The Problem

The goal of an employer is to protect the organization along with protecting the employees who are an essential part of the organization. The need to monitor the social media activities of the employees is to ensure that there is no harm being brought about in the workplace (Nystrom 2018). There remains a possibility of employees making statements in their social media posts that can turn out to be malicious to the reputation of the organization. Another reason that can be identified for monitoring the employees’ social media and internet usage can be attributed to the elimination of distractions at work that is unnecessary which will increase the worker’s productivity in return.

The companies are urged to monitor their worker’s activities on social media in order to ensure that the workers are not using these platforms that might be detrimental to the company’s operation. However, in doing so, the employee’s privacy might be hampered if the company goes too far with the monitoring (Burks n.d.). Hence, an ethical dilemma arises while monitoring for the company’s well-being that might in turn impede the employer’s confidentiality.

The questions in this situation revolve around whether to stop monitoring the workers’ social media usage and respect privacy or to continue monitoring and crossing the thresholds of the employee’s privacy.

Social media can be a platform to channel an individual’s creative self and a medium to express their personality. Suppressing the employees’ freedom to express themselves online and putting a restriction on their creativity can be ethically incorrect. The companies possess the right to expect compliance from the employees on the grounds of basic social media etiquette (Kumar 2015). However, there lies a significant difference between asking the employees to maintain and employ a good judgment of their activities online and lingering over the social media accounts of the employees. On the other side, companies need to keep tabs on the social media presence of their employees in order to avoid illegal or any inappropriate behavior that the employee might portray. For instance, employees can post a certain statement on their social media platforms that might be false. In that case, the employee can be held accountable and charges of defamation can be put on them. Inappropriate posts include sharing personal information about other employees or sharing information about new products that need to be kept secret.          

The ethical issue that lies within the case is monitoring the employees without their knowledge (Porteous 2020). This is a breach of the employees’ privacy as they might not consent to such an activity by the employers. Sensitive information can be collected about the employee in the process of monitoring them. These will be helpful if the employers suspect malpractice is being undertaken and want to catch the employee red-handed. Thus, monitoring the employees is essential to some extent but the employers might get hurt in the process. On the other hand, it becomes risky for the organization if the employees’ activities are not monitored. The employer will want to monitor in order to safeguard their company’s reputation and the employees’ have the right to autonomy to use their social media platforms for personal activities without being watched or monitored. To solve the ethical dilemma created, it is important to identify the threshold, going beyond which might breach the employees’ privacy.

Evidence

Some of the ethical theories that can be implemented to solve the ethical dilemma include utilitarianism, golden rule, deontology, the front page of a newspaper test, the risk aversion principle, and many more. Coming to utilitarianism, a person is considered a utilitarian if they choose the best strategy that yields them the maximum benefit. For such a person, the strategy becomes ethically correct. The person will articulate various strategies and select the one that gives them the most benefit and Least Negative Impacts (Bowen and Bhalla 2021). The golden rule theory says that an individual should treat others the way they think they should be treated. It demonstrates an ethical behavior of doing good deeds and showing acts of kindness if one wishes to be treated that way in return. Deontology states that it is important for an individual to comply with their obligations and duties during the analysis of an ethical dilemma. The front page of the newspaper test involves an individual to think how they would feel if the decision they made is published on the front page of the newspaper. If the individual feels embarrassed and cannot defend themselves, the decision taken is not ethically correct. According to the risk aversion principle, the decision that causes the least harm will be an ethical decision to make.

Under this theory, employers will install electronic monitoring systems which enable them to actively monitor their employees’ workplace performances and their social media usage. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 allows an organization to monitor their employees’ activities as long as a justified business reason is presented for doing so (Freedman 2020). Additional monitoring can be carried out if the employees consent to such an act. Video surveillance can be carried out in common spaces. However, private spaces like the locker room or the washroom are not legal and should be refrained from being done. From the utilitarian approach, electronic monitoring is justified based on increased workers’ productivity, reduced cost, and an improvement in quality. If the employees follow a utilitarian approach as well, they will have a positive inclination towards monitoring and strive to enhance the relationship between performance and monitoring (Palayoo and Mavuthoo n.d). Thus, employers are of the belief that monitoring will be effective for the development of the organization’s performance as a whole.

Followers of deontology look for results rather than how good the result is. Under the deontological approach, the employees believe that their privacy is being harmed which is a basic human right. This constitutes a negative effect of employee monitoring and can lead to physical and mental health issues that the employees might face. An organization is obligated to respect the employees’ privacy as loss of privacy can lead to a sense of loss of identity from the employees’ perspective. Thus, employees who believe in a deontological perspective will have a negative attitude towards monitoring at the workplace. However, it is essential to mention that there exists no current law that can restrict employers from monitoring their employees (Yerby 2013). Hence, employee monitoring from the perspective of formalists may seem to decrease workers’ productivity and reduces job satisfaction if the employees harbor the notion that their privacy is at stake. A deontological perspective also has a flaw which is the determination of logic or rationale behind the chosen strategy.

Analysis

The employers need to consider both the utilitarian and deontological approaches while formulating a decision on the dilemma created since concerns of the employers on productivity and performance and the concerns of the employees on their privacy are both significant.

A possible solution to solve this case of ethical dilemma will be to continue with effective monitoring which should be performed in an ethical way. This implies taking into consideration both the utilitarian as well as deontological approach in devising the best decision to be undertaken. From the point of view of the employer, there are various reasons and benefits to monitoring the employees. Most of the workers might not want to be monitored but the organization should possess systems for monitoring in order to keep liable risks at bay. The employers can carry out necessary monitoring by maintaining transparency between them and the employees being monitored (Blackman 2020). This will aid in mutual relationship enhancement and evade the erosion of trust and mutual understanding.  The organization can have a policy in place in compliance with the employees and consultations can be taken from the IT group who will be best at advising on electronic surveillance systems, what kind of actions can be monitored and to what extent so that it does not breach the employees’ privacy.

It is essential to mention that employers do possess the right to monitor their employees in order to maintain productivity and protect the organization. Hence, a utilitarian approach will be used to solve the case of ethical dilemma which will benefit the employers in evading risks of breach of company information as well as reduce the employee negative feelings of breach of their privacy. The employees will be made aware of the policy of social media usage at work which will be monitored. This will enable the employees to restrict their social media usage on the company’s computers and in a sense; their privacy will also not be hampered. A computer usage policy will be handed to the employees and a training session can be held to describe the contents of the policy to the employees. In this way, the employees will be aware of the lack of privacy in their workplace and refrain from navigating their social media during their working hours. The company’s confidentiality is maintained and the employees do not have to face the risk of their privacy being at stake.

References

Blackman, R., 2020. How to Monitor Your Employees — While Respecting Their Privacy. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/2020/05/how-to-monitor-your-employees-while-respecting-their-privacy> [Accessed 26 March 2022].

Bowen, S.A. and Bhalla, N., 2021. 30 Ethical theories and public relations: Global issues and challenges. Handbooks of Communication Science, p.581.

Burks, F., n.d. Ethical Issues & Employer Monitoring Internet Usage. [online] Small Business – Chron.com. Available at: <https://smallbusiness.chron.com/ethical-issues-employer-monitoring-internet-usage-12617.html> [Accessed 24 March 2022].

Freedman, M., 2020. [online] Businessnewsdaily.com. Available at: <https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6685-employee-monitoring-privacy.html> [Accessed 26 March 2022].

Kumar, S., 2015. Why Monitoring Employees’ Social Media Is a Bad Idea. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/3894276/social-media-monitoring-work/> [Accessed 24 March 2022].

Nystrom, M., 2018. Should Employers Monitor Employees’ Social Media Activity?. [online] o2 Employment Services. Available at: <https://o2employmentservices.com/should-employers-monitor-employees-social-media-activity> [Accessed 24 March 2022].

Palayoor, A. and Mavuthoo, D., n.d. Ethical Orientation: A Solution for Workplace Monitoring and Privacy Issues. [online] Aims-international.org. Available at: <https://www.aims-international.org/aims17/17ACD/PDF/A264-Final.pdf> [Accessed 26 March 2022].

Porteous, C., 2020. Can Employee Monitoring Be Done Ethically?. [online] Entrepreneur. Available at: <https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/356544> [Accessed 24 March 2022].

Yerby, J., 2013. Legal and ethical issues of employee monitoring. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 1(2), pp.44-55.