Holding on to your ethics in high-stakes issues

This post was originally a comment on this blog post at justanotherpr

I’m interested in the issues and crises where companies get caught between a rock and a hard place. What do you do if ethical or legal reasons preclude you from responding openly…as seems to be the case with the campaign against ABC Good Game and their decision to take presenter Junglist off air? (See here for details: http://bit.ly/2dtQA4)

One can only speculate – but assuming ABC reasons for not commenting had something to do with Junglist’s terms of employment – they wouldn’t be in a position to contradict the campaign against their decision, for reasons of employee privacy.

While the ABC might actually like to open up and share their reasons, some viewers are bound to assume that they aren’t commenting because they simply have no good reasons.

In issues with an emotional dimension, the public might be inclined to take sides without knowing the facts. And organisations that take an ethical approach might be punished for doing so…simply because their silence is taken as evidence of guilt.

Would love to hear views on situations such as these.

Openness, corporations and social control

Our lives are increasingly influenced by the power of corporations - rather than democratic governments - due to the influence of a range of trends including globalisation, privatisation, increasing working hours, and the ability of technology to monitor employee conduct and productivity.

So how should society respond to this increasing influence, and how can we as individuals protect our rights and freedoms?

One area that I find of particular concern is companies that choose to limit or eliminate employee access to digital social networks during working hours.

If you're working 8 or 10 or more hours every day, this sort of restriction can massively limit your ability to participate in any sort of public life.

And robust participation in public life is one of the best ways to protect and improve a democracy.

Also, you've got to ask yourself about the likely culture and management style of a company that chooses control and secrecy rather than openness and enablement.

So my advice to anyone who cares to listen, is to choose an employer who actively supports employee participation in social networks. A vibrant democracy requires an engaged population...and I believe this is even more important than economic growth.

This is why I'm proud to work for IBM, a company that is making a series of difficult yet rewarding choices to open up to the world.

IBM actively supports employee participation in social networks. The company's social media guidelines were developed not by a secret council of corporate heavies trying to silence employees - but through an open process led by interested employees.

IBM also makes it easy for employees to get involved, with a range of internal tools and coommunities, plus some great video education regarding appropriate online conduct.

Conversation or Mob Rule?

Have you ever been part of a conversation that degenerated into something you felt entirely uncomfortable with, but failed to speak up against it?

This is how I imagine some people in the Australian Navy might be feeling today: http://www.smh.com.au/national/navy-went-overboard-on-sex-claims-20091020-h6yr.html

In this instance, untold damage has been done to the reputation of the Australian Navy and the individuals involved.

Some may argue that is the fault of:

• an unnamed malign individual who manufactured a false claim;
• a group of individuals who failed to speak up for themselves effectively; or
• an organisation that failed to respond appropriately.

But where is our collective responsibility in this?

Once the damage is done, there's no repairing it. And all of the media, social commentators, and us - the mob - who rushed to judgment, will never be held accountable for the things we said.

Lives have been destroyed for the sake of exercising our moral indignation.

How can we prevent this happening in future?

In the legal system, we have a police force at least notionally responsible for taking enforcement out of the hands of the vigilantes. We have a judiciary, who take the responsibility for judgment out of the hands of police. Both police and judges are trained in how to execute their duties effectively and ethically. While neither are infallible, the system is designed to promote the interests of justice.

And while this dilemma is nothing new to journalists and media organisations, the advent of social media like twitter means that people with no form of relevant training are equipped with much more effective means to destroy reputations. And because they don't have that training, many tweeps aren't especially careful about what they say online.

The much more distributed nature of conversations on social media means it is also less likely that tweeps will be held accountable for what they say (as compared to traditional journalists).

It seems to me that the demands of citizenship are changing, and we need new forms of education - for all - in order to meet them.