Professional Ethical Analysis Paper

Professional Ethical Analysis Paper 1
Professional Ethical Analysis Paper

Christian Larin
ASU
BIS 345
Introduction
I am currently working for Starbucks Coffee Company. I am a Store Manger. In
this paper I will be discussing the moral dilemma around social media and employee
accountability. The six case studies discuss the complex nature of being a middle manger
and the dangers of social media and privacy. The younger generations are used to living
their lives on social media. They tend to share everything. I have had to recently have a
discussion with one employee about a posting they shared. It created a firestorm with
other employees commenting some negative things. The case studies that I presented
helped me process and decide how to proceed by looking at different perspectives.
Secondly, I interviewed my district manager and another district manger that is in the
neighboring district to mine. They didnt know about the posting that I came across and
wanted to use the interview process to gain some insight around how they view things.
Finally, I will present the discussion where I will share the thought process around the
ethical dilemma I found myself in and what lead me to take the actions that I took.
REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1 - Campaign Shenanigans - When volunteers behave unethically
By: Hana Callaghan
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, January 22, 2016. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/campaign-
shenanigans/
The daughter of a long time donor has a paid staff position on your campaign. One of
her tasks is to recruit college student volunteers and supervise them when they show up
for campaign events. At the State convention she has organized a spontaneous rally
providing great optics for the press on how the youth vote supports you. The students are
provided all access to the convention parties including free alcohol. The morning after
these parties all of your primary opponents signs, displays, and materials have
mysteriously disappeared. The evidence strongly suggests that the culprits were your
student volunteers, led by your donors daughter. Not wanting to offend your donor, you
laugh the charges off with a shrug and a chuckle saying, Kids will be kids.
Commentary: Managers and leaders need to have the leadership courage to have
conversations with those that they lead. The college student volunteers are representing
the campaign. If the individuals were thought to be involved, then it would be up to the
person responsible for them to have that conversation. Having that direct conversation
would allow the donors daughter to show that she is in charge. If the students were
found to be those responsible, then they need to be held accountable. Those students may
also go further next time if they are not held accountable or confronted. We need to be
able to have direct conversations with each other. This ability used to be more common
place.
Case Study 2 - Ethics and the Middle Manager
By: Kirk Hanson
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, May 09, 2008. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/ethics-and-the-middle-
managertone-in-the-middle/
Creating "Tone in The Middle"

Creating a culture of ethics is often frustrated by a lack of attention and commitment
by middle managers.
Creating a culture of ethics requires all levels of employees believe that the organization
wants to act ethically in all it does. Emphasis since 2001 on "tone at the top," one of the
legacies of the misbehavior by top management in the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and other
scandals, has helped many top executives realize they must create this tone by their own
behavior.
Too often, however, the behavior of middle managers remains unchanged, and
undermines ethical messages and the creation of an ethical culture which is a corporate
priority. If middle managers are not committed to the values and ethics, this is
immediately apparent to the lower level employees. The implementation of ethics in an
organization is only as strong as its weakest link as it flows down into the organization.
An organization's "tone at the top" must be translated into a "tone at the middle" before it
can reach the rest of the organization.
What is needed in every organization is an understanding by the top management and by
the ethics/compliance professionals that they are seeking to influence specific behaviors
of middle managers, just as they have focused in recent years on specific behaviors by
top executives.
The problem of motivating middle managers, however, is in many ways more difficult.
Middle managers are given explicit and often unyielding financial, sales, and cost control
goals to achieve. At times, they may perceive that top management is actually giving
them the message to focus on the quantifiable business goals and not on the "softer"
ethical goals, that the ethical messages were "for the record" and not real. At other times,
they may perceive that top management simply does not realize they cannot meet the
stretch performance goals without "stretching" the ethical standards of the organizations.
In these cases, many middle managers decide for themselves to take the expedient path.
There are specific behaviors which middle managers must demonstrate in order for lower
level employees to understand that the organization is serious about ethics.
It is possible to specify the middle management behaviors that will help the creation of an
ethical culture. These are similar to that of the top management but include some unique
actions. The key behaviors are:
1. Talk frequently about the ethical values and ethical commitment of the
organization
2. Anticipate ethical dilemmas which typically arise in his or her area of
responsibility
3. Talk about how the ethical values and commitments apply to the work of the
specific group
4. Talk about how the ethical values and commitments apply to specific decisions
the middle manager makes or participates in.
5. Recognize ethical issues when they do arise
6. Ask questions when the ethical action is unclear

7. Make ethical decisions consistent with organizational values and ethics
8. Report concerns about ethical and unethical actions to top managers
There are specific techniques which help the top to communicate the organization's real
ethical commitment to the middle managers in ways that convince them the organization
is serious.
Motivating middle managers to reinforce the ethical culture of the organization by their
own actions requires several specific actions by top executives. Among them are:
1. Top executives must themselves exhibit all the "tone at the top" behaviors,
including acting ethically, talking frequently about the organization's values and
ethics, and supporting the organization's and individual employee's adherence to
the values
2. Top executives must explicitly ask middle managers what dilemmas arise in
implementing the ethical commitments of the organization in the work of that
group
3. Top executives must give general guidance about how values apply to those
specific dilemmas
4. Top executives must explicitly delegate resolution of those dilemmas to the
middle managers
5. Top executives must make it clear to middle managers that their ethical
performance is being watched as closely as their financial performance
6. Top executives must make ethical competence and commitment of middle
managers a part of their performance evaluation
7. The organization must provide opportunities for middle managers to work with
peers on resolving the hard cases.
8. Top executives must be available to the middle managers to discuss/coach/resolve
the hardest cases
Selected Resources:
"Who Wants To Be A Middle Manager?" (USA Today, August 12, 2007)
Commentary: With organizations growing so large, it will be the next level boss
that determines what and how things are implemented. The CEO may have the
vision, but with companies like Starbucks and Amazon growing so large, most
low-level employees will not every get a chance to speak the CEO. The middle
managers are the ones that will interpret and implement a lot of the vision for the
company. These are the mangers that need to have a very good compass around
ethics. I lead a few dozen employees and they look for me to help set the tone
around what is right and what is not.
Case Study 3 - Off the Clock

By: Clare Bartlett
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, August 26, 2015. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-
cases/off-the-clock/
Sarah was recently promoted to a managerial position at her industrial engineering
company. With her new position, she is now responsible for overseeing the companys
production factory, meaning approximately 50 factory workers now report to her.
Although Sarah previously worked as an engineer and does not have any experience
running a factory, she is excited to begin her new position.
At the end of her first day, Sarah is confused to see her factory workers continuing to
work well past the end of their 8-hour shift. She then goes to the factory supervisor (who
reports to her) to express concern because the factory does not have the budget to pay so
many workers overtime. The supervisor smiles at Sarah and explains that the factory
meets production goals by making the factory workers work off the clock. The workers
are well aware of this expectation and went along with it in order to keep their jobs. Sarah
is shocked to learn this illegal practice had become part of the company culture, but the
supervisor explains that the companys CEO (who is Sarahs boss) is well aware of this
expectation.
What should Sarah do?
Clare Bartlett was a 2014-2015 Hackworth Fellow in Engineering Ethics at the
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

Commentary: With big organizations it is usually the two next level managers that will
determine the experience you have in that organization. In this case, if Sarah chooses to
bring this practice of working off the clock up to her boss, she may put her job in
jeopardy. She also has the option of just taking control of the situation and forcing the
supervisor to start not allowing the workers to work off the clock. At this point, the
supervisor may just ignore Sarah or go above Sarah to the CEO. This is an ethical
dilemma for a lot of middle managers. When we dont agree with a decision or direction
that our company is going/making, then when do we speak up? I would hope that she
would feel secure in having a discussion with the CEO. If the CEO did know and just
told Sarah to not worry about it, then at least she tried. However, if the CEO did not
know, then maybe they can look at needing to fix the issue as to way they need to work
off the clock.
Case Study 4 - LittleBrother is watching you
By: Miriam Schulman
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, November 20, 2000. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/littlebrother-is-
watching-you/
If you happen to be reading this article online from your computer at work, your boss
may be reading over your shoulder-electronically. New technologies allow employers to
check whether employees are wasting time at recreational Web sites or sending
unprofessional e-mails. But when do an employer's legitimate business interests become
an unacceptable invasion of worker privacy?

Last year, a software package came on the market that allows employers to monitor their
workers' Internet use. It employs a database of 45,000 Web sites that are categorized as
"productive," "unproductive," or "neutral," and rates employees based on their browsing.
It identifies the most frequent users and the most popular sites. It's called LittleBrother.
Though the title is tongue-in-cheek, LittleBrother does represent the tremendous
capabilities technology has provided for employers to keep track of what their work force
is up to. There are also programs to search e-mails and programs to block objectionable
Web sites. Beyond installing monitoring software, your boss can simply go into your hard
drive, check your cache to see where you've been on the Net, and read your e-mail.
Did you delete that message you sent about his incompetence? Not good enough. The e-
mail trash bin probably still exists on the server, and there are plenty of computer
consultants who can retrieve the incriminating message.
All told, such monitoring is a widespread-and-growing-phenomenon. Looking just at e-
mail, a 1996 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 36
percent of responding companies searched employee messages regularly and 70 percent
said employers should reserve the right to do so.
The Law
Legally, employees have little recourse. The most relevant federal law, the 1986
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits unauthorized interception of various
electronic communications, including e-mail. However, the law exempts service
providers from its provisions, which is commonly interpreted to include employers who
provide e-mail and Net access, according to David Sobel, legal counsel for the Electronic
Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. A federal bill that would have required
employers at least to notify workers that they were being monitored failed to come to a
vote from 1993 to 1995.
The situation in the courts is similar. "There aren't many cases, and they tend to go
against the employee," according to Santa Clara University Professor of Law Dorothy
Glancy. "Often, court opinions take the point of view that when the employees are using
employers' propertythe employers' computers and networksthe employees'
expectation of privacy is minimal." When courts take this view, Glancy continues, "if
employees want to have private communications, they can enjoy them on their own time
and equipment."
In a presentation on employee monitoring, Mark S. Dichter and Michael S. Burkhardt of
the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius explain that courts have tried to balance "an
employee's reasonable expectation of privacy against the employer's business justification
for monitoring."
For example, in Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., Michael Smyth argued that his privacy was
violated and he was wrongfully discharged from his job after his employers read several
e-mails he had exchanged with his supervisor. In the electronic messages, among other
offensive references, he threatened to "kill the backstabbing bastards" in sales
management.
The court ruled that Smyth had "no reasonable expectation of privacy" on his employer's
system, despite the fact that Pillsbury had repeatedly assured employees that their e-mail
was confidential. In addition, the court held that the company's interest in preventing
"inappropriate and unprofessional" conduct outweighed Smyth's privacy rights.
Privacy as a Moral Matter
But the fact that employee monitoring is legal does not automatically make it right. From
an ethical point of view, an employee surely does not give up all of his or her privacy
when entering the workplace. To determine how far employee and employer moral rights
should extend, it's useful to start with a brief exploration of how privacy becomes a moral
matter.
Michael J. Meyer, SCU professor of philosophy, explains it this way: "Employees are
autonomous moral agents. Among other things, that means they have independent moral
status defined by some set of rights, not the least of which is the right not to be used by
others only as a means to increase overall welfare or profits."
Applying this to the workplace, Meyer says, "As thinking actors, human beings are more
than cogs in an organizationthings to be pushed around so as to maximize profits. They
are entitled to respect, which requires some attention to privacy. If a boss were to monitor
every conversation or move, most of us would think of such an environment as more like
a prison than a humane workplace." But, like all rights, privacy is not absolute.
Sometimes, as in the case of law enforcement, invasions of privacy may be warranted. In

"Privacy, Morality, and the Law," William Parent, also a philosophy professor at SCU,
sets out six criteria for determining whether an invasion of privacy is justifiable:
1. For what purpose is the undocumented personal knowledge sought?
2. Is this purpose a legitimate and important one?
3. Is the knowledge sought through invasion of privacy relevant to its justifying
purpose?
4. Is invasion of privacy the only or the least offensive means of obtaining the
knowledge?
5. What restrictions or procedural restraints have been placed on the privacy-
invading techniques?
6. How will the personal knowledge be protected once it has been acquired?
These questions can offer guidance as we consider both sides of the controversy.
The Case for Workplace Monitoring
If an employer uses a software package that sweeps through office computers and
eliminates games workers have installed, few people will feel such an action is an
invasion of privacy. Our comfort with this kind of intrusion suggests that most of us don't
fault an employer who insists that the equipment he or she provides be used for work, at
least during working hours.

Why, then, should we balk when an employer tries to ensure that his equipment is not
being used to surf non-job-related Web sites? Hours spent online browsing the recipe files
of Epicurious are no less a breach of the work contract than games playing.
"The underlying principle is value for money," says Joseph R. Garber, a columnist for
Forbes magazine. "If you don't deliver value for money, in some sense, you're lying."
Garber gives this illustration: If we hired someone to paint our house, and they didn't do
the northern wall, we would feel moral outrage. Similarly, if we pay workers to give a
good day's work and they are, instead, surfing X-rated Web sites, we are also morally
outraged.
Such "cyberlollygagging" is no small problem. A study by Nielsen Media Research found
that employees at major corporations such as IBM, Apple, and AT&T logged onto the
online edition of Penthouse thousands of times a month.
Beyond worry about lost productivity, employers have legitimate concerns about the use
of e-mail in thefts of proprietary information, which, according to the "Handbook on
White Collar Crime," account for more than $2 billion in losses a year. The transfer of
such information can be monitored by programs that search employee e-mails for suspect
word strings or by employers simply going into the employee's hard drive and reading the
messages.
In a case last year, a former employee of Cadence Systems was charged with stealing
proprietary information and intending to bring it to the rival software maker Avant!
According to prosecutors, before leaving Cadence, he e-mailed a file containing 5 million

bytes to a personal e-mail account. Such large messages suggested that he might be
sending source code for the company's products and prompted Cadence to contact the
police.
Electronic communications can pose other dangers for employers besides breached
security and lost productivity. More and more, employers are being held legally liable for
the atmosphere in the workplace. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, employers
worry about litigation like the $70-million suit brought by Morgan Stanley employees,
who claimed that racist jokes on the company's electronic mail system created a hostile
work environment.
Sexual harassment cases also often hinge on allegations of a hostile work environment,
which might be evidenced by employees downloading or displaying pornographic
material from the Web or sending off-color e-mails. "The days of guys putting naked
bunnies up on their computer screens are gone because that's actionable stuff," Garber
comments.
To prevent such abuses, Garber argues, employers need to be allowed to monitor: "We
can't make corporations responsible for stopping unacceptable forms of behavior and then
deny them the tools needed to keep an eye out for that behavior."
The Case Against Workplace Monitoring
Consider this scenario: It's lunch hour. An employee writes a note to her boyfriend. She
puts it in an envelope, affixes her own stamp, and drops it in the basket where outgoing
mail is collected. Does the fact that the pencil and paper she used belong to her employer
give her boss the right to open and read this letter?
Although most people would answer no, that's just the argument employers are making to
defend monitoring e-mail, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center's
Sobel: Employers claim that because they own the computer, they have the right to read
the e-mail it produces. The situation is complicated by the fact that work and personal life
are not as clearly delineated as they once were, due, in part, to the very technologies that
are being monitored. Employees may telecommute, doing much of their business through
e-mail and the Net. Often, they work a good deal more than 40 hours a week. If they take
a moment to send a message to Aunt Margaret in Saskatoon, do they not have a right to
expect their e-mail will be confidential?
"Most people don't work 8 to 5," says Anthony Pozos, senior vice president for human
resources and corporate services at Amdahl Corp. "We pay people to do a job; we don't
really pay by time increment. Employees probably do use our e-mail or Web access for
personal matters; it's analogous to using the telephone. People do sometimes need to do
personal things on the job, but as long as it doesn't interfere with work, that should be
okay."
Another ethical consideration in the debate is fairness. Usually, it's not corporate higher-
ups who are subject to monitoring, but line workers. That's particularly true when it
comes to key-stroke monitoring, a form of electronic surveillance that measures the speed
of data entry. According to an article in Public Personnel Management, "The majority of
employees being electronically monitored are women in low-paying clerical positions."

Then there's Parent's question about whether the invasion of privacy (represented by
monitoring) is the only or the least offensive means of obtaining the information
employers seek. In a survey conducted by PC World, slightly more than half of the
executives interviewed were opposed to monitoring employees' Internet use. Scott
Paddock, manager of PC Brokers, told the magazine, "First, I trust my employees; that's
why they work for me. If there were to be any problems with an employee, those
problems would present themselves without the need for me to get involved in cloak-and-
dagger shenanigans. And second, if I spent time monitoring their Web usage, I would be
just as guilty of wasting time as my behavior implies they are."
Trust is often mentioned by opponents of monitoring as a major ethical issue. As Rita C.
Manning writes in the Journal of Business Ethics, "When we look at the workplaces in
which surveillance is common, we see communities in trouble. What is missing in these
communities is trust."
If, Manning continues, employers create trust, employee behavior "will conform to
certain norms, not as a result of being watched, but as a result of the care and respect
which are part of the communal fabric."
Some Possibilities for Common Ground
It is possible to moot many of these ethical issues by arguing that monitoring all comes
down to a question of contract. That is the view of David Friedman, an economist and
professor at SCU's School of Law.

"There isn't an agreement that is morally right for everybody. The important thing is what
the parties agree to," he says. "If the employer gives a promise of privacy, then that
should be respected." If, on the other hand, the employer reserves the right to read e-mail
or monitor Web browsing, the worker can either accept those terms or look elsewhere for
employment, Friedman continues.
Friedman's argument doesn't address the problems of lower-income workers who may not
have a choice about whether to accept a job or, if they do, may be choosing between
entry-level positions where monitoring is a feature of the work environment.
But he does point to an area where some common ground may exist between opponents
and proponents of monitoring. Most parties to the debate agree that companies should
have clear policies on electronic surveillance and that these should be effectively
communicated to employees.
A recent study by International Data Corp. suggests that such clarity does not currently
prevail. A survey of employees at 110 businesses showed that 45 percent thought their
company had no policy on e-mail at all. Most of those who did know the company policy
had either learned it by word of mouth or were directly involved in writing it.
Spelling out company policy "is our bottom line," says Sobel. "We would like to see an
outright prohibition on e-mail monitoring in the workplace, but, at the very least, there
needs to be notice to employees if that's the policy."
Pozos believes that involving employees in the creation of a monitoring policy is also a
way to find common ground. By bringing employees and managers together to develop
principles and guidelines for electronic mail, Amdahl was able to create a policy that was
acceptable to both sides, Pozos says.
In any case, employers who reserve the right to monitor should attend to the
considerations Parent proposes, ensuring at least that the monitoring serves a legitimate
purpose and follows clear procedures to protect a worker's personal life from unnecessary
prying, either by LittleBrother or by Big Brother.
Commentary: The privacy concerns are starting to make headlines as more and more
individuals actually realize how little privacy we all have. The fact that most workers did
not know of the policy around checking email and Internet usage is alarming. The best
thing any company or employee can do is making sure that everyone knows what the
rules are. I am from the generation that just assumes that everyone is monitoring your
usage at school or at work if you are using one of their computers. The smartphone and
tablets do allow an individual more privacy by not allowing the need to use one of the
computers at work/school. I do know that I would leave a trail of what websites I did
visit, but there is also ways to go around that. The privacy that we all used to have in the
work place and at school are all gone. As long as we are told what is and is not searched,
we must just assume that it will all be searched unless we use our own equipment.
Case Study 5 - Should Executives be Allowed to be on Social Media
By: Patrick Coutermarsh
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, May 6, 2014. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/executives-allowed-to-
be-on-social-media/
Friday night, recently hired (and now fired) PayPal director of strategy sent out a
series of both odd and inflammatory tweets. The messages, by Rakesh Agrawal, read
more like drunken ramblings and included derogatory remarks toward specific executives
of PayPal. The company responded on Twitter: Rakesh Agrawal is no longer with the
company. Treat everyone with respect. No excuses. PayPal has zero tolerance. As the
social media craze continues, companies are increasingly asking their executives to
cultivate an online presence, but they are very sensitive to the kind of presence. While
there are a number of benefits for companies letting customers put a face to the
company, showing a commitment to users, and cheap advertising the Agrawal v.
PayPal debacle demonstrates how the process can go awry. As executives craft their
personal brands, they do so with the name of the company in their taglines and bios.
Are the risks too great to ask an executive to blog and tweet with his or her corporate
identity? On the other hand, can a company impose restrictions on what an employee
says online?
Kirk: Companies seem to want it both ways. They want the credibility of an executive
interacting online as an individual, but also want to control the positions and image they
present. Clearly a company cannot afford to have employees criticize customers or other
shareholders, but its on them to call it like it is: its not free speech; its corporate PR.
With that as the starting point, companies can then come to an agreement with employees
who enter the social media sphere on behalf of the company.
Patrick: The line between professional and social life is increasingly disappearing:
does listing where you work on a profile mean you are continually representing the
company in an official capacity? I agree with Kirk when applied to employees who are
online at the companys request, but things get more interesting when their efforts are
unpromptedor better yet, when a disgruntled former employee takes to social media.
Then again, an interesting byproduct of social media is that anyone can create a platform
to voice their thoughts: an important balance to the power differential between employees
and employer.
Commentary: This case study spoke to me due to the nature of where social media is in
our daily lives. Most individuals check their social media multiple times a day, if not
hourly. With this feeling of being so connected to a digital world, the ethical dilemma
arises when individuals are held accountable for personal views that they may have on
their personal social media accounts. More companies want the free publicity of their
worker on social media. If they are giving free publicity to their employer, then should
they be compensated? Should each company just hire a department to run the social
media content/accounts of very public executives?
Case Study 6 - To Read--or Not To Read--the Comments
By: Irina Raicu
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, March 1, 2014. Santa Clara University.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/to-read--or-not-to-read--
the-comments/
When you read online, do you read the comments? Over the last few years, a "Don't Read
the Comments" movement has swept the Internet. (@AvoidComments, a Twitter bot
launched in late 2012, which tweets out daily reminders not to read comments, once
boasted more than 33,000 followers including prominent journalists, academics, and
technologists.)
Many Internet users have come to feel that online comments are often not thoughtful
responses but angry, simplistic, hate-filled tirades, or personal attacks against authors or
other commenters. As a resultas Scientific American blogger Krystal D'Costa notes
"many readers ... routinely skip the comments, particularly for material that touches
upon controversial topics. When they do read the comments, their response is typically
some variation of 'I read the comments. I shouldn't have read the comments. Why did I
read the comments ?!'"
In March 2014, Jeff Atwood (a blogger, software developer, and co-founder of the Stack
Exchange network) wrote a response to this movement: "Please Read the Comments."
While acknowledging that online comments can be awful, Atwood argues that the
appropriate response is not to stop reading the comments, but for the community to
moderate them; he writes, "if you are unwilling to moderate your online community, you
don't deserve to have an online community." He links to a post by another well-known
blogger, Anil Dash, who argues that website operators have a moral obligation to
moderate comments on their site; Dash adds, "if you don't, you're making the web, and
the world, a worse place. And it's your fault."
Recognizing, however, that comment moderation is difficult and costly, Atwood has
developed a software-based solution that allows a community of commenters to moderate
itself. As he describes it, "Civilization begins with software that actively works to help
you create safe environments for having reasonable conversations with other human
beings. On the Internet, even!"
However, even with the help of such software, some members of the online community
would still have to read all the comments, as part of the process through which those
comments would get sorted and prioritized. And while some people argue that words
can't really be harmful, others disagree. For example, Caroline Criado-Perez, a feminist
blogger, points out the misogyny prevalent in many comments sectionsand though she
also challenges women to do more than just stop reading comments, she acknowledges
that the reading has a cost, too:
I see the sense in 'Avoid the Comments,' I really do. Who has the mental and emotional
capacity to take on the bilious internet herd? The times I have 'waded in', I am routinely
left with that dead feeling in my stomach. I feel hopeless and exhausted, and reluctant
to ever go back. ... [T]he daily dose of internet bile, and the daily reminder that there are
big signs hung over large swathes of the internet saying 'Women Keep Out' does nothing
to help this.
Confronted by similarly demeaning personal attacks in online comments, members of
other groups feel the same way. In addition, in some contexts, uncivil comments may
cause a different kind of harm. In September 2013, for example, the online content
director of the magazine Popular Science announced,
Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting
them off. It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science
and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as
we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and
spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.
She went on to cite a study showing that "uncivil comments not only polarized readers,
but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself. ... Simply
including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study
participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd
previously thought."
Despite such decisions, Atwood remains convinced that comments overall do more good
than harm and "reliably produce crowdsourced knowledge in aggregate." Through his
new "Discourse" software, he hopes to alleviate the problem that led to the "don't read the
comments" meme. For now, tools like "Discourse" are not the norm in online
conversations.
Questions
1) Do we have an obligation to readand help moderatethe comments? This might be
described as a question of Everyday Ethics:
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n1/everydayethics.html
2) Do you comment on articles or blogs that you read? Why, or why not?
3) Do website operators have a moral obligation to moderate comments on their sites?
Why? Do bloggers have the same obligation? Why?
4) Would disabling comments be preferable to enabling comments but not reading them?
Why?
5) Are there particular contexts in which the effects of uncivil comments may be
particularly harmful? If so, which, and what might the effects be?
"Don't read the comments! (Why do we read the online comments when we know they'll
be bad?)": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/2013/07/29/dont-
read-the-comments-why-do-we-read-the-online-comments-when-we-know-theyll-be-bad/
"Please Read the Comments": http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-read-the-comments/
"Don't Read the Comments? Why the Hell Shouldn't I?":

http://weekwoman.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/dont-read-the-comments/
"Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments": http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-

09/why-were-shutting-our-comments
Irina Raicu is the Internet ethics director at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
Commentary: The anonymity of the Internet has allowed many individuals to be trolls.
These are individuals that go online just to stir up trouble. They might say mean and
hurtful things to cause trouble. If employees make harsh remarks on a post of a fellow
employee, would this considered harassment? It would without a doubt, harm the
relationship between the co-workers. However, at point would a manger need to
intervene? Would that manger need to step in and mediate a conversation between the
co-workers? As our world becomes more digital and social media is more present, these
are questions leaders of today have to deal with that past leaders did not have to.
Method
I chose to interview two District Mangers for Starbucks Coffee. The District
Manager role is my next level boss. This is also the next position that I would be
promoted to. I chose my own District Manager Katie Burkey. She has worked for the
company for over 8 years. She has been a District Manager for over 3 years. The other
District Manager I picked was Sarah Snyder. She has been with Starbucks for over 9
year and has been a District Manager for over 4 years. They both used to be Store
Mangers, the same position as I am currently. I conducted both interviews in person.
1. What do think of when I say ethics and integrity?

2. Do you think that ethics and integrity expectations change depending on position,
such as a barista (lowest level worker) and a store manger or district manager?
3. What are your feelings around employees and social media?
4. Do you have a social media account, if yes, do you share work things on it?
5. If an employee shares something alarming on social media, do we have the
obligation or duty to talk to the worker about it?

6. What if the employee is wearing their work shirt or apron?
7. Do we have the right to ask an employee to take down a posting on social media
if we feel that it is not appropriate or does not represents the brand well?
8. Would employees commenting on fellow employees posting be considered
harassment if they are aggressive comments?

9. Would you ever ask a Store manager to take down a posting if you thought it was
inappropriate?
10. Do you monitor social media for any of your employees?
Results
KB: Katie Burkey

SS: Sarah Snyder
1. What do think of when I say ethics and integrity?
KB: I think of what a person should be like when they are at work.
SS: It makes me think of what a partner (employee) does when they are working.
What choices they make around following policy or just acting in a professional
manner and not like they would act like at home
2. Do you think that ethics and integrity expectations change depending on position,
such as a barista (lowest level worker) and a store manger or district manager?
KB: I want to say no, but I really think there is a difference. We expect you guys
(Store Mangers) to be the owners of your store. You are not just an employee,
this is your store. There should maturity. There should be modeling the behavior.
You set the tone and the rest follow
SS: Of course. The average age of the barista is 20-28 years old. Sometimes it
sucks, but we are the parents. We teach them what is ok and not ok to do. I
looked at my parents for examples of how to act not act like a fool. So, yeah,
there is a difference.
3. What are your feelings around employees and social media?
KB: Yeah, that is very tricky. We dont have a right to tell partners (employees)
on what they do on there own time. It is there platform and they can do and share
what they want. But, if they were the company logo, it is different.
SS: As long as they dont do anything stupid. If they are doing something illegal
and post it, then it makes me question their decision making on two levels. First,
why would they choose to break the law? Second, why put it out there for
everyone to see? What they share is up to them, but dont make it so I get a
phone call and that I need to have a conversation with someone over a Facebook
post. Just need people to use some common sense.
4. Do you have a social media account, if yes, do you share work things on it?
KB: I used to have an Instagram. You know that. But, I just truned it off. It was
the first thing I checked when I woke up and didnt like that feeling. But, I did
share work things on it.
SS: Yeah. I have an Instagram and a Facebook. I do use it for certain hashtags
for work. It is a great way to connect with a lot of my younger partners in our
district. We use it as a way to voice and share the great things that we are doing
because we are proud to be a partner (employee).
5. If an employee shares something alarming on social media, do we have the
obligation or duty to talk to the worker about it?

KB: I would be careful. What they post is public, but it is an opinon. They can
choose what they want to share, but they will also be held accountable if they
make a wrong choice. My on Wyatt gets spanked if he hits his brother. Actions
have consequences.
SS: Of course. They are our employee. If they are crying out for help, then we
need to make sure they are ok. They are also young. They might not understand
that you dont need to share everything that is going on. They will learn that you
cant take back certain things they post or say online. There is no delete, the
Internet never forgets.
6. What if the employee is wearing their work shirt or apron?
KB: As long as it is appropriate. As long as they represent the brand well. If
they are just voicing an opinion, I would hope they would take off the apron or
logo. If they have become a spokesperson for the company to the many
followers, then they have put themselves in a position of responsibility. As long
as only those few friends see it, it doesnt matter. If I get another phone call, then
I have to step in because someone in corporate saw it and felt it wasnt
appropriate.
SS: Then they need to make sure they dont do anything dumb. They have a
responsibility the moment they choose to share something about the company.
They sign an agreement when they are hired. I would hope they have all learned
to make sure they share good things and not dump or borderline bad things.
Common sense. Just use common sense. Would I want my mom or grandma to
see this?
7. Do we have the right to ask an employee to take down a posting on social media
if we feel that it is not appropriate or does not represents the brand well?
KB: Yes. I have had to ask individuals to take things down. It is easier if they
understand why I was asking. Certain partners (employees) dont get it and I ask
the multiple times. They see me and automatically just say, I did it again?. It is
the younger ones that seem to have that problem. They are so used to sharing
what cereal they ate for breakfast.
SS: What did Katie answer? No, tell me. Sorry, but yeah. All of the district
managers get a few emails about an inappropriate post. We have to give the
information to you and try and have the partner (employee) learn not to post
things with the company logo on it. There may or may not have been a few
instances where someone has lost a job. Did Katie talk about that? Never mind.
8. Would employees commenting on fellow employees posting be considered
harassment if they are aggressive comments?

KB: Nice question. Depends. It is the gray area. Black and white is policy. The
gray area is all the human emotions and not so easy stuff. It depends if it affected
the working relationship. We all know it will effect the working relationship.
SS: It all depends. If it is a posting with mostly all Starbucks peoepl, then you
need to know to make sure and watch what you say. The moment you choose to
tag the rest of the partners (employees), then you know you are not in an open
space.
Side question What if it is a normal post and one partner (employee) is
not nice to another one?
Than they need to deal with it. If they choose to be friends, then I hope they
choose to be nice to each other. Very rarely I have had to get involved because
two people got angry over what one of them said.
9. Would you ever ask a Store manager to take down a posting if you thought it was
inappropriate?
KB: Yes. I would hope we have trust that I am looking out for your best interest.
I would also hope that you know I am coming from a positive place. Most of the
mangers do know what is appropriate and not. I also feel that they are all older
and know better. I think that most of the managers want to keep moving up in the
company. Employers look at social media. I know I look at potential Store
mangers and see what they post. I want to get to know what they think is ok to
share.
SS: I would ask. It would really have to be bad for me to ask. I have asked a few
to have one of the peers (other store mangers) take a look and see what they
thought. I am also a bit more sly. I tend to ask one of the other mangers to have
that conversation. That way, the Store manager can save face.
10. Do you monitor social media for any of your employees?
KB: No. I dont spend my time looking for stuff. I have too much to do. It is
easy to get lost in social media which is why I turned mine off. I only use it to do
some research of someone who is trying to get hired as a Store Manger or
Assistant Store Manger. Like I said, it gives me chance to see what they are
willing to share. But, no, I dont actively spend time looking at my employees
social media.
SS: Monitor. I dont think I do. If it comes up on my feed, then I look. I dont
spend the time to look for people specifically. I will use it to check out someone
who I might be interviewing. It is more common to do that now. Everyone
knows you clean up your Facebook before an interview.

DISCUSSION
Being a leader in this era of social media brings certain changes that were not
there in previous generations. The lines between work relationships and social media are
blurred more and more everyday. I recently had a situation that had me in an ethical
dilemma. I had an employee make a post dancing in my store, while wearing the
company logo, off the clock, but dancing to a song that did have some profanity. This
was posted to a group page of fellow employees in the city that we all work that is used
to cover shifts. The posting was received with mixed reviews. Since the post was
originally posted onto the employees personal page and then uploaded to the employee
group page, it had a mix of employees and non-employees. I will be sharing with you the
thought process that I had to use to guide me through the ethics around asking the
employee to take down the post and if the employee should be held accountable.
The first case study talked about accountability for a store manger. The donors
daughter is the boss of the kids who are volunteering. Even though the college kids are
volunteers, they still represent the organization that they are volunteering for. The ethical
dilemma here is if the person in charge should confront the volunteers. The manger has a
responsibility for how those college kids are representing the organization/candidate.
The second and third case studies talk about the middle managers. Most
organizations are very large. They follow the classic top-down flow. The CEO is at top
and there are many layers of managers. At the very bottom, you have the low-level
employee. Most of the CEOs will not ever have direct contact with the lowest level
employee. This means that it is up to the middle managers to interpret what it ethical and
appropriate. The middle mangers will interpret the vision and the implantation of plans
and objectives to the lowest level worker. When we take a look at Wall Street and the
banking industry, it is the managers that dictated what ethics looked like. This also was
prevalent in the third case study that talked about working off the clock. The middle
manger is the one who determines what is ethical. The manger from the third case study
can easily look the other way and not rock the boat.
The fourth case study talks about the privacy in the work place. This has come to
be a major issue in present day. The privacy that an individual has at the work has
dramatically been altered with the introduction of tools that monitor keystrokes and can
search email. This also brings a dilemma if an employee should be using company
computers for personal reasons. I have an understanding that company hardware will
always be monitored. I do think that the work place should have very open dialogue
about the current practice of monitoring email and computer activity. This would allow
the employee to make an informed decision around whether to use company equipment
or just bring a tablet from home to do anything private.
The fifth case study revolves around executives and social media. Many
companies are encouraging their executives to have a presence on social media. This
gives the company access to free publicity. The moral dilemma is if an employee can be
held accountable for a posting they share that might be inappropriate in their employers
view. This leads me to think that if employers want to present a certain image, then they
should just manage the profile on social media. If an employee does share something
inappropriate on social media, then it should be addressed with that employee when it
might hurt the image of the employer. This is just part of the new era that we live in.
The last case study revolves around reading the comments on the Internet. The
comments have a lot of hurtful things. The study showed that there is a movement
around not reading the comments. In the situation that occurred at my work, I found that
there were some employees from other stores that had made harsh comments. There was
also some that defended the employees in the video by making harsh comments to other
employees. This caused a dilemma because I know had fellow employees talking to each
other on social media in an inappropriate tone. Even though this was a group of
employees from different stores, it still showed how mean individuals can be when
leaving comments.
The interviews did show me that there are some similarities around the view of
ethics and leadership. Both Katie and Sarah shared very similar views. I also agreed for
the most part on the balance of holding employees accountable. I did not share with them
the video that my employee had made or shared. I also do not know if they were told or
knew about the video before I interviewed them. I made the choice of not to share since I
dealt with the situation myself. Considering that a District Manger is my next role that I
am pursuing actively, it was nice to see that I shared similar outlooks around social media
and ethics.
In the end, I decided to have a conversation with my employee about the video. I
understood that it was his personal space and he had made a choice to post something.
As we talked, the conversation revolved around branding and imaging of Starbucks
Coffee. I also brought up the comments that individuals had left either defending or
condemning the video. He still did not really understand why there was something
wrong, because in his eyes, there was nothing wrong. As we kept talking about the video,
I asked him if the comments that were left were comments that would be considered
appropriate if two employees were talking at work to each other. He agreed that they
were not. We talked about the fact that his video had employees talking aggressively
about it. This is what finally caused him to view the video in a negative manner. I shard
that I thought the video was not inappropriate, just that it had caused a group of
employees to start an inappropriate discussion. I also shared that if the video had not
been posted onto the work group site, then it wouldnt matter. The current situation is
that the video was causing conflict among employees. He took down the video. I
thanked him for doing that. I understand that he made the video on his own device and
off the clock. The video was in no way endorsed by Starbucks and you can tell it was
just employees goofing off and having fun. I did not give any kind of formal write-up to
the employee. I did connect with the other managers and encouragd them to have a
discussion around the mean comments that they posted in response to my employees
video. Some managers did not feel it was within our duties to have those conversations.
In the end, some mangers did and others made the choice not to. Social media has
blurred the line between personal and employee/employer since each generation keeps
sharing more and more. Managing ethical questions around if postings of employees are
appropriate and the privacy around computer/internet monitoring at work will not go
away anytime soon. It will be up to the middle mangers to regulate a lot of what will be
considered appropriate and ethical.

References:
Bartlett, Clare. (2015). Off The Clock. Markkula Center For Applied Ethics. Santa
Clara University. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-
ethics-cases/off-the-clock/
Callaghan, Hana (2016). Campaign Shenanigans - When volunteers behave unethically.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Retrieved 20
January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/campaign-
shenanigans/
Coutermarsh, Patrick. (2014). Should Executives be Allowed to be on Social Media.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/executives-
allowed-to-be-on-social-media/
Hanson, Kirk. (2008). Ethics and the Middle Manager. Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics. Sanat Clara University. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/ethics-and-
the-middle-managertone-in-the-middle/
Raicu, Irina. (2014). To Read--or Not To Read--the Comments. Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/to-read--or-not-
to-read--the-comments/
Schulman, Miriam. (2000). LittleBrother Is Watching You. Markkula Center for

Applied Ethics. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/littlebrother-
is-watching-you/

Professional Ethical Analysis Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Professional Ethical Analysis Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Professional Ethical Analysis Paper 1

Professional Ethical Analysis Paper

I am currently working for Starbucks Coffee Company. I am a Store Manger. In

helped me process and decide how to proceed by looking at different perspectives.

REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES

Case Study 1 - Campaign Shenanigans - When volunteers behave unethically

By: Hana Callaghan

Case Study 2 - Ethics and the Middle Manager

By: Kirk Hanson

Creating "Tone in The Middle"

Creating a culture of ethics is often frustrated by a lack of attention and commitment

immediately apparent to the lower level employees. The implementation of ethics in an

can reach the rest of the organization.

What is needed in every organization is an understanding by the top management and by

level employees to understand that the organization is serious about ethics.

actions. The key behaviors are:

2. Anticipate ethical dilemmas which typically arise in his or her area of

the middle manager makes or participates in.

5. Recognize ethical issues when they do arise

6. Ask questions when the ethical action is unclear

7. Make ethical decisions consistent with organizational values and ethics

8. Report concerns about ethical and unethical actions to top managers

ethics, and supporting the organization's and individual employee's adherence to

implementing the ethical commitments of the organization in the work of that

4. Top executives must explicitly delegate resolution of those dilemmas to the

performance is being watched as closely as their financial performance

6. Top executives must make ethical competence and commitment of middle

managers a part of their performance evaluation

peers on resolving the hard cases.

8. Top executives must be available to the middle managers to discuss/coach/resolve

the hardest cases

"Who Wants To Be A Middle Manager?" (USA Today, August 12, 2007)

around what is right and what is not.

Case Study 3 - Off the Clock

By: Clare Bartlett

Sarah was recently promoted to a managerial position at her industrial engineering

production factory, meaning approximately 50 factory workers now report to her.

running a factory, she is excited to begin her new position.

What should Sarah do?

Clare Bartlett was a 2014-2015 Hackworth Fellow in Engineering Ethics at the

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

off the clock.

Case Study 4 - LittleBrother is watching you

By: Miriam Schulman

may be reading over your shoulder-electronically. New technologies allow employers to

unprofessional e-mails. But when do an employer's legitimate business interests become

an unacceptable invasion of worker privacy?

"productive," "unproductive," or "neutral," and rates employees based on their browsing.

Though the title is tongue-in-cheek, LittleBrother does represent the tremendous

consultants who can retrieve the incriminating message.

All told, such monitoring is a widespread-and-growing-phenomenon. Looking just at e-

percent of responding companies searched employee messages regularly and 70 percent

said employers should reserve the right to do so.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits unauthorized interception of various

electronic communications, including e-mail. However, the law exempts service

vote from 1993 to 1995.

employers' propertythe employers' computers and networksthe employees'

In a presentation on employee monitoring, Mark S. Dichter and Michael S. Burkhardt of

employee's reasonable expectation of privacy against the employer's business justification

offensive references, he threatened to "kill the backstabbing bastards" in sales

"inappropriate and unprofessional" conduct outweighed Smyth's privacy rights.

Privacy as a Moral Matter

others only as a means to increase overall welfare or profits."