Introduction
The case study explores how employers talk about their employees on social media in and out of the workplace. According to the statistics, 28% of firms fire employees for email misconduct, and most companies track employees’ activities on the Internet (Gossett, 2012). In 2010, the BRIXX restaurant fired waitress Ashley Johnson, who complained on Facebook about one of the restaurant’s visitors (Gossett, 2012). The BRIXX employment contract implied a ban on negative public statements, but Johnson posted her review on a page with limited privacy settings (Gossett, 2012). The case caused a wide public outcry, dividing the public into two camps: supporters of employee privacy and fighters for the rights of companies to maintain their image on the Internet.
Interpretation of the BRIXX Policy
The manager of Ashley Johnson acted unnecessarily radically in dismissing an employee. In the place of the head of BRIXX, it was necessary to quickly reprimand and discuss the company’s requirements in more detail. BRIXX’s social media policy can be controversial as it is overly strict and prohibits employees from expressing opinions.
Moreover, Johnson did not violate the point of creating a negative image of the company since the review concerned only the client’s behavior and not management’s actions (Gossett, 2012). When deciding whether to reprimand Johnson, it was necessary to use a direct interpretation of the employment contract and labor law standards. The company has the right to issue a warning against the employee who committed the first violation.
Employee Communication Methods
While employees are at their workplace, the company may impose restrictions on the use of social networks. The company may resort to any means permitted by labor law (Gossett, 2012). For example, these can be measures to prohibit Internet access for non-work issues to increase productivity. To comply with this measure, the company may monitor activities on third-party sites from work computers. When employees are away from work, a company should not be allowed to exclusively monitor posts that unreasonably and intentionally tarnish the company’s reputation.
Grounds for Dismissal
Whenever employees share compromising information about a company, the circumstances of the incident must be considered in detail. If the statement is made to intentionally discredit or slander the company, this may be grounds for dismissal if the relevant clause is spelled out in the contract. However, if an employee discloses truthful information, it is necessary to investigate the case in detail and not fire the employee for the truth.
It also matters how information about the company is communicated (Gossett, 2012). Employees who share their feelings in a private conversation in a public place or over private messages cannot be held accountable for such actions (Gossett, 2012). However, if the information is published publicly to a wide audience, there is a reason to check the actions in detail for compliance with the policy.
Privacy
Employees should expect confidentiality when they share their opinions about the organization, as this right is guaranteed by labor law. However, there may also be internal company rules aimed at protecting their image that do not contradict the law (Gossett, 2012). It is necessary to draw the line between preserving privacy and the struggle for the organization’s rights.
A balance is needed to create an equitable environment where management and employees feel equal. No one can restrict employees from talking about their experiences with loved ones, and such actions cannot be tracked (Gossett, 2012). This border between the rights of the two parties may be in the zone of negative information distribution. For example, slanderous or unsubstantiated statements should not be distributed to a broad audience.
Company Image
The company has the right to protect its corporate image for economic purposes. However, a clear framework that regulates the actions of managers to prosecute employees for spreading negative information about the organization is needed (Gossett, 2012). Dismissal should occur only when an employee deliberately discloses false information about the company that discredits its reputation for selfish purposes. In this case, the organization can fire the employee and sue for defamation.
When considering the rights of employees and company management, a global reflection on freedom of speech on the Internet is needed (Gossett, 2012). Sometimes freedom of speech can become cyberbullying and deliberately defame honor and dignity. An important feature in evaluating actions on the Internet should be the presence of a negative intention aimed at humiliating a person or a company.
Communication in Social Networks
The development of a company’s social media can help build brand awareness. Therefore, encouraging employees to participate in developing the organization’s profile on Facebook can be useful in attracting new users and raising the page in the rankings (Gossett, 2012). At the same time, it is necessary to consider employees’ opinions and add that such activity is strictly voluntary since not all employees may want to personally contribute to brand awareness.
Some employees may not have a Facebook profile, so one needs to rely exclusively on active Internet users. Increasing the activity of the organization’s social network through employees’ voluntary involvement will simultaneously expand the representation, create its own online community, and invest in team building.
Tracking Dissent
Company monitoring of social media, text messages, and email will negatively affect employees’ willingness to share information about work and openly express dissatisfaction. This trend contradicts the right to free will and threatens the company with reputational losses if such an attitude is revealed (Gossett, 2012). The ban on expressing dissatisfaction negatively affects the adequate perception of criticism, which can provoke company stagnation.
On the contrary, allowing employees to express open and constructive opinions will remove the need to monitor social media and allow the company to develop and grow effectively. Thus, the solution to the problem of privacy and the preservation of the company’s image may be to encourage openness and honesty in organizational communication.
Conclusion
Organizations’ actions to track employees’ Internet activities contradict the company’s interests in preserving its image and the employees’ right to privacy. To resolve the contradictions, a line between these parties must be drawn. This line can lie in prescribing the company’s internal rules regarding the prohibition on the dissemination of knowingly false information about the organization.
The spread of communication is also crucial since only an open message to a large audience can be considered to discredit the image. Communication within the company is also important because it allows employees to express constructive criticism and disagreement, which is necessary. Strict regulation of rules in accordance with labor legislation and effective organizational communication will help to find a balance in protecting the interests of employees and employers.
Reference
Gossett, L.M. (2012). Fired over Facebook: Issues of employee monitoring and personal privacy on social media websites. In May, S. (ed.), Case studies in organizational communication: Ethical perspectives and practices, 2nd ed (pp. 207-217). SAGE Publications.