Linkedin Employee Advocacy

LinkedIn Employee Advocacy

Advocacy programmes usually fail the same way. Marketing writes a post, sends it to thirty people with "please share", and eight of them paste it on the same morning. Colleagues like each other's copies for a week. A manager starts asking who has posted. By the second month the willing have gone quiet and the unwilling are resentful, and the company has taught its own staff that their personal accounts are a distribution list.

The cause is treating employees' accounts as a channel the company owns. This skill designs the programme the other way round: people opt in individually, write in their own words about subjects they know first-hand, at a cadence sized to the time they have actually agreed to, with review limited to a short list of risk triggers. It works offline. It plans from a roster file the user supplies; it does not post, schedule, log in to anything, or collect data from the network.

Scope boundary. This skill designs and governs the team programme. It does not write anyone's posts or comments (linkedin-post-writer, linkedin-comment-writer), clean up drafting-tool phrasing (linkedin-humanizer), or test opening lines (linkedin-hook-analyzer). It does not manage replies or follow threads (linkedin-reply-manager, linkedin-thread-tracker), build an individual's content calendar or recycle material (linkedin-content-planner, linkedin-content-repurposer), or interview a person to find their stories (linkedin-story-interviewer). Individual profiles are linkedin-profile-optimizer; working out who a post reached is linkedin-engagement-analytics. None of those is required to use this one.

When to use this skill

• A leader wants "the team posting" and there is no charter, roster or cadence yet
• A programme exists but output is identical, sporadic or has stopped
• HR, legal or a works council asks what the rules are and none are written down
• People are being nominated by managers instead of asked
• A review queue has become the reason nothing gets published
• The sponsor wants to know whether the programme is working, and the only numbers are a leaderboard

Inputs the skill expects

• The programme goal: pipeline, hiring, reputation or category
• A roster of people who have been asked: role family, seniority, how often they post today, hours a week they have agreed to, their own topics, and whether they said yes
• Honest answers to the governance questions in assets/roster_template.json
• Who the owner and the checkers are, and how much time the checkers have
• Any regulated or restricted roles on the team
• The countries the team works in, for the legal review of disclosure and employment wording

Clarify First

Before producing a plan or charter, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• Whether each person has opted in themselves — the planner schedules only people with a recorded yes; a manager's list is not consent and changes the roster entirely
• The programme goal — decides which role families the plan depends on and what the outcome log counts
• Hours each person has really agreed to — every cadence is capped by it; an optimistic figure produces a plan nobody keeps
• Regulated roles and jurisdictions — decides who needs a pre-publication check and which sections of the charter need counsel

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

Workflows

Workflow 1 — Quick start: plan a roster

1. Copy assets/roster_template.json. Add one entry per person who has been asked, and set opted_in to true only for those who said yes.
2. Answer every governance key. An unanswered key is reported as a gap.
3. Run the planner and read the findings before the matrix; blockers come first.
4. The agent reports the weekly matrix, the topic coverage map, each blocker with its fix, and the assumptions used (time model, review share).

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/scripts/advocacy_planner.py \
  --input tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/assets/sample_roster.json

Workflow 2 — Write the charter and clear the gate

1. Fill in assets/advocacy_charter_template.md using references/governance-and-consent.md: consent, never-scripted list, disclosure, triggers and checkers, incident pause, leavers.
2. Send sections 4, 5 and 8 for legal review in each jurisdiction.
3. Update the roster's governance answers to match what the charter now says.
4. Re-run the planner as a quality gate. It must pass with no blockers before anyone is invited to post.
5. Share each member their own row and record their acceptance in charter section 12.

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/scripts/advocacy_planner.py \
  --input tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/assets/sample_roster.json \
  --fail-on blocker

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/scripts/advocacy_rules.py --list-rules

Workflow 3 — Four-week review and recalibration

1. Collect plan versus actual at team level and each member's honest estimate of minutes spent. Do not collect individual reach figures unless offered.
2. Calibrate the time model with the team median (references/programme-design.md §10) and re-run for the current week.
3. Resolve crowded topics by vantage point and agree changes with the members concerned.
4. Update the baseline sheet and the outcome log (references/measuring-the-programme.md §3 and §5).
5. Verify that nobody has been moved up a stage without asking for it.

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/scripts/advocacy_planner.py \
  --input tools/linkedin/linkedin-employee-advocacy/assets/sample_roster.json \
  --week 8 --minutes-per-post 55 --format json

Decision frameworks

What the company may supply

Review design