Case Study: Social Media's Impact on Employee Behavior at Work

This case study analyzes the scenario of an employee, Kenton, facing potential termination for a negative Facebook post about his company, Downcity Motors. The assignment explores the ethical and legal implications of social media use in the workplace, emphasizing the lack of a clear social media policy within the organization. The study examines alternative solutions, including warnings, policy updates, and the potential for legal action under the National Labor Relations Act. The author recommends that the company should develop a clear social media policy to prevent future incidents and to address employee concerns internally. The conclusion underscores the importance of balancing employee freedom of expression with the need to protect the company's reputation.

Executive Summary:
The objective of this case was to examine and assess how people are using social media at
work. According to the case study "Fired over Facebook" by Gossett (2012) from Case
Studies in Organizational Communication, the approach employed was a survey of research
literature in order to establish the rightest answer and solution to the challenge. Several
ethical concerns regarding how the corporation must handle with their employee, especially
whether or not the individual should be terminated, were highlighted. This research found a
direct answer with evidence to back it up that now the employee should not be fired, but
rather warned and properly instructed on how to manage social media. The lack of a social
media policy at the business was also noted as a major flaw in the report. The study identified
the criteria for a social media formulation and planning leadership can lead to better
literature. If the organisation takes this advice, they would be able to deal with this situation
in such a reasonable and suitable manner, preventing a repeat of the problem in the future.
1

Table of Contents:
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….4
Background about use of social media in Organisations……………………………5
Case study scenario………………………………………………………………….6
Alternative solutions…………………………………………………………………7 - 8
Recommendation and conclusion……………………………………………………9
References……………………………………………………………………………10
2

Introduction:
In this day and age, all businesses must regulate the usage of social media all around the
workplace. Businesses might have had a range of social media policies, from open use to
outright restriction. Each organisation should create a social media policy that is specific to
their business objectives. Restaurants and bars, for example, use social media (pictures and
events) to reach a big audience and attract new clients. From the other hand, due to the
safety-sensitive nature of the work, a business may have rigorous restrictions for
employees (for example) who are not supposed to disclose it with anyone else. Employees
can easily recognize and follow these black-and-white social media regulations. The
problem stems from regulations that are imprecise or ambiguous in the middle, with both
exceptions and limitations; this is the situation in most enterprises. Allowing social media
in the workplace provides the greatest risk to an employee and the company because any
open comments made have the potential to influence those who have read that view or
statement, as well as harm the company's reputation among consumers. Furthermore, the
employee is regularly subjected to disciplinary action as a result of improper social media
behaviour. Employees may feel constrained if the organisation sets too many boundaries
and limitations for them, which can lead to a poor work ethic.
3

Background about use of social media in Organisations:
The use of social media in organizations including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, wikis,
social networking sites, social tagging, and microblogging is rapidly growing.
Organizational settings, where managers expect that these new technologies can aid in the
improvement of essential organisational functions, are one area where acceptance is
expanding. Scholarship, on the other hand, has largely refused to explain if and how the use
of social media in companies differs from other types of computer-mediated
communications. We claim in this part that social media has a significant impact on
organisational transmission of information because they allow for behaviours that have
been difficult or impossible to attain before all these technological advances reached the
workplace. Moreover, being active on social media exposes you to a wide variety of people
who may or may not be curious to learn about or simply observing your business.
Everybody realizes that everything has a dark side, and social media is everywhere. There
will be people who try to destroy one's reputation that now the internet is more accessible
than it’s ever been. You're more likely to be targeted if your company is growing or just
starting up. Because it is just so easy to post or contact, anybody can make derogatory
comments about your company.
4

Case Study Scenario:
Downcity Motors has suffered a major setback as a result of Kenton's Post on Facebook.
Stakeholders and partners are left with a negative perception as an outcome of the post. His
article demonstrates how Downcity Motors fell short in their event and delivers the incorrect
message. Kenton made a huge mistake by putting the flaws in his organization's event on a
public platform, but he can't take full responsibility. He had been seeking for days to learn
much more about event, communicate to Susannah regarding his concerns, and express his
unpopular opinion. The issue is that Kenton made a bad comment on Friday's Mercedes
presentation on his Facebook page. Kenton commented on Twitter, "I'm incredibly delighted
that Downcity went all out with the most important Mercedes launch in years." The ultimate
of luxury is plastic tablecloths and soft beverages." Kenton also posted a shot of a beverage
can with the Downcity Motors logo in the background. Moreover, the company is currently
contemplating whether or not he should be retained. Kenton is a smart businessman, and then
if he left, the organization might miss a bunch of clients, and the company would have to hire
and train a new salesperson from the beginning. Dell wants Kenton fired after he posted
something identical to this a month ago. Rachel even suggested that other staff shared her
sentiments. Kenton is to blame, but his blunder isn't serious enough.
5

Alternative Solutions:
Susannah must not dismiss Kenton just yet. Given the evidence she possesses, firing or
perhaps even disciplining Kenton could put Downcity in danger of legal action. This is
why: Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees' capacity to interact
in "concerted activities" for "mutual assistance or safety." Kenton's hesitations about the
marketing event could be related to the event's potential negative effects on vehicles sold
and revenues. According to Rachel, other salespeople had similar thoughts, therefore
Kenton's Facebook post may be interpreted as them sharing their opinions on a topic
important to their job. He would have a genuine basis for filing an unfair labour practise
charge with the National Labor Relations Board if such activity was punished. One of the
causes would be that Kenton's actions had no negative impact on the company's financial
situation. Despite the fact that Kenton repeated the same error twice and harmed the image of
the company, the earnings was unaffected. If Susannah dismisses him, he will most likely
complain on social media about the company's "social injustices," which will further tarnish
the company's excellent name. Following that, if Susannah terminates Kenton, Downcity
Motor would be unable to escape a drop in sales. No one can really question Kenton's sales
ability, which is how he's the high performer. Instead of just being terminated from job, I feel
Kenton should have been disciplined and apologies to Mercedes and the company for his post
on Facebook. Susannah must also update the company's employee manual to also include
social media and be clear about the implications of disobeying it.
Even dismissing Kenton might lead to legal action against Downcity. Downcity could make
the argument towards the NLRB that Kenton's main complaints were his personal,
specifically when no other employees "liked" or responded on them, and if other coworkers
voiced concern about his behaviour, rather than the mishandled event, was capable of
damaging customer or provider connections. However, requiring employees to sign a
6

document of something along the terms could be seen as forceful, and Kenton will only need
one person to demonstrate that he had been expressing a widely held viewpoint.
Susannah had to let Kenton go. In my opinion, nothing is more tough than eliminating
someone, specifically in a nearer family-owned firm. Once you've previously warned an
employee about a certain problem via keeping your intentions known, you can't give them a
second opportunity. As long as Downcity remains Kenton, it is exposed towards the
following dangers: What more could he post in the future if he doesn't even see the point of
openly criticising a workplace function? Ignoring this threat gives the message that
employees could write as much as they want and get away with each other on the internet. It
also conveys the message to employees and partners that the company no longer cares
whether they publicly disrespect each other and the organisation. To be clear, Downcity does
not have the ability to fire any employee who posts something on social media that is
unconnected to the company's brand. There appears to be a significant difference in between
confidential post which contradicts the corporation's official position and comments that
actively attack the corporation. If Kenton had damaged a rival's event or yelled over how
terribly BMW owners park, it would also be uncomfortable, but none of those things
would've been grounds for dismissal.
7

Recommendations and Conclusion:
This is recommended that the company develop/update a policy prohibiting employees from
publicly and purposely verbally attacking the company before even discussing their concerns
within a supervisor in a reasonable manner. Sitting quietly with both the employee and
discussing their displeasure with the company is also a smart approach. Any legitimate
reasons could also help an organization improve specific areas and attract more long-term
employment. The employee should have been warned and talked about their violation of
behaviour in regards to their negative statements about the company in order. Such a warning
should be put down for record-keeping purposes.
Employees may not even be allowed to be fired for giving negative comments about the
company because they really have a right to freedom of expression. Therefore, even if
dismissing the employee's services for the given reasons is legitimate, this could cause low
confidence among some other employees, contributing to retribution. Around the same time,
it's also unethical for an employee to speak out in public regarding the company they serve.
Consequently, the employee's critical remarks about the business may be hurting the
company's image and, as a consequence, its prospective economic prospects.
8

References:
1. Harvard Business Review. (2016). Case Study: Should He Be Fired for That
Facebook Post? [online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/03/case-study-should-he-
be-fired-for-that-facebook-post [Accessed 9 Jun. 2022].
2. Hill HR. (2017). When a member of staff posts negative comments on social media |
Hill HR. [online] Available at: https://www.hillhr.co.uk/member-staff-posts-negative-
comments-social-media/#:~:text=A%20derogatory%20comment%20posted
%20on,individual%20who%20posted%20the%20comment. [Accessed 9 Jun. 2022].
9