The moral agent in the ethical case
The moral agent in the ethical case is the employee who published something on social media, which although not prohibited, could be construed as damaging to the company's reputation. As a moral agent, the employee is expected to distinguish right from wrong and to be held responsible for their actions. In addition, the employee has a moral responsibility of protecting the reputation of the company and not to cause any unjustified harm to the company and its operations. Therefore, by posting information that may be construed as damaging to the company's reputation, the employee should be held accountable for the harm caused.
What is at stake?
The reputation of the company is at stake in the ethical case. Social media is a powerful tool that helps companies to communicate with their markets and to get in touch with their stakeholders. It serves as a marketing tool that can greatly benefit the company, however, once abused social media can ruin the company's reputation. In this case, the posting of an inaccurate or offensive content regarding the company by the employee works to the disadvantage of the company. The stakeholders may interpret the information wrongly, a factor that may potentially put the reputation of the company at risk and also make the company incur other losses.
Who/what are the stakeholders?
The stakeholders in the ethical case are all the parties with an interest in the company or all the people affected by the operations of the company. They include; employers, customers, other employees, investors, shareholders and the suppliers as they all affected by the company operations. The reputation of the company directly affects the performance of the stakeholders. Hence when the company's reputation is at stake, the stakeholders may, as a result, withdraw their association to the company as a means to safeguard their interests.
Possible courses of action
A possible course of action is to take up a disciplinary action against the employee. The gross conduct on the part of the employee can neither go unnoticed nor may unpunished, otherwise, other employees may engage in a similar misconduct. The employee, therefore, needs to be apprehended for his/her actions, and the employer needs to make it clear on the consequences of social media misuse. The employer needs to explain the reason for their cause of action which should be weighed against the company's social media policy. If the actions of the employee violate the company's social media policy, then a dismissal should be granted to the employee. However, if the actions of the employee do not directly infringe on the company's social media policy, they should be put on probation as a consequence for their actions.
Another possible course of action is to force the employee to pull down the post and warn them against repeating the action in future. As long as the social media post remains posted, it means that more people can view it which will continue to put the reputation of the company at stake to future interested parties. Hence pulling the post down is important as a means to avoid further spreading of the negative influence. The employers, therefore, could force the employee to pull down the post and to apologize for harming the company instead. Posting an apology for the post could serve to remedy the already grave situation. However, in addition, to pulling down the post, the employers need to give stern warnings to the employer against repeating such an action in future, as it violates the company's policies and interests.
Consequences of the course of action
A consequence of the action on taking up disciplinary action against the employee is that the company may incur an additional overhead cost of employing a new worker. The disciplinary course of action involves putting the employee on probation and if inefficient to possibly dismiss the employee altogether. However, the course of action means that the company will have to incur an additional cost of employee replacement. The cost of replacement means an additional investment in training and indictment of a new employee. The recruitment process may take time, hence slowing down on the company's productivity and profit acquisition.
Another consequence of telling the employee to pull down the post and not to repeat the action is that other stakeholders may have already taken the message on the post to heart. The problem of social media postings is that they can be copied, duplicated or even easily shared with other people in a matter of minutes. As a result, despite the pulling down of the post, the harm may have been already done and such may cost the company. For example, certain stakeholders may take the message to heart and as a result, avoid any further association or working with the company. Another consequence is that people may take screenshots of the message and spread it to other people and hence despite pulling down the message, the company may still continue to suffer as a result. Remedying the problem by pulling down the post hence may still continue to work against the company's reputation.
Objective ethical theories
The abuse of social media by the employees is an ethical issue and to understand the extent of the issue, two ethical theories will be used in analyzing the ethical case.
Kantianism
The Kantianism ethical theory was proposed by Immanuel Kant and it serves to establish what is morally right by providing reasons and arguments for ethical reasoning. The central premise of Kant's theory is that "the only thing that can be deemed as 'good' without any qualification is good will" (Hare, 2006).Therefore, the Kantianism ethical theory focuses more on what we need to do, but not so much on the consequences of our actions. In his theory, Kant proposed two categorical imperatives so as to justify the type of actions that are morally acceptable and those that are not. The first imperative states that we should only act from moral rules that we can at the same time to be moral laws (Hare, 2006). This imperative emphasizes on the need to act morally at the time when under certain institutional rules (Hare, 2006).The second imperative, on the other hand, points out that we should act in a way that we always treat ourselves and other people as ends in themselves and never as a means to an end (Hare, 2006). Such is to indicate that we should treat and respect others as rational beings; however, we should not use ourselves or others to achieve our goals.
According to the first categorical imperative, social media monitoring and regulation of social media use on the part of the employees is unethical. The practice is unethical since it only works to benefit the personal needs of the employers such as greater control over the employees and invasion on the privacy of the employees. Additionally, social media monitoring on the part of the employers promotes the idea of stalking for selfish reasons which go against Kant's core value of goodwill (Hare, 2006). The Kantianism theory, thus proposes that constant monitoring on social media use may not necessarily have acceptable reasons the entire time (Hare, 2006) .For example, it may reveal intimate details about personal relationships which are unnecessary for the professional outlook of the company. Going by the first imperative, therefore, employees are at liberty to access and interact with their social media platforms without any form of interference from their employees, as it is unethical.
According to the second, categorical imperative, social media monitoring is unethical since employers monitor on their employees for the business needs and not as ends in themselves (Hare, 2006). Companies that conduct background checks on their employees are thus unethical. On the other hand, however, companies require human capital for efficient operations, hence most management often conducts social media use checks to ensure the hiring of qualified employees. In most cases, when the actions of the employee harm other stakeholders, the employers are held liable. As a result of the threat of liability on the part of the employers hence they are justified to conduct social media checks in certain cases. A bad decision can potentially harm the company's reputation, and certain decisions on the part of the employees may put the company's reputation at stake. In such case, social media monitoring may be justified as it seeks to minimize the risks imposed on the company. Companies that employ social media monitoring, treat the employees as a means to an end (protecting the company's reputation) and not as ends in themselves (rational beings) making the monitoring justifiable.
Social Contract Theory
The Social Contract Theory points out that, "Morality consists of a set of rules governing behavior that rational people would accept on condition that others accept them as well" (Lessnoff, 2016). Such is to indicate that rational people come together and formulate rules that work for their overall benefit. According to the social contract ethical theory, social media monitoring is ethical since employees are expected to give up some of their privacy rights for the overall good of the organization they work for (Lessnoff, 2016). Furthermore, employers have the right over all the information exchanged during the work hours and using the workplace equipment. Upon signing of their employment contract, employees consent to a certain kind of electronic monitoring and surveillance. Moreover, all organizations have information policies that dictate how employees are expected to act and consequences for failure to uphold these policies. For example, using the company's computer for personal reasons violates the organization's policies and attracts consequences. Therefore, under the Social Contract Theory, social media monitoring is ethical.
Under the social contract theory, individuals consent to a set of moral rules that govern their operations and their mutual benefit (Lessnoff, 2016). Therefore, conducting of social media monitoring is justified on the part of the employers as long as the act of monitoring serves to safeguard the reputation of the company and that of the employers. In the case, where the employee goes against the set moral rules and puts the reputation of the company at stake they are thus liable for consequences that follow since social media monitoring under the social contract theory is ethical.
Clauses that apply to the case
ACM Code of Ethics
The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct outline the guideline to be followed by those in the computing profession. The 2.3 clause of the ACM code of ethics applies to the case above. According to the 2.3 clause, "ACM members must obey existing laws unless there is a compelling ethical justification not to do so. Policies and procedures of the organization in which one participates must be obeyed...if one decides to violate a law because it is viewed as unethical, or for any other reason, one must fully accept responsibility for one's actions and for the consequences" (ACM, 2018). The clause thus points out that employees are mandated to obey policies in the companies in which they serve, failure to which they should accept the consequences that follow. In this case, the employee violated the social media policy rules y damaging the company's reputation and hence should accept the consequences that follow.
Software Engineering Code of Ethics
The Software Engineering Code of Ethics regulates the behaviors of the software engineers, in the engineering profession. However, some of the clauses in the ethics code find relevance in the ethical case above. According to principle two of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics, "software engineers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client and employer, consistent with the public interest" (Software Engineering Code of Ethics, 2018). Such indicates that employees are obliged to safeguard the interests of their employers and companies at all times as long as the two parties are in a binding relationship. In the case, the employee acted contrary to this principle by failing to safeguard the interests of the company. According to principle 2, clause 9 (2.09) "software engineers should promote no interest adverse to their employer or client unless a higher ethical concern is being compromised" (Software Engineering Code of Ethics, 2018). According to this clause, the employees are not in any way expected to act in a manner that violates the interests of the employers or the clients. Hence the employee in the ethical case went against this ethic, as he/she acted in a manner that adversely affected the interests of the employer.
Recommendations
Implementing a social media policy
One of the most effective recommendations for the company to curb social media abuse is to have written social media policies so as to help maintain consistency and to keep all the stakeholders on the same page. A social media policy may contain rules and guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate use of social media in the work place (Bucher, Fieseler " Suphan, 2013). The policies must also include governance procedures to be followed once the rules are broken.
Managing employee social media use
Employers must have a plan on managing of employee's use of in the workplace to avoid serious consequences and reputation issues. Poor social media use on the part of the employees poses serious consequences on the company (Lanham, 2010). Besides, the companies become exposed to employee leaks of customer information, intellectual property, trade secrets and other sensitive information. Therefore, having a plan to manage employee use of the social media is important in safeguarding the interests of the company.
Training employees
The employees need to be trained on the efficient use of social media policies and the resultant consequences of failing to adhere to these policies. As part of the training, employers should be open regarding the company's stance on social media trends as well as their utilization of the platform. By training the employees on efficient utilization of social media and social media policies, chances of social media abuse are significantly reduced (Lanham, 2010).
References
ACM, C. M. (2018). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Code of Ethics.
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., " Suphan, A. (2013). The stress potential of social media in the workplace. Information, Communication " Society, 16(10), 1639-1667.
Hare, J. (2006). The moral gap: Kantian ethics, human limits, and God's assistance.
Lanham, J. R. (2010). Social media and the workplace. Employment Law Commentary, 22(1), 1-7.
Lessnoff, M. H. (2016). Social contract. Macmillan.
Software Engineering Code of Ethics. (2018). Software engineering code of ethics is approved. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 102-107.
