Write an organizational policy to address the IT-related ethical workforce priva

Question

Write an organizational policy to address the IT-related ethical workforce privacy issue that you described in Matrix B1, where you mapped key organizational issues and identified how these ethical issues were affected by laws, regulations, and policies. Please incorporate the instructor’s feedback from the review and grade and then use the Matrix B1 you produced as a supporting document.

The following elements must be addressed:

Look at other policies to see how they are written. The following site provides examples of templates for policies but an Internet search provides other templates: http://www.sans.org/security-resources/policies/computer.php

Your policy should include the following major headings:

Overview of policy

Purpose

Scope (roles and responsibilities of stakeholders)

Policy/Procedures to follow

Sanctions/Enforcement

Prepare a 3-5 page, double-spaced Organizational Policy.

This assignment requires a minimum of three external references. Indicate appropriate APA reference citations for all sources you use.

In addition to critical thinking and analysis skills, your paper should reflect appropriate grammar and spelling, good organization, and proper business-writing style.

Submit the assignment to the Assignment Folder as a MS Word File

Explanation / Answer

I. INTRODUCTION Privacy in the workplace is one of the more troubling personal and professional issues of our time. But privacy cannot be adequately addressed without considering a basic foundation of ethics. We cannot reach a meaningful normative conclusion about workplace privacy rights and obligations without a fundamental and common understanding of the ethical basis of justice and a thorough understanding of individual and organizational concerns and motivations. A. Ethics as "Perception" Individual views of appropriate bases for assessing the ethical nature of acts and consequences vary widely. If I were to ask any one of you for a definition of ethics, some of you may agree with that definition, while others may completely disagree or want to enhance it. For me, the concept of perception is critical for ethical assessment, since perception plays such a paramount role in framing issues. Our ethical decisions are influenced by our own perception of ourselves, by others' perception of our actions, and by our perception of "universal laws." Our final choices are determined by the perception that has the greatest impact or weight at the time. For example, perhaps you have a certain hat that you love to wear, and it is simply the ugliest hat in the world. But it keeps you warm; and you're just going to wear it. You don't care what anyone thinks. You don't care if people stare at you walking down the block. All you care about is that you are comfortable. Your perception is all that matters. This same circumstance might exist for you in connection with an ethical dilemma. Sometimes you believe so strongly in what you think that, even if the entire universe believes what you are doing is wrong, you will go ahead and do it because you believe it is right. I assume you can imagine a few situations where the only opinion that concerns you is your own. You are following your own values. It is your particular perception that defines what is ethical. Now contrast the influence of your personal perception in this situation to the origin of the second potential influence on our actions: What concerns you may be whether society perceives that what you are doing is right. You can define society anyway you want: your mother, your particular colleagues, people with whom you work, other family members—whatever you define as your society, including of course, the larger American or global society. Ethicists often call this the New York Times test or the "New Integrity." Perhaps now it should be called the web test. When reaching a resolution to an ethical dilemma, you might test how you would feel if you saw what you did today all over the Internet tomorrow. The question is whether you would feel all right if everyone else (in your circle or society) knew about what you did. In fact, you might believe that what you did is absolutely right, but the world (or your mother) does not understand it, misunderstands it or misperceives it. You can probably imagine scenarios where you know what you are doing is right, but everyone is going to get the wrong impression so you simply choose not to do it. What matters to you in this decision is what other people think. There are certainly situations where all of us might be subject to that type of influence. The third scenario is where one's determination of whether something is ethical is based on one's interpretation of some universal rule or rules (such as a religious guidance or the direction of universally held principles). For some people, the question they ask themselves is, "What would Buddha or Jesus do in this circumstance?" It is the "perception" of that religion, spiritual leader or other "omniscient" being that is critical to your decision. In the end, you believe that the rule is the word of God, or another being or force, and that is what is going to influence your decision, whether or not society or you independently agree with it. So your determination of that which is ethical in any one circumstance truly depends on whose opinion is important to you. I will give you one example of the importance of perception in decision-making. When I first took my three-and-a-half-year-old daughter on an airplane, I was concerned about her comfort level since I am no fan of airline takeoffs or landings. I was trying to prepare Emma for the takeoff, so I said, "Emma, the plane is going to run, run, run and then jump in the air, and it's going to jump just like you do, but it's going to stay in the air, and it's going to be OK." As we take off from the ground, of course, Emma looks out the window and starts getting upset. But she is upset about something to do with the ground. I couldn't figure out what she meant, until I realized that she perceived the ground to be falling away rather than the plane flying in the air. She could not see that we were in an airplane that was lifting up into the air; she saw that the ground was falling away. It never would have occurred to me that she would perceive it that way; yet that is what upset her. Perhaps if I had considered how she might perceive the takeoff, I might have addressed it differently. Do you ever go to sleep at night thinking that something you did was just fine, but wake up the next morning with everyone angry at you? Or you hand in a memo to your manager, thinking it is perfectly clear, but she or he hands it back to you later saying, "I don't know what the heck you're talking about here; you've got to be more clear"? In that regard, it may be very helpful to engage in a bit of analysis to try to view things from the perspective of each of those individuals who might be impacted by your decision. I do not believe that each of our codes of ethics is fundamentally different, but we often care about different perspectives. Certain perspectives seem more valid, depending on the circumstances. Addressed this way, it is clear that businesses, in particular, generally care about what their primary stakeholders consider to be ethical, because they are perceived to have the greatest impact on the business. B. The Impact of Ethics as Perception in Business Decision-Making There are a number of factors that influence businesses to care about how they are perceived by society. The law persuades us to be ethical by using deterrents or punishments. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines prescribe hundreds of millions of dollars in fines or jail time for violations. Businesses are also influenced by pragmatic reasons. The Ethics Resource Center in D.C. found recently that firms with strong, written codes of conduct are a better investment than those which do not have written codes. Society is also persuasive in its forms of chastisement or praise (consider the New York Times test mentioned earlier). Consider, as well, the Johnson & Johnson case in connection with the tainted Tylenol containers. That situation arose decades ago, yet I still discuss it in my classes as a laudable way to respond to a situation. Wouldn't you like to believe that decades from now people in your firm say, "Oh, you should always do that the way [input your name] did it in 2000? Or would you rather that people decades from now say, "Do it in any way, but never in the way that [input your name] did it back in 2000?" There are additional incentives for firms to engage in ethical behavior. First, unethical behavior imposes terrible costs. Nestle continues to feel the backlash resulting from an insensitive marketing campaign for infant formula in developing economies that cost many children their lives. This happened more that 20 years ago, yet I still discuss that case. Texaco has paid out almost $200 million for its failure to pay attention to diversity. Mercury Finance, Genentech, Bausch & Lomb, Microsoft: Each of these firms has seen financial turmoil arise from ethical violations that were not originally anticipated. C. Our Habitual Business Decision-Making Process So now that we have a clearer understanding of ethics and the impact of perception, as well as an awareness of the incentives toward ethical behavior, how do you do it? Usually, we make decisions considering limited alternatives. I may say to you, what do you do, choice "a" or choice "b?" You consider the options, feeling the pressure. You think, "Oh my gosh, 'a' or 'b' … I'll take choice 'a.'" But another option exists, doesn't it? One might say, "Wait a minute, I need to think about this. There are other choices that you did not offer me—choices 'c,' 'd,' and 'f.'" But usually, we consider only the limited alternatives. We use simplified decision rules. You must make the choice to terminate someone. You choose to follow a rule of thumb, such as firing the last one hired: "I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do." Rules of thumb relieve the decision-maker of the accountability for that decision. It feels better to say, "There is nothing I can do," than to explain that you have all the discretion in the world, but are still firing the person. Finally, we usually select alternatives that merely satisfy minimum criteria. In my opinion, this normal habit is one of the most detrimental of our habitual decision-making practices. If all of us need to reach a compromise on something, we would naturally find a solution on which there is no dispute. But, instead, it is seldom that one continues to seek alternative, better solutions. At this point does anyone ever say, "Wait, that might not be the best; let's keep trying?" It doesn't happen very often. Too often we miss out on the best possible decision, making instead the earliest possible decision. D. The Ethical Process of Decision-Making What follows is a discussion of the ethical process of decision making. It may appear to be awfully complicated. But let me tell you this: It becomes habitual, so habitual that it becomes uncomfortable when you are in circumstances where you cannot conduct an ethical decision-making process. If you've every learned how to drive a stick-shift car, you will understand the following metaphor. Consider the first time you sat in a stick-shift car. You have 85,313 things to remember. Stick-shift driving is pretty complicated. You have to remember when to pop the clutch, when to put in the clutch, when to put the brake or the gas on, what to do with this hand over here, what gear you are in and so on. You begin to drive and the car dies often, you stall, you deal with it, and then you learn. However, once you become proficient at stick-shift driving, you don't really think about when you have to put in the clutch anymore. You just drive. And, in fact, when you drive an automatic car, your left foot keeps going down to try to push the clutch in! Compare these circumstances to the ethical decision-making process. It will be difficult or challenging or burdensome in the beginning, but later it will evolve into a habitual process—a process in which, if you do not have the ability to follow it in a certain circumstance, you are still pushing that left foot in. You are trying to do it. It's uncomfortable that you cannot. The ethical decision-making process is a follows: 1. Issue(s): Identify the dilemma. 2. Facts: Obtain all of the unbiased facts. 3. Alternatives: Identify the choices that you have (look not only to "a" and "b," but also to "y" and "z"). 4. Stakeholders: Identify those who have an interest. What are their motivations? How much power does each hold over you or your firm? 5. Impact: Identify the impact of each alternative on each stakeholder and the stakeholders' resulting impacts on you or your firm. 6. Additional assistance/theoretical guidance: Do theories uncover any hidden implications? Do they support one alternative over another? 7. Action: Decide how to respond and act. 8. Monitor: Monitor outcomes and make adjustments where necessary. There are few other questions that business practitioners might ask themselves to gain a bit of guidance or direction. 1. How did I get in this dilemma in the first place? 2. Is my action legal? Where's the legal line? 3. Am I being fair and honest (is it "just")? 4. Am I acting in line with my personal integrity? With the firm's core values? With the character traits I endeavor to exhibit? 5. Am I being self-serving or am I considering others? 6. Will [my action] stand the test of time? 7. Is this a model of "right" behavior? 8. How will I feel afterward (am I proud)? 9. Will someone get the wrong idea? 10. Is my loyalty in the "right" place? 11. Is this something a leader should do? 12. How do I never get here again? What should I have done awhile ago to avoid getting to this horrible place. The important factor in ethical decision-making is not necessarily arriving at a correct or right decision, but is instead being conscious of the impact of the decision on one's self and others. It is practically impossible not to be affected by this consciousness in one's decision-making if one follows the process set forth above. The end result is a world of more conscious, considerate decisions rather than those based on rapid-fire, gut instincts. E. Ethical Decision-Making with Regard to Employee Privacy Applying this ethical decision-making process to the complicated challenge of employee privacy, one must first identify the issue and understand the dilemma. Then one must obtain all of the facts, identify all of the stakeholders. The next step is to attempt to understand the impact of the different alternatives available to both employees and employers, and identify all of the stakeholders. The next step is to attempt to understand the impact of the different alternatives in terms of workplace monitoring, surveillance, and so on. Perhaps ethical theories will provide some insight. The issue of whether a fundamental "right" exists in personal autonomy or, conversely, managing the workplace may be illuminated by ethical theories. Finally, one needs to make a recommendation and monitor the outcomes. II. ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND WORKPLACE PRIVACY A. Ethical Issues Unique to Information Technology "It appears to me that in ethics the difficulties are mainly due to the attempt to answer questions without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer." --George Edward Moore Information technology provides us with a host of ethical challenges. New technology poses new implications for the balance of power in the workplace. We now have in-home offices, allowing for greater invasions. Moreover, the line between personal and professional lives has become blurred, as workers conduct personal business in the office and professional business at home. The office usually provides faster, cheaper and easier access to the Internet, while some work must be done at home in order to be completed according to our modern, technologically enhanced pace. Technology allows employers to ask more of each employee because now we are capable of greater production; we have greater abilities due to technology. We don't seem to know when our workday is over. I used to be a lawyer, and the understanding in that profession was, if you can work more hours, you do. This is because you will then be viewed as the preferred colleague. You will be the one who is going to get the plum assignments because you work so darn hard. Other issues are raised by enhanced technology. For instance, should the technological ability to find something out make it relevant? With new employment-testing technology, you can find out all sorts of personal information. Through genetic testing, hair follicle testing, drug testing, your employer can find out anything it wants to know about you. Similarly, here, should the employer find out the information simply because it can? In addition, new technology allows for a more faceless communication. If you have to fire someone, it is significantly easier to fire that person by e-mail than to walk into her or his office. In the latter case, you see the individual—desperate, perhaps disappointed, frustrated with the fact that you've worked them so hard and now you're terminating them. It's a lot easier to be nasty when you don't have to look your stakeholder in the face. Finally, there is research showing that the excessive exertion of power and authority may lead to what they call a "semi-schizoid response," including insecurity, "disruption of biographical continuity," feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless, and doubts about worthiness. The implication is that, if someone questions you too much or takes away too much of your power, the ultimate cost may be your emotional security. Somewhat prophetically, Lawrence Lessig writes in his new bestseller, Code, "We have been as welcoming and joyous about the Net (and other technologies) as the earthlings were of the aliens in Independence Day. But at some point, we too will come to see a potential threat…and its extraordinary power for control." B. Ethical Issues in the Privacy Arena Specifically in connection with privacy, ethical issues arise with gathering information, assessing its accuracy, correcting it and disclosing it, as well as issues related to the substance of the information itself. Simply knowing that someone has personal information about you can feel invasive or violating. For that amorphous reason, privacy is a slightly difficult concept to define. Ethan Catch says it is "the ability to control what others can come to know about you." Why do we care that someone knows our personal information? We can imagine items of personal data that we simply do not want others knowing, whether or not they would actually do something with that information. We do not like people knowing things about us. It comes down to one's ability to be autonomous in controlling one's personal information. Do you, personally, care about the information others know about you? Would you care if your boss knew of all your off-work activities? Consider Milton Hershey. Milton Hershey would tour Hershey, Pennsylvania, taking note of workers' lawns that were not kept up, or homes that were not maintained. He would even hire private detectives to find out who was throwing trash in Hershey Park. Another business owner, Henry Ford, used to condition wages on workers' good behavior outside the factory. He had 150 inspectors in his "sociological department" to keep tabs on workers' hygiene habits and housekeeping. Only recently did OSHA retract a statement that the occupational safety and health standards apply equally to workplaces and personal homes, when you work as a telecommuter. Can you imagine if you had to maintain the same standards of safety in your home that your employer must maintain at the traditional workplace? C. Status of New Technology with Regard to Workplace Privacy A multitude of basic and inexpensive computer monitoring products allows managers to track web use, to observe downloaded files, to filter sites, to restrict your access to certain sites, and to know how much time you have spent on various sites. These include products such as WebSense, New Access Manager, WebTrack and Internet Watchdog. One particular firm, SpyShop.com, claims to service one-third of the Fortune 500 firms. This firm sells items such as a truth-telling device that links to a telephone. You are told that you can interview a job candidate on the phone and the device identifies those who lie. Another firm, Omnitracks, sells a satellite that fastens to the top or inside of a truck. The product allows trucking firms to locate trucks at all times. If a driver veers off the highway to get flowers for her or his partner on Valentine's Day, the firm will know what happened. SpyZone.com sells an executive investigator kit that includes the truth phone I mentioned earlier, as well as a pocket recording pen. Other outlets sell pinhole lens camera pens, microphones that fit in your pocket. The motto of one firm is "In God we trust. All others we monitor." That firm offers a beeper buster: a computer program that monitors calls placed to beepers within a certain vicinity. A screen on your computer will show you all the numbers so that you can determine whether the individual is being distracted during working hours. D. Competing Interests, Competing Rights The predominant question that I have sought to answer by my recent research is whether a balance is possible between the employer's interest in managing the workplace and the employees' interest in privacy. Do employees even have a right to privacy? If one believes the answer is "no," then the entire issue becomes moot. If the employee does have some, even limited right to privacy, one must seek to find a balance of interest. While we will return to the consideration of "rights" as we apply ethical theories, below, it is helpful to identify the proposed rights in dispute. The employer has a right to manage the workplace. More specifically, employers want to manage the workplace so that they can place workers in the appropriate positions. They want to ensure compliance with affirmative action and administer workplace benefits. They want to ensure effective or productive performance. They need to know what their workers are doing in their workplace. The employer's perspective is as follows: "I am paying them to be there working. If they are not working, I should know that and either pay them less, or hire different workers." It seems like a relatively understandable concern. Employees, on the other hand, want to be treated as free, equal, capable and rational individuals who have the ability to make their own decisions about the way their lives will unfold. They are interested in aiding their own personal development and valued performance; in conducting some personal business at the office; in being free from monitoring for performance reasons; in being free from monitoring for privacy reasons; and in being able to review and to correct misinformation in data collected. Consider the issue of personal work conducted at the office. I get to work some days at 7:00 a.m. and don't leave until 7:00 p.m. Last I heard, many doctors' offices are not open before or after 7:00 in the morning or night. So when is one supposed to call and make an appointment, much less ever go to an appointment if one is punching the clock with those hours? The employer has to understand that workers must be able to call the doctor and make an appointment. Workers need to be able to conduct involuntary personal matters at the office. Now, one might not need to e-mail their mother or chat on the phone with friends. Should workers still have the right to conduct that voluntary personal business? Perhaps the resolution lies in the precise definition of voluntary or involuntary business. III. THE LAW, NEW TECHNOLOGY AND WORKPLACE PRIVACY As dictated by the ethical decision-making process, one must obtain all the unbiased facts before responding to an ethical dilemma. Where new technology impacts the dilemma, the "facts" may be all the more difficult to ascertain, since we are not yet completely equipped to obtain the necessary information. For example, some scholars contend that nearly everyone who has a computer (estimated to be about 80 percent of the U.S. work force) is subject to some form of information collection, no matter how much we protect ourselves. Another source reports that more than 30 million workers were subject to workplace monitoring last year, up from only 8 million in 1991. As of 1999, two-thirds of mid- to large-size firms conduct some form on monitoring, whether it is computer-based monitoring, video monitoring, monitoring of personal investments, or maybe simply monitoring key card access to the building or parking garage (up from 30 percent in 1993). Our style of working, even of communicating, has created greater possibilities for monitoring. In connection with e-mail, for instance, more then American workers now send more than 2.8 billion e-mail messages per. Since we are using our employers' equipment and time, we shouldn't be surprised that our employer wants to assure that all those messages are necessary for the business to succeed, yet having someone read our mail feels particularly invasive. A. Federal Legislation More than 100 bills on privacy protection have been introduced in Congress, but only one has been approved, on the collection of personal information from kids over the Internet. Also, the White House right now is only supporting privacy protections related to medical information privacy because they believe that this type of uncertainty will dissolve as firms and employees become more comfortable with the medium. B. Constitutional Protections The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This protection implies a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by the State, only. As this provision of the Constitution does not apply to actions by private sector employers, their employees must rely instead on state-by-state laws and the common law made and accepted in the courts. Similar limitation exists in connection with the First Amendment's protection of personal autonomy and the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination—each of these only protects the individual from invasions by the State. Currently, there is proposed employment-related privacy legislation in several states that would apply to private sector employers, but those states fall in the distinct minority. What the courts will generally consider in cases involving both the Fourth Amendment and common law privacy protections is (1) whether the employer has a legitimate business interest in obtaining the information, and (2) whether the employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Several examples of common law actions by the courts are illustrative of the courts' attempts at creating this balance. Perhaps more significant are the settlements reached by firms concerned about the prospect of a judge's decision. C. Case Law In one recent case, two McDonalds restaurant employees used voice-mail to transmit love messages during an affair. They believed that these messages were private since the firm told them that only they had the access codes. The franchise owner monitored the voice-mail messages and later played messages for the wife of one of the workers. The lovers sued for invasion of privacy. They settled for several million dollars, so we do not yet have any judge's decision in a situation like this. In another case that never made it to the courts, the Minnesota Attorney General sued several banks for revealing personal information about clients to marketers in exchange for more than $4 million in fees. One bank eventually agreed to pay attorney fees plus $2.5 million to Habitat for Humanity. While the law has not yet settled in connection with monitoring or the privacy of obtained information—hence the settlements—monitoring does seem justified by several cases where e-mail was later used as evidence to encourage a settlement. Within the past several years, several large firms, including R.R. Donnelly, Morgan Stanley, and Citicorp, have found that cases often hinged on e-mail transmissions that people originally thought were deleted. In one case, this included an e-mail containing 165 racial, ethnic and sexual jokes sent to the entire firm. In another, the e-mail included sexual jokes about why beer is better than women. Had the firms enforced stringent policies about the use of e-mail and monitored to enforce these policies, perhaps these e-mails would never have been sent. A few short months ago, the New York Times also found itself facing some problems. They fired 24 employees at a Virginia payroll processing center for sending "inappropriate and offensive e-mail in violation of corporate policy." The public sector is not immune from similar challenge: The U.S. Navy reported that it had disciplined more than 500 employees at a supply depot for sending sexually explicit e-mail. It happens all the time, and it's continuing to happen. You would think that people would actually learn. In cases where the courts have been able to address the issue, it seemed at first that notice of monitoring might emerge as the critical factor. Perhaps persuaded by early case law, of the 67 percent of mid- to large-size firms that monitor, 84 percent notify their employees of this activity. Notice might range from a one-line comment in the middle of an employee manual that someone receives on the first day of work, to a dialogue box reminding you that e-mail may be monitored that pops up each time you hit the "send" button to transmit an e-mail. In an early case addressing this topic, the court in K-mart v. Trotti held that the search of an employee's company-owned locker was not appropriate, because the workers were told to use their own personal lock. The basis for the decision was that the employees were left with the legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy because it was their own lock. On the other hand, an employer's search of employee lunch buckets was held reasonable by another court only two years earlier. In a later 1990 case, Shoars v. Epson, Epson won a suit filed by an employee who complained about e-mail monitoring In that case, the court distinguished the practice of intercepting an e-mail transmission from storing and reading e-mail transmissions only after they had been sent, holding that the latter was acceptable. In a 1992 action, Northern Telecom settled a claim brought by employees who were allegedly secretly monitored for more than 13 years. In this case, Telecom agreed to pay $50,000 to individual plaintiffs and $125,000 for attorneys' fees. One might therefore conclude that, if an employer adequately notifies workers that it will conduct monitoring, it has effectively destroyed any reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the workers. However, where a firm notified workers that it would not monitor, the court did not follow congruent logic. It did not find a reasonable expectation of privacy based on a firm's pledge not to read e-mail. In that case, Smyth v. Pillsbury, Smyth sued the firm after a manager read his e-mail. At the time, Pillsbury had a policy saying that it would not read e-mail. One might presume that this policy should have created a reasonable expectation of privacy. But instead, this was the first federal decision to hold that a private sector, at-will employee has no right of privacy in the content of one's e-mail when one sends it over the employer's computer system. The court held, "We do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system, notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be intercepted by management." IV. THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM: A CALL FOR ETHICS The law offers little, if any, guidance in this area in connection with workplace monitoring, and technology as a whole. In fact, the development of our moral systems has not been able to keep pace with technological and medical developments, leaving us prey, individually and societally, to a host of dangers. It never occurred to most workers that some of their "private" information was available or that they could be monitored in various ways. When employers' access to personal information is not apparent, employees do not adequately protect themselves against it. Failure to completely understand the new technology may prevent people from completely understanding their exposure or potential vulnerability. The primary ethical issue for analysis is whether the employee's fundamental right to privacy outweighs the employer's right to administer the workplace according to its desires. If not, is there a way to satisfy both parties? As law does not yet provide the answers, we turn to ethics for guidance. The strongest, most persuasive and most consistent guidance in this area is based on a theory called Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT), which seeks to differentiate between those values that are fundamental across culture and theory ("hypernorms") and those values that are culturally specific, determined within moral "free space," and which are not hypernorms. Included as examples of hypernorms are freedom of speech, the right to personal freedom, the right to physical movement, and informed consent. In fact, individual privacy is at the core of many of these basic, minimal rights and is, arguably, a necessary prerequisite to many of them. Specifically, ISCT seeks evidence of the widespread recognition of ethical principles that support a hypernorm conclusion, such as international/national laws, religious beliefs, cultural acceptance, acceptance by various governing and non-governing associations, and accepted industry standards. With regard to privacy, a key finding of a recent survey of the status of privacy in 50 countries around the world included the following conclusion: "Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in all major international treaties and agreements on human rights. Nearly every country in the world recognizes privacy as a fundamental human right in their constitution, either explicitly or implicitly. Most recently drafted constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information." Accordingly, it would appear that the value of privacy to civilized society is as great as the value of the various hypernorms to civilized existence. Ultimately, the failure to protect privacy may lead to an inability to protect personal freedom and autonomy. The application of ISCT, however, has limitations. ISCT does not quantify critical boundaries for rights. If employees have a right to privacy based on a hypernorm, how far does it extend and what should happen in a conflict? Doesn't the employer have certain hypernorm-based rights that might be infringed by the protection of the employees' privacy right? To quantify the boundaries of the universal rights, one must therefore look beyond ISCT to a more fairness-based methodology. Ethicist John Rawls's theory of distributive economic justice provides fairness-based guidance for quantifying the boundary levels of fundamental rights. Distributive justice defines ethical acts as those that lead to an equitable distribution of good and services. To determine a fair method for distributing goods and services, Rawls suggests that one consider how we would distribute goods and services if we were under a "veil of ignorance" that prevented us from knowing our status in society (i.e., our intelligence, wealth, appearance). He asks that we consider what rules we would impose on this society if we had no idea whether we would be princes or paupers. Without knowing what role we might play in our society, would we devise a system of constant employee monitoring or complete privacy in all professional and personal endeavors? Rawls contends that those engaged in the exercise would build a cooperative system that was sensitive to the interests of all stakeholders. The reason Rawls believes that such a standard would emerge is that the members of the exercise do not know whether they would be among the employer population of employee population. Actions consistent with a system devised under a veil of ignorance are deemed ethical because of the inherent fairness of the system. Rawls's theory of distributive justice does not provide guidance for identifying the categories of fundamental rights. What Rawls does provide is a method for establishing distribution rules that avoid market transgressions of the boundaries of ethical actions. Conjoining ISCT and Rawlsian methods enables the identification of basic human rights and boundaries, and provides for a reasonable balance between economic and ethical consequences of privacy protection for both employees and employers. ISCT establishes the underlying or foundational hypernorms within a society, while distributive justice offers guidance on the extent of those hypernorms and the means by which to implement them. The implementation of an ethical resolution: Assuming for the purposes of this argument that privacy is a hypernorm, but one that may be limited by the employer's congruent right to managerial autonomy, how should the matter be resolved? I suggest a fairness-based decision based on two values: integrity and accountability. Integrity, meaning consistency in values, would require that the decision-maker define her or his values, as well as create a prioritization of those values. This effort is often accomplished by a firm's mission statement or statement of values. Then, when faced with a dilemma or conflict between two or more of these values, the decision-maker will have internal as well as external guidance regarding the direction her or his decision should take. Second, no matter which direction is taken, the decision-maker must be accountable to anyone who is impacted by this decision. That would require a consideration of the impact of alternatives on each stakeholder; a balancing of that impact with the personal values addressed in the first step; and actions that represent the accountability to the stakeholders impacted by the decision. Applying this process to a firm's response to monitoring and its impact on employee privacy, the firm may obtain guidance from its mission statement or alternative statement of values. Does monitoring satisfy or further the mission or values of the firm? Assuming that monitoring satisfies or furthers the values of the firm (since a negative relationship here would end the discussion and resolve the dilemma), the employer must impose monitoring in a manner that is accountable to those affected by the decision to monitor. To be accountable to the impacted employees, the employer must respect their privacy rights and their right to make informed decisions about their actions. Accordingly, this model would require that the employer should give adequate notice of the intent to monitor, including the form of monitoring, its frequency, and the purpose of the monitoring. In addition, to balance the employer's interests with those of the work force, the employer should offer a means by which the employee can control the monitoring in order to create personal boundaries. In other words, if the employer is randomly monitoring telephone calls, there should be a notification device such as a beep whenever monitoring is taking place, or the employee should have the ability to block any monitoring during personal calls. This latter option would address an oft-cited challenge to notification: If employees have notice of monitoring, there is no possibility of random performance checks. However, if employees can merely block personal calls, they remain unaware of which business-related calls are being monitored. If it feels wrong, it probably is: As a manager, you are not without guidance on these issues. Kevin Conlon, district counsel for the Communication Workers of America, suggests additional guidelines that may be considered in formulating an accountable process for employee monitoring: There should be no monitoring in highly private areas, such as restrooms; Monitoring should be limited to the workplace; Employees should have full access to any information gathered through monitoring; Continuous monitoring should be banned; All forms of secret monitoring should be banned; Advance notice should be given; Only information relevant to the job should be collected; Monitoring should result in the attainment of some business interest. Moreover, in its bargaining demands for last year, the Union of the United Auto Workers demanded concessions with regard to monitoring, including: Monitoring only under mutual prior agreement; No secret monitoring: advance notice required of how, when, and for what purpose employees will be monitored; Employees should have access to information gathered through monitoring; Strict limitations regarding disclosure of information gained through monitoring; Prohibition of discrimination by employers based on off-work activities. V. RESOLUTION? I am emphatic in much of what I have presented here because I passionately believe that there is a balance possible between workers and employers—not simply in the privacy/monitoring debate, but in many of the ethical challenges presented by new technological advances. Ultimately, employees and employers share a common vision with regard to the purpose of work and of the market in general. When the personal interests of both sides are considered, viable alternatives emerge. Extreme opinions exist. An employer may believe that employees should simply quit if they don't want to be monitored, while certain employees may believe that they should have the ultimate control over their personal communications and other information. Two extremes. Yet there is an absolute middle. One can absolutely respect the interest of the employee while also protecting the interest of the employer. A monitoring program that is developed according to and guided by the mission of the firm, then implemented in a manner that is accountable to the employees, follows the integrity/accountability approach I explored earlier. From the employees' perspective, this type of resolution would respect their personal autonomy by providing for personal space, by giving notice of where that space ends, by giving them access to and the right to change or correct the information gathered, and by providing for monitoring that is directed toward the personal development of the employee and not merely toward catching wrongdoers. From the employer's perspective, this balance offers a way to effectively but ethically supervise the work done by their employees. It protects the misuse of resources, while also allowing [employers] to better evaluate their workers and to encourage their workers to be more effective. I contend that any program that fails to satisfy these basic elements has the potential not only for ethical lapses, but also for serious economic problems.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.