Final Case Facebook

Running head: COMMUNICATION 1

COMMUNICATION 6

Case Study: Organizational Communication, Ethical Perspectives and Practices

Name:

School Affiliation:

Date:

In this modern time, the social media is the fastest way through which an individual can convey a message to the public, family or friends. The ease of transfer of words from individual to individual has created new problems for organisations. Employees may use social platforms to talk about their jobs, whistleblowers such as wiki leaks has used the internet to propagate such a measure. In the face of a new technological age forums such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter may be the instruments for used to censure a modern age of whistleblowing (May, 2013). In a situation of fear, to keep a right public image for organisation employers have gone to the extent of making their employees sign confidentiality papers. In breach of this agreement, employees are liable for the damage to the image and bottom line of the institution. Therefore, the essay will go forth and examine the case study of communication and technology, and thereby, come up with an overview, analysis and recommendations that were provided for the case.

The case explores the many ways through which employers keep tabs on their employees that goes beyond the workplace but also into their dominion in the society. The behaviours of an employee are subject to analysis since it confirms what kind of values, habits and culture that the organisation aims to achieve. In an, in depth, the case will strive to observe how institutions employ surveillance methods to monitor every action employees do on and off the workplace. The surveillance techniques have gone as far as exploiting their pages on social media (May, 2013). Some companies have created softwares that have the power to record and analyse the amount of time, the critical strokes used, and the messages on posts on their official personal pages. The growing popularity of social media sites have increased the antagonism between employees and employers since the boundary between one's private space and contractual rights held by the organisation may be thin or non-existent.

There are two ways of considering the situation the duty perspective and the personal rights angle. All the factors are reasonable depending on the opinion or thoughts an individual may have on the topic. The supporters of duty to the organisation declare that an employee should bear only positive remarks about the company or corporation that the person works for. It means that an employee is in no position to use the social media to display bad comments concerning any of the stakeholders of the institution (May, 2013). The rights perspective instructs that an individual is liable for his own opinion, the thoughts shared by the individual on the social platforms are no reflection of the objectives and values shared by the organisation. Furthermore, the rights perspective instructs that an individual has his or her privacy rights; collecting information about an employee on social media is viewed as a breach of privacy.

Workplace privacy is a complex issue that aims to depict how various disciplines such as the rising technological innovations, new social networks and mediated forms of connectivity have the changed the boundaries of interaction between people both publicly and privately. Social media platforms have changed how people communicate and primarily the weight through which people bestow upon face to face interactions. Online profiles are tailored by their creators to initiate or propagate a primary image which may be real or virtual depending on the individual (May, 2013). Through this way, it has created a virtual world that does not display the actual foundations the society stands for. People use social media for name calling whistleblowing or sensitising the masses on breaking news. It has caused many companies to construct social media clauses onto employment contracts which forbid negative responses and comments concerning the organisation they work for and their stakeholders.

In May 2010, a waiter for a local fast food joint called BRIXX posted a message on her personal Facebook profile that called out a customer that had came to the enterprise and left a small tip. The news that she posted on her Facebook included the name of the institution and the occupation of the individual that left a standard tip despite the time he spent in the establishment. From a personal rights perspective, the matter would have been thought of venting an exhausting day at the workplace to her family. Furthermore, the post that she put up was not public it was expressed to a minimal number of her Facebook gathering (May, 2013). Many of the things people do in social media think that the actions and activities they do on them will never out. But more recently that familiar people got to see what you have uploaded and tended to have an opinion. The social media may be used to start up scandals and evidence discriminating acts done by people.

The Waitress got fired by the manager of the institution since her comments were seen as a breach of confidentiality which is indicated in the hiring contract. The waiter did not fight the decision of the management since she knew that she had broken the law. However, what comes into contention is the fact that the message got out despite the privacy setting she had installed on her computer. The way the news is discovered does not matter, but, the information or opinions shared by the individual. In another idea, some people say, when complaining about your job one should not do it on social media or if you do the individual should be good at covering their tracks (May, 2013). I to comply with this sentiment, taking into consideration some people that can view other people's comments on social media, an individual should only convey distress to either the Human Resource or a close family member. Covering one's tracks on social media through using anonymous profiles ensures that people do not know who you are but in many cases does not change the position you are in.

As I conclude my essay, I would like to acknowledge the immense influence endowed upon social media platforms by the generation of today. Messages and opinions shared on these platforms can demean the image and values of an organisation. Therefore, it is essential to be careful of what one posts on their profiles regardless of the emotions one shares (May, 2013). Once, sharing that information, it is evident to feel that in one way or another one's rights and obligations may be prohibited in one form or another. It begs the question where does the boundary begin or end between protecting the company's image and displaying one's individual comments and opinions. The constitution provides for a right to privacy and expression, however, when you sign a contract bearing a social media clause or confidentiality the individual gives up this power.

References

May, S. (2013). Case studies in organisational communication: ethical perspectives and practices. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.