Problems of Organizational Influence over Private Lives - Assignment Example

? Business Ethics: Workplace Privacy Issues Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................3 2 The Nature of Privacy....................................................................................................4 3 Problems of Organizational Influence over Private Lives.............................................5 4 Moral Issues raised by the use of Polygraphs and Personality Tests.............................7 5 Employee Monitoring and Drug Testing.......................................................................8 6 Working conditions......................................................................................................10 7 Conclusion....................................................................................................................10 8 References....................................................................................................................12 Business Ethics: Workplace Privacy Issues Introduction Today privacy is an issue that has many lobby groups up in arms among many organizations in the world. This is over the manner in which management tends to pry over some of their employees’ private matters. This is done in the name of organizational policy, and what it stands for in the competing market. Problems arise when this scrutiny and influence that management has get to be too much for the employees to handle (Duggar 2011). Sometimes employees get to think that this scrutiny goes over, or tramples some of their rights and privileges. These monitoring techniques are usually employed with or without the knowledge of the employee. This may be done through monitoring their email accounts or telephone conversations. It is getting to a point where an employee has no longer the right of privacy while at the workplace. This paper will examine the issues that arise with such methods of monitoring in the workplace and will consider what is being done to salvage this situation. Technological advances are making it possible for employers to monitor their employees stealthily. It is becoming a challenge to balance between respecting employees’ rights and privacy while trying to maintain legitimate business trepidations over the employees. It is a daunting task for management in the workplace to make ethical decisions. Privacy in this environment is no exception. Making the right decisions may depend on the situation, the time, and the individuals involved. The good of the organization should be the ultimate consideration to restrict or impose one’s rule over individuals in the organization (Duggar 2011). However, a line has to be drawn where an employee’s right to privacy is adhered to and upheld. The Nature of Privacy In the many first world countries, the right to privacy in the workplace has been taken for granted by many individuals. In this fast-paced, modern, globalised market, it is next to impossible to have privacy while conducting business in the workplace. Everything and everyone’s movement is scrutinised. This is to ensure the organization does not collapse within its walls since there have been cases of sabotage within organizations. This is from employees who feel disgruntled by the manner in which their employers treat them (Levinson 2009). They therefore take it upon themselves to teach the organization a lesson. They might do this by giving information to competitors about the operations of the organization, which may give them an advantage. This is one of the reasons why organizations are not taking any chances with their employees. Social channels and advancement in technology allow individuals to connect daily (Awolusi 2012). While at the workplace, it is easy to communicate with people outside the workplace. Organizations are now taking it upon themselves to monitor the use of social media by restricting its use in the workplace. Blogging, the use of Facebook and twitter are now restricted because many employers believe that the use of these social sites reduces efficacy and quality in the workplace (Awolusi 2012). To some extent, this may be true. However, it is not the reason to shut down its use altogether. Social media can be an avenue to be trendy; it can help to find out what consumers want and desire. It is a strategy all organizations should utilise. In the private sector, the issue of privacy is more widespread. There is little or no privacy at all in this sector because it is controlled by a handful of wealthy individuals. They determine the rules and regulations that govern the working environment, and they ensure these rules work in their favour. Privacy has become one of the most dishonoured philosophies in the workplace (Awolusi 2012). It is likely that many individuals are aware of the monitoring techniques, but the majority is not aware of the pervasive nature of these techniques. Monitoring has become the way and life of doing business in many parts of the world (Awolusi 2012). This reason makes a lot of people become weary of the workplace and the techniques explored to monitor their movement, in and out of the workplace. Many employers take it upon themselves to violate these privacy clauses for various reasons. Legal liability, security breaches, and employee productivity are at the top of the list. If an employee decides to violate the terms of agreement with an organization through fraud or other unethical practices, their employers would be the first to know. This reason is at the top of an employer’s list because they are afraid of the implications of such moves to their organization. The use of e-mail to some employers is tantamount to electronic DNA, which may prove problematic in case there is a regulatory agency investigating a firm’s activities (Neil & Seganish 2012). Problems of Organizational Influence over Private Lives Private lives of employees are ruined due to organizational influence. Privacy rights in the working environment may be limited. This is unlike what many individuals might believe (Hill 2011). It is the employers right to monitor what is done in the organization, regardless of whether it is personal to the employee, or not. There are some ethical ramifications that come with such rights over an individual’s personal space. In some cases, the employer may find out some things about the employee that may rub them the wrong way, which may cause problems in the workplace (Kirstie, Elizabeth & Stride 2013). It has become a common occurrence for organizations to search their employees before entering the work premises. The advancement in technology is making it possible to watch what employees are bringing in, and taking from the office. All this may be done with or without the employee’s knowledge, or approval. That is how much the privacy philosophy has been reduced to, and it is not getting any easier for people in well-established organizations or firms (Kirstie, Elizabeth & Stride 2013). There are background checks that are conducted before one joins, or while one is working in an organization. These background checks may be random, and might be used to determine what a would-be employee did or did not do in a past life. If one is currently working in an organization, any suspicious activity that comes up may act as grounds for termination (Hill 2011). Any would-be employees would not even get a response letter from the supposed organization. This is the effect such privacy violations bring to the table. Employees are forced to do as the organization dictates. Failure to do this brings forth ramifications that employees would not have thought possible while working (Mahdavi 2009). Many individuals, the world over, believe that the business or working environment is as open as a book. This is thanks to the growth of the media, and all it is doing to help the world comprehend what goes on in the workplace. Images and cartoons in newspapers depict the working environment as a hostile one (Levinson 2009). Whether it is by depicting a disgruntled employee breaking a computer, or talking behind their employer’s back, they all bring on disconcerting images about the workplace. All these go back to the issue of the influence organizations have on the private lives of employees. Social lives of employees are now in the backburner. Folks are forced to go home at specified times at the end of a working day, take lunch or tea breaks at specified times. They need to account for any extra time spent during those periods if they do not have an official permission. Reporting to work is made an organizational task with the introduction of punch-time cards. They record the time an employee reports to work as every employee needs to pass them through machines in the workplace (Levinson 2009). Times are evolving, and so are the monitoring techniques that employees are subjected to in the workplace. Individuals do not have the audacity to criticize such moves because of fear. Fear of losing one’s job is greater than the violation of a few rights here and there. Sadly, that is the price they are willing to pay for employment. Moral Issues raised by the use of Polygraphs and Personality Tests The use of polygraphs in the workplace is an issue on the rise that does not make sense to a great number of folks. Psychologists are being hired to carry out tests on would-be employees on whether they have behavioural tendencies that are questionable. Theft or theft-related tests are not the only behavioural tendencies tests being conducted in organizations. The aim of these tests is to bring out a broader spectrum of employee behaviours and tendencies, for example, reliability, adjustment to the work environment, trust, faithfulness, among others. Many do not think that these tests work in predicting employee behaviour at the workplace. Employees, however, believe that conducting them does assist in analysing their employees on a much deeper level (Plant, Pratt & McCann 2011). The measures that management goes to have borne fruit as tendencies such as theft, disciplinary issues, and absenteeism have been identified. This restricts the hiring of individuals who might pose a risk to the growth and development of an organization. Members of an organization who are already employees are also subject to these tests. They have an experience in the organization. Personality tests can determine whether they are satisfied with the organization, and its operations. The use and incorporation of polygraphs can also prevent theft and cases of deceit in an organization. This happens if employees are subjected to questions that pertain to their work, and the organization (Plant, Pratt & McCann 2011). Truthfulness and loyalty are created through such methods. The moral issues raised are aimed at the breach of privacy most employees and would-be employees face in the workplace. If the results of such tests were to accidentally find their way into the wrong hands, the ramifications would be catastrophic. The workplace would no longer be a safe environment for employees to work, and it would be next to impossible to hide such matters (Plant, Pratt & McCann 2011). There are claims that there is no way of proving that these tests are accurate enough to determine whether an individual should be hired, fired, or work under scrutiny. It is vital to explore the meaning of such techniques and methods in the workplace. This is before allowing employees to be subject to randomised personality, and polygraph tests. They are advantageous to management in many organizations, but the ramifications are not worth exploring their use in the organization. They may also create self-doubt among any aspiring individuals who might be seeking employment. Organizations have a high chance of hiring thieves as employees. However, these methods are not a guarantee that members working in the organization are thieves, or think of stealing from their workplace. Organizations should, therefore, take the chance and hire individuals for their working skills while keeping a close eye on everyone at the organization (Plant, Pratt & McCann 2011). Employee Monitoring and Drug Testing The evolution in employee monitoring and drug testing is causing a stir among working groups. Individuals are being arbitrarily subjected to random drug tests. This is to ensure they are not putting the firm’s or organization’s reputation on the line. The form and manner in which these drug tests are conducted is questionable as grown men and women are being forced to give a sample of their urine in cups. The organization in which they work conducts an impromptu drug test that many find too drastic. In numerous organizations today the number of young people who work is tremendous (Tschopp, Wells & Barney 2012). It becomes an easy task keeping younger employees from having fun during the weekends with the threat of losing their jobs once they test positive in their random drug tests. The use of drugs has been identified as a social problem by many academic individuals. Employers are now using it as a measure to reduce or eradicate the use of drugs by employees in the workplace. Through pre-employment tests by organizations, it is becoming more and more difficult for young adults seeking employment to find work. Screening by employers is the new way in which young, unemployed, school graduates are missing out on opportunities to work in the private or public sector. Over the years, many employers insist that having random drug tests administered on employees intensifies job performance (Tschopp, Wells & Barney 2012). It works to better the working environment as not many individuals who are subjected to random tests are worried about privacy issues. Drug testing and monitoring are likely to occur in larger businesses as compared to smaller ones. Businesses that have offices all around the world are likely to subject their employees to drug tests before they hire them and while they work. It is a means of regulating what individuals get into during their own time, which may affect the working environment. The working environment does not necessarily mean the performance each employee brings to the table; rather, the relationship they might have with their colleagues, their employers, and everyone involved in the running of the organization (Tschopp, Wells & Barney 2012). It is vital they get to do this before issues arise once employees are deep in the organization and cause the organization problems they might not be well-equipped to handle. There are monitoring techniques used by organizations. They are out to ensure organization secrets do not leak and are now focusing on personal information of the employees. Employees have their personal e-mails read and scrutinised by the management to confirm whether they are trading information with outsiders. Trading information has been a leading cause in the collapse of many organizations, and it has become a top priority for the management to identify and protect the organization. These strategies are not going to cease anytime soon. Organizations are using more and more funds to curb the issue of drug use in the workplace. The government is also playing a part in this fight and provides the funds to do so throughout a financial year. These tools are seen as a way of reducing the mistakes by employees and the organization by reducing their hiring mishaps (Tschopp, Wells & Barney 2012). Working conditions There are diverse organizations with diverse working expectations. This often pushes the employers to act differently as to the situations in their organization. The working conditions employees encounter depend on what they are required to do in their organizations. Presently, there are organizations and lobby groups that are out to ensure employees are working in a favourable environment. Cases involving employees and personal injury in the workplace are often heard, and employers are forced to pay damages. Organizations are keener to prevent the occurrence of such cases by providing the perfect environment for themselves, and their employees (Ruud & Ruud 2011). They are now adopting a positive attitude toward ensuring employee safety by regulating their working hours. All these are measures that seem humane. They also provide the organization with a chance to improve worker efficiency in its operations. As these changes are taking precedence over many management matters in numerous organizations, employers are keen to ensure their employees are returning the favour (Ruud & Ruud 2011). This is by being loyal, faithful, and truthful to the organization. Improvements prepare employees and employers to face the challenging times in the business environment. Conclusion Every organisation in this fast-changing environment is in it to make money. They are keen on making profit and capitalising on the market that is available and have their capital invested in the economy. To ensure this is possible, they are taking measures to counter the problems brought on by employees. This, thus, creates a culture that fosters understanding and promotes interaction between employers and employees (Ruud & Ruud 2011). References Awolusi, F 2012, ‘The impacts of social networking sites on workplace productivity’, The Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 2-6. http://atmae.org/jit/Articles/Awolusi-Social-Networking-Work-Productivity-2012-01-30.pdf Duggar, JW 2011, ‘The role of integrity in individual and effective corporate leadership’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 1-7. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10504.pdf Hill, LL 2011, ‘Gone but not forgotten: when privacy, policy and privilege collide’, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 565-590. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=njtip Kirstie, B, Elizabeth, D & Stride, C 2013, ‘Dimensions of employee privacy: an empirical study’, Journal of Information Technology and People, ISSN: 0959-3845 http://oro.open.ac.uk/34046/ Levinson, AR 2009, ‘Industrial justice: privacy protection for the employed’, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 18, pp. 612-687. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/levinson.pdf Mahdavi, I 2009, ‘International business ethics: strategies and responsibilities’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 2, pp. 1-6. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09279.pdf Neil, B & Seganish, WM 2012, ‘An ethical dilemma and corporate game changer’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 6, pp. 1-7. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111075.pdf Plant, W, Pratt, C & McCann, J 2011, ‘Ethical practices and regulatory context of family businesses’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 1-7. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10438.pdf Ruud, KJ & Ruud, WN 2011, ‘Law and ethics: society and corporate social responsibility: is the focus shifting?’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 4, pp.1-31. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10499.pdf Tschopp, D, Wells, S & Barney, D 2012, ‘The institutional promotion of corporate social responsibility reporting’, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, vol. 6, pp. 1-18. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111010.pdf Read More