Reference no: EM132224262

Questions: In the case “Fired for Blogging at Google,” Do you agree with what Mark Jen did? Why or why not? What would you have done in his place? Would you have complied with Google’s request, first deleting, then editing your blog posts? Without clear guidelines regarding blogging, why might it be considered ethical for Google to request that Jen edit himself? How might Kant argue that this firing is unethical? How might a utilitarian argue that this firing is unethical? What might a follower of virtue ethics say about this case?

Case: After 11 days in a new job at Google, Mark Jen was fired. No reason was given by his managers, but Mr. Jen suspected that the abrupt termination was due to the blog he was writing about his experiences as a recent hire at the company. His first job after graduating from the University of Michigan with a degree in computer engineering was at Microsoft, but he left 18 months later for greater challenge at the Internet giant. At Google, where he started on January 17, 2005, he was assigned to the AdSense division, which provided targeted ads to websites. His personal blog, “ninetyninezeros” on blogspot.com, was intended to communicate with family and friends. The posts were mostly observations about what it was like to work at Google, especially in comparison with Microsoft. With the fervid public interest in everything related to Google, other websites picked up the content, which brought unexpected attention to his blog. Suddenly, the number of hits soared, reaching a one-day high of 60,000, and Google managers took note. They first requested that he remove all posts, but after the site went dark, the reaction of puzzled readers concerned his managers, who subsequently asked him to repost the previous blog entries but with the deletion of sensitive information about Google products and the company’s finances. He complied. Before continuing the blog, Mr. Jen inquired about a company policy on blogging but found that there was none. He examined the confidentiality agreement he signed upon taking the position and concluded that it did not prevent him from writing a blog. So he continued. The posts contained mostly personal observations and bits of publicly available information. One comment was seemingly innocuous: “Both Google profits and revenue are growing at an unprecedented rate.” On Friday, January 28, he was called into a manager’s office and quickly terminated. No benefit package was offered, but he felt fortunate that he was not asked to sign a non-defamation agreement, which allowed him to write further about his experiences at Google. He could continue blogging on his own time, which was now plentiful. Mark Jen’s dismissal from Google sent shock waves through the blogosphere, causing many bloggers to fear for their own job security. Blogging about work, which is done by many employees, especially younger ones in tech companies, is subject to the nondisclosure agreements that are typical in the corporate world. Obviously, nothing confidential should be posted. Many companies maintain their own corporate blogs, some of which can be accessed only internally while others can be read by the public. The rules for these blogs are usually stated clearly and, in any event, activity can be easily monitored by managers. However, blogging that is done through noncorporate sites with public access, like blogspot.com, not only defies easy company control but also belongs to the sphere of an employee’s private life. Blogging offers many benefits for both employees and employers, as well as some hazards. Employees find that writing about life at work not only helps them keep a healthy balance between the personal and the professional but also builds workplace relationships by supplementing traditional water cooler interactions. Companies benefit from a more productive workforce as well as enhanced reputation with customers and communities. The hazards for companies arise not only from negative posts but also from the innocent release of damaging information. For example, Mark Jen’s statement about the growth rate of Google’s profits and revenue might have inadvertently run afoul of federal securities regulations on fair disclosure. A photograph posted by a dismissed Microsoft employee that revealed the layout of a company warehouse might have posed a security risk. Aside from the standard advice “Be smart,” how should employees approach personal blogging? And what policy, if any, should a company adopt?

"Considerations": Mark Jen admits he made mistakes and feels little bitterness over his treatment by Google. Still, more guidance would protect employees and the company. Company policies commonly stress the need to state clearly that the views expressed are one’s own and not necessarily those of the employer, but bloggers should also identify themselves as employees in any discussion of their own company. Restrictions on the disclosure of confidential information, which are usually contained in employment contracts, apply not to blogs alone but to all communications. A more controversial question is whether employers have a right to request that posts on personal blogs be deleted or altered, and whether employees have an obligation to comply.

The development of social media, including Facebook and Twitter, creates concerns for both employees and employers that extend far beyond personal blogging. A Twitter feed @GSElevator, which contained sardonic remarks purportedly overheard in the elevators at Goldman Sachs headquarters, quickly attracted more than 630,000 followers and spurred a search at the company for the mystery employee. The writer was eventually identified: He was a bond salesman who lived in Texas and had worked seven years at Citigroup. He had never been employed at Goldman Sachs, although he had once been offered a job there, writing. Despite the apparent misrepresentation, the writer was offered a reported “six-figure” advance on a contract that was subsequently withdrawn by the would-be publisher.