Case Study

Charlie had a problem. Well, to be precise, Janet Kinneck had a problem, and now Charlie had to deal with it$.$ Janet, the vice president of social media market development in the SLS Marketing unit, had appeared on the monthly abuse report. Charlie had started having the security operations team prepare this report, based on the network activity for the prior month. All SLS employees consented to this monitoring whenever they used the company$$s network. SLS had a pretty liberal policy in place that described how and when employees could use company computers and networks for their own personal reasons. Charlie had convinced CEO Fred Chin and the other senior executives that employees had lives that filtered over into the workplace and that the minor costs of the company network$$s incidental use for personal matters, within certain boundaries, were well worth the improved productivity that resulted. It was those $$certain boundaries$$ that they were dealing with now.

Charlie looked at the report and the data it contained once more and picked up his phone to call Gladys Williams, the CIO. He had considered whether this meeting should involve Fred, but he decided it fit better with Gladys$$ role. She could always decide to bring Fred in if she determined that his presence was needed. Gladys picked up$,$ saying, $$Hi$,$ Charlie, what$$s up$?$

He replied, $$Hey$,$ Gladys, we have an issue with that new monthly abuse report we are implementing.$$ Gladys knew the report, as she had helped in its creation. She knew what was coming next because she was to be informed when employees above a specific rank were involved. Charlie continued, $$Well$,$ anyway, it looks like we have an issue with Janet Kinneck in Marketing. Near as I can tell without a forensic examination of her computer, she$$s running a commercial sports gaming league out of her office on the sixth floor.$$

Gladys thought for a second and replied, $$That doesn$$t sound like an acceptable use to me$.$

Janet stood up from the conference table and left the room. The meeting had not lasted long, considering how significant its impact would be on Janet$$s life. Two officers from the corporate security team waited in the hallway to walk her to her office and collect her personal possessions, which were already in a box at her administrative assistant$$s desk. Her access card, phone, tablet, and laptop were already turned in$,$ and every password she had ever used at SLS had been deactivated. She was not looking forward to explaining this to her family.

The meeting in the room continued. Fred asked, $$Are we sure this was our only course? This seems harsh to me$.$

Janet$$s superior, the senior vice president of marketing, nodded and said, $$I have to say that I agree. Janet was a solid performer and will be difficult, and expensive, to replace.$$

Charlie added, $$I know what you mean. Jamie Hyack, the network engineer, is the same, except he chose to enable Janet$$s network access for her gaming league server without approval, without change control, and putting the company$$s entire network at risk. He had to go$.$ Gladys took a breath and said, $$Sadly$,$ this was needed. We cannot have two tiers of enforcement in our application of policy. If we do not enforce this policy requirement on executives, how can we be expected to have compliance from other employees?$$ She continued, $$As Charlie pointed out when we decided on this course of action, we have to enforce the policy we have in place. We can make changes to it that we feel better about and enforce those changes in the future.$$

Answer the follwing case Study Questions:

$1)$ Does this application of policy seem harsh to you? What alternatives might be implemented in policy to make it enforceable and perhaps less stringent than in this example?

$2)$ Are there other punishments that might be enacted for situations like this? How might you propose structuring the policy to clarify what levels of punishment are appropriate?

$3)$In some cases, especially when organizations expand into foreign countries, they experience a form of culture shock when the laws of their new host country conflict with their internal policies. For example, suppose that SLS has expanded its operations into France. Setting aside any legal requirements that SLS make its policies conform to French law, does SLS have an ethical imperative to modify its policies across the company in all of its locations to better meet the needs of its stakeholders in the new country?

$4)$ Suppose SLS has altered its policies for all operations in France and that the changes are much more favorable to employees$$such as a requirement to provide childcare and eldercare services at no cost to employees. Is SLS under any ethical burden to offer the same benefit to employees in its home country?