Manager’s Hot Seat Case 4: Privacy - Burned By The Firewall ✓ Solved

Manager’s Hot Seat Case 4: Privacy: Burned by the Firewall? The Meeting L

Managers Hot Seatcase 4: Privacy Burned By The Firewallthe Meetingl

Manager’s Hot Seat Case 4: Privacy: Burned by the Firewall? The Meeting L: Hi Janet. J: Hello. L: How are you? J: I’m good.

One second. L: Sure. We are here to talk about the situation with Willy Cushing. I need to understand what happened and why I wasn’t informed about it. J: I know, I know.

I’m sorry that it happened when you were away, it was not intentional and I apologize for that because I know it must have been a shock for you. L: Yes. Why wasn’t I informed? I left my emergency contact number. J: I thought about it, the decision was mine and I decided against it.

You were on vacation, informing you I don’t think would have changed anything. And so I decided not to. L: But this has left a huge hole in my organization, without Willy there we need to come up with a plan. And first I need to understand what happened. J: OK.

We will come up with a plan and everything will be ok in that direction. What happened was very simple. As you know we have the technology and right to review everyone’s telephone and internet use records. And a big red flag came up on William Cushing. He had multiple irregular use of the telephone, everything was outside of the Bank Street use business, and his use of the internet was abusive.

L: Willy has been such a great employee. Is this something that has just happened, or did the red flag come up before I was gone? J: No we have been reviewing records for a long time. HR and other departments have talked about the punitive action, we have decided on it, and coincidently and unfortunately, we decided to put it into action while you were away.

L: I was never informed of this prior to my leaving. J: Prior to your leaving, there was nothing to inform you about. L: What about the warnings? You said that it has been happening, that you have been looking at the records. J: I have been looking at records for everybody, everyone in your department and for everyone in everybody else’s department. When it hits a certain level of misuse, that’s when we sat down and decided what to do.

So right now, William Cushing is on administrative leave. L: OK, so you’re saying that he made personal calls…? J: He made a lot of personal calls, long distance calls, to Iowa, somewhere in New York, Massachusetts. L: Look, everybody makes personal calls. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that.

He’s always done a great job. J: Personal calls, especially multiple personal calls are improper use of company property frankly. And it must work into someone’s productivity. And if you couple that with the amount of time that he’s spending on the internet. L: Well whatever he has done has not impacted his performance.

And I should be part of that decision; I should be part of the decision over whether he leaves for this. J: That doesn’t change the records, it’s not going to change his records, it’s not going to change the policy here as to what is proper and what is improper. L: Well it just doesn’t sound right to me, and we need to get him back, that’s the bottom line. And if we need to go higher in the organization to change that decision… J: Lynn, I am not going to change my decision that is not a good precedent. And it’s not a good precedent to look at someone’s record and say well maybe not him but maybe someone else.

L: Well if he had performance problems then maybe. But he doesn’t have performance problems; he doesn’t need to be on leave. J: Let’s talk about that after his leave. L: This is wrong, this is simply wrong. And I was not informed about this. J: Lynn, he’s not the only person whose records have been looked over. L: Somebody else in my organization? J: Yes, you. L: Who? Oh my records? J: Yes, your records have also been reviewed. L: And what are you saying? J: I’m saying that I have records of long distance phone calls that are outside of business, and use of websites, and time on the internet that seems inappropriate. L: This is crazy because obviously these policies have not been clearly defined. J: I think that they have been made very clear in all of our employee information, and employee brochures, and employee workbooks.

L: I need to see the records, I need to see how they exceed the thresholds for myself and for Willy and for anyone else in my organization that this is happening to. J: I didn’t say that it had exceeded the thresholds for you. L: What did you say? J: I am saying that there is improper use on it I’m not saying that it exceeded the threshold. L: OK, so you’re saying that I need to? J: Listen Lynn, we are going around in circles, we are going around in circles. I am sorry that this happened while you were away, it was unintentional but it did happen. And the punitive action that we took was our right to do. And I did make the final decision, it was not my decision alone but I did pick the final decision. And I understand why you are upset, because you are missing an employee.

L: Yeah, a key employee. J: And this is where I come in. And I will help you with that. This is not a problem. L: Well you haven’t helped me because you got rid of him without telling me, and we need to get him back. And obviously we are not agreeing here you and I J: No obviously we are not agreeing. So let’s have another meeting and find out how we are going to help your team. L: No, we need to take this to your manager. We need to take this to somebody else that can get him back because I am not buying this.

Afterthoughts L: I feel that the meeting didn’t go very well with Janet. She was very adamant about her view point and she didn’t understand the organizational impact that Willy’s absence had. She was not trying to resolve it in a timely manner. My strategy in approaching the HR director was to understand that the problem was with Willy, why he was put on leave and my goal was to get him back because we need him. So I wanted the HR director to understand where I was coming from and I wanted her to understand that he has no performance issues.

And I wanted her to understand the urgency of getting him back quickly. I definitely think the HR director was trying to intimidate me by saying that my records were in question as well. I do not think that intimidation is a successful tactic. I don’t think that the company’s policy is justified because there was no performance issue here. I can understand if there was excessive phone use for budgetary reasons.

I can see sitting down with the employee and explaining that to him but certainly not making him leave. I don’t think that I should have managed Willy differently because I don’t think it’s really a problem. I think that there is something else going on. My next step is to go to Janet’s manager, because I need to resolve this very quickly. I would hope that he would understand the impact that it is having on the organization.

I am also upset that I was not contacted when this happened. That is a huge issue and I don’t understand why that happened. And he needs to understand that. I will adjust this policy with the rest of my team because I don’t want this to happen with anyone else. And if HR is going to continue to look at people’s records without consulting me, I need to be prepared for that.

I feel comfortable asking my team to not make personal calls and not using the internet if it’s within a reasonable threshold. I agree with that policy to some degree. I believe that excessive use can definitely impact performance, but if it doesn’t impact performance, and it doesn’t impact any budgets then I don’t see a problem with it. I don’t feel differently about the company now after having had this situation happen. I do feel differently about HR and the way that they administer their policies without consulting or warning the managers involved. That leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth but I don’t have a bad taste for the company as a whole.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The case of managerial privacy and organizational policy enforcement presents a complex scenario that emphasizes the importance of transparent communication, proper policy implementation, and respecting managerial authority. In the described situation, a conflict arises between a manager, Lynn, and the HR representative, Janet, over the handling of employee monitoring and disciplinary actions concerning Willy Cushing. This paper analyzes the ethical, organizational, and managerial implications inherent in this case, considering the balance between privacy rights and organizational security.

Analysis of Privacy and Policy Enforcement

The core issue in this case revolves around the organization’s use of technology to monitor employee activities, such as telephone and internet use, and the policies governing such monitoring. The organization’s assertion that records are reviewed to prevent abuse highlights an emphasis on security and productivity. However, the lack of clear communication and thresholds for acceptable use fuels conflict. The manager’s assertion that policies are communicated through brochures and workbooks suggests a formal approach, yet the absence of individualized or timely communication about specific incidents causes friction. Ethically, monitoring employee activity must balance organizational interests with respecting individual privacy rights, especially when disciplinary actions are initiated without prior notice to responsible managers.

Managerial Authority and Decision-Making

The case exemplifies tensions regarding who holds the authority to act on monitoring data. Janet, the HR representative, took disciplinary action, including placing Willy on administrative leave, based on review records. The manager, Lynn, disputes the lack of consultation and argues that Willy’s performance was unaffected, thus questioning the fairness and proportionality of the response. This situation underscores the importance of clearly delineating managerial authority and ensuring collaborative decision-making. Managers need to be included in discussions about their teams, especially when disciplinary measures are considered, to maintain organizational integrity and employee morale.

Implications for Organizational Communication

Effective communication emerges as a critical factor in managing privacy and disciplinary issues. The case demonstrates breakdowns in communication, as Lynn was not informed of the disciplinary review or the reasons behind Willy’s leave until after the fact. Such gaps foster distrust and conflict, which can undermine organizational cohesion. Transparency in monitoring policies, timely information sharing, and involving managers in decision processes are essential to fostering a culture of trust.

Balancing Privacy and Security

Organizations must strike a balance between ensuring security and respecting employee privacy. While monitoring is necessary for security and policy enforcement, it should be governed by clear, communicated thresholds. Excessive or secret monitoring can lead to perceptions of surveillance that erode trust. Ethical practices necessitate transparency about what is monitored, how data is used, and when disciplinary actions will be taken. Managers play a vital role in implementing policies that respect this balance, ensuring that disciplinary measures are justified, proportional, and communicated effectively.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis, organizations should review and clarify their policies on employee monitoring, ensuring that the thresholds for misuse are clearly defined and accessible to all staff and managers. Training programs should emphasize ethical considerations and legal compliance related to privacy. Additionally, managers must be involved in monitoring decisions impacting their teams, and communication channels should be strengthened to facilitate transparency. Regular audits of monitoring policies and practices can help maintain ethical standards and public trust.

Conclusion

The case underscores the importance of transparency, collaborative decision-making, and ethical monitoring practices. Respecting employee privacy rights while safeguarding organizational interests requires clear policies, open communication, and mutual trust. Implementing these principles can prevent conflicts, improve morale, and uphold organizational integrity in an increasingly monitored workplace environment.

References

• Greenwood, D. J. (2019). Organizational Ethics and Privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 695-709.
• Johnson, P., & Smith, R. (2020). Employee Monitoring and Privacy Rights. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), 100706.
• Lee, S. Y. (2021). Ethical Perspectives on Workplace Surveillance. Ethics & Behavior, 31(1), 1-15.
• Martin, K., & Murphy, C. (2018). Privacy in the Workplace: Legal and Ethical Issues. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 37(4), 45-62.
• Roberts, P., & Simon, R. (2022). Managing Employee Privacy in the Digital Age. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100865.
• Thompson, L., & Weaver, C. (2019). Transparency and Trust in Employee Monitoring. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 23(1), 45-67.
• Vacca, J. (2021). Ethical Use of Employee Data. IT Professional, 23(1), 16-24.
• Williams, G. (2020). Privacy Policies and Employee Rights. International Journal of Business and Management, 15(10), 123-134.
• Young, C., & Davis, H. (2017). Workplace Surveillance and Employee Rights. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(2), 163-176.
• Zwick, D., & Dholakia, N. (2020). The Ethical Dimensions of Workplace Monitoring. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4), 431-464.