Friday, December 15, 2006
Following Orders vs Whistleblowing
There have been lots of stories written and movies produced that deal with the ethical dilemma of following orders when a superior is wrong. In the case of "A Few Good Men," the entire movie deals with the aftermath of following inappropriate orders and who is really to blame, the ones following or the ones ordering. In "Courage Under Fire," we see the frustrating problems that occur one does not follow the orders of their superior and just how far some will go to cover up their mistakes in doing so. Without a doubt, following orders in the military is a big deal. Lives often depend on it.
What about following orders at work? Of course with whistleblowing on the rise, there is an increase in individual accountability. However, the work place typically isn't like "A Few Good Men" were your being ordered to commit a crime or "Courage Under Fire" where not following orders results in innocent lives lost and physical injuries. Most often the problem we have with superiors orders are that we simply think it isn't the best way of doing things. That's an area that whistleblowing doesn't touch. If your superior is committing a crime, obviously report it. If your superior is just stupid Michael Scott, what do you do besides suffer and make jokes? Should whistleblowing extend that far? what if you will end up being responsible for actions that you were ordered to follow in the work place? I think we may have seen an actual episode of "The Office" played out this year at AOL.
Apparently AOL wanted to make it extremely difficult for members to cancel their memberships. Whether this was through direct orders or through incentives to the call center employees, it doesn't matter. The employees made it very hard to cancel memberships. And it wasn't one employee, as AOL claims. After the tape of an attempted but unsuccessful membership cancellation was aired, AOL fired the "responsible" employee and issued a public apology. So, the news stations decided to see if it really was just a horrible employee. It took CNBC 45 minutes to cancel the account after that. This appears to be company wide. In reading that, I just feel bad for that employee who for some reason or another felt like he had to hold on to this member. Whenever someone says, "It would be better for this person I'm talking to to hate me and my company rather than do what they're asking," I would expect to see a customer about destroy their lives or endanger others. I would do this with a child, "No, you can't have that" because I might know what is good for them when they don't. AOL can't decide if they know better than their customers or if their customers are always right. We're not talking about "customer service guidelines and practices," we're talking about company culture, the entire way of being for a company. This isn't a policy fix.
The transparency associated with the internet is apparently turning out to be really bad for AOL.
What about following orders at work? Of course with whistleblowing on the rise, there is an increase in individual accountability. However, the work place typically isn't like "A Few Good Men" were your being ordered to commit a crime or "Courage Under Fire" where not following orders results in innocent lives lost and physical injuries. Most often the problem we have with superiors orders are that we simply think it isn't the best way of doing things. That's an area that whistleblowing doesn't touch. If your superior is committing a crime, obviously report it. If your superior is just stupid Michael Scott, what do you do besides suffer and make jokes? Should whistleblowing extend that far? what if you will end up being responsible for actions that you were ordered to follow in the work place? I think we may have seen an actual episode of "The Office" played out this year at AOL.
Apparently AOL wanted to make it extremely difficult for members to cancel their memberships. Whether this was through direct orders or through incentives to the call center employees, it doesn't matter. The employees made it very hard to cancel memberships. And it wasn't one employee, as AOL claims. After the tape of an attempted but unsuccessful membership cancellation was aired, AOL fired the "responsible" employee and issued a public apology. So, the news stations decided to see if it really was just a horrible employee. It took CNBC 45 minutes to cancel the account after that. This appears to be company wide. In reading that, I just feel bad for that employee who for some reason or another felt like he had to hold on to this member. Whenever someone says, "It would be better for this person I'm talking to to hate me and my company rather than do what they're asking," I would expect to see a customer about destroy their lives or endanger others. I would do this with a child, "No, you can't have that" because I might know what is good for them when they don't. AOL can't decide if they know better than their customers or if their customers are always right. We're not talking about "customer service guidelines and practices," we're talking about company culture, the entire way of being for a company. This isn't a policy fix.
The transparency associated with the internet is apparently turning out to be really bad for AOL.
