like it came from the corporate page instead of a person. A project post might imply that the employee was speaking on behalf of the company, even when they were only sharing a personal reflection.
That was the friction point. The ChatGPT Project had made drafting easier, but it had also made company-sounding posts easier to produce.
This mattered because employee advocacy sits in an awkward middle ground. A personal LinkedIn post is not the same as an official company announcement. But when the post is about work, people can easily blur the line. A sentence that sounds harmless inside a draft can still create confusion outside the company.
The issue was not that the project was bad. The shared context helped. It reduced blank-page writing and gave employees a safer starting point. The problem was that our instructions focused too much on writing style and not enough on posting boundaries.
So we changed the project instructions.
We added a simple rule: before drafting, ChatGPT had to identify what kind of post it was preparing. Was it a personal reflection, a hiring-related post, an event recap, a project update, or a repost of official company news?
That small step changed the output.
Also Read: OpenAI’s Astra aims to turn AI from chatbot into digital worker
If the post was a personal reflection, the draft had to sound like the employee. It could mention what they experienced, what they appreciated, and what they learned, but it should not make broad claims on behalf of the company. If the draft crossed that line, ChatGPT had to flag it to the user.
If the post was about hiring, it had to stay close to the approved hiring message. It could make the post warmer or more personal, but it should not invent role details, benefits, salary hints, or promises about career progression.
If the post was about a project, it had to avoid confidential details, client names, unreleased work, internal numbers, or claims that had not already been cleared.
We also asked the project to show a short “check before posting” note under each draft. Not a long policy lecture. Just a few practical checks: remove confidential details, confirm that this is your personal view, check whether the role or event information is current, and get approval if the post sounds like an official company statement and not personal.
That helped because employees did not need to remember the whole social media policy every time. The reminder appeared where the work happened.
It also showed us the limitation of using a ChatGPT Project alone. The project could draft and warn, but it could not route approvals by itself. Right now, we are moving beyond the project setup so the workflow can become more agentic. When approval is needed, the workflow should route the draft to the right person, such as Marcom, Legal, or HR. That person can adjust it, send it back to the writer and it will automatically be posted.
This was more useful than writing a long rulebook. The workflow became less about generating perfect posts and more about helping employees stay inside the right lane.
We did not need employees to become marketing people. We needed them to have a safer way to share real work moments without accidentally sounding like the corporate communications team.
—
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.
Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.
The post I used to think the hard part of employee advocacy was getting people to post appeared first on e27.




