The firing of a Google employee who questioned the organization’s diversity policies raises questions for communicators both internal and external.
At what point does disputing policy internally become a firing offense? Is an offense given to co-workers or an external social media firestorm sufficient grounds for cutting ties with an employee?
Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”
James Damore, the Google software engineer who wrote the note, told Bloomberg he is “exploring all possible legal remedies.”
Yet the episode surely is causing night sweats among many communicators. Any employee now has the potential to lob a crisis grenade with an email.
In the memo, Damore questioned Google’s diversity efforts and suggested that biological differences account for the lower level of women’s representation in the industry. In a later statement added to the memo, he insisted he values diversity and inclusion and isn’t denying that sexism exists.
“When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions,” he wrote. “If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”
Dorothy Crenshaw of Crenshaw Communications says the organization did what it had to do, because the U.S. Labor Department is investigating Google for alleged employment discrimination.
“It had little choice but to fire the engineer,” she says. “Legal counsel nearly always trumps reputation counsel if the two diverge—and here, they do.”
Others disagreed, including four scientists who defended the notion of psychological differences between the sexes. (Gizmodo, which first published the memo, stripped out all of Damore’s charts and citations before posting it.)
“Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong,” writes Debra W. Soh, a Toronto writer with a Ph.D. in sexual neuroscience. “This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.”
Either way, here are a few takeaways for communicators following the firing:
1. Employers have the right to channel dissent internally.
Google was within its rights to fire the employee, says Fraser P. Seitel of Emerald Partners. Areas of dissension should be discussed internally through established channels but not shared with the outside world, he says.
“In this case, the employee violated Google's Code of Conduct, and the company took action,” he says. “While overwrought tweeters might not like it, Google did exactly the right thing.”
[FREE GUIDE: Keep your cool in a crisis with these 13 tips.]
2. Don’t twiddle your thumbs.
Crenshaw says her initial reaction was more along the lines of Google diversity chief Danielle Brown’s statement—that there should be room for confidential debate inside the organization. But the email leaked amid the Labor Department investigation.
The takeaway: “Make quick decisions,” Crenshaw says. That doesn’t always mean you need to act—“because sometimes you may choose not to react”—but you should be decisive.
3. Use flare-ups as teachable moments.
Jonathan Rick of The Jonathan Rick Group agrees that the memo would be a firing offense in any organization. He also understands why Google acted amid the investigation.
Still, Google prides itself on challenging conventional wisdom, whether that means leaving China on principle, doing its IPO via auction or bankrolling “seemingly crazy R&D projects,” he says.
“Using this as a teachable moment—convening a forum on diversity, writing op-eds, leading the charge on HR transparency—would have been the right thing to do,” Rick says. “It also would have been in keeping with the best traditions of being Google-y.”
4. Remember that everything internal is external today.
“Know that any controversial company communication can (and probably will) be shared outside the company,” Crenshaw says.
5. Prepare to address outside criticism.
Anticipate and prepare for the criticism your decision will bring, Seitel says. Explain not only what you decided, but why you decided it.
“Defend vigorously why you did what you did,” he says, “and don't back down in the face of always loud but often biased and misinformed critics.”
Adds Crenshaw, “Companies need to choose sides, and Google has done that. As a consequence, it is leading on diversity—if a bit under duress.”
Things didn’t go well for Damore, but as his job hunt starts, he already has one offer. WikiLeaks is willing to take him on:
1/ Censorship is for losers. @WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore. https://t.co/tmrflE72p3
— Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange) August 8, 2017
(Image via)
from PR Daily News Feed http://ift.tt/2wFrVtT
No comments:
Post a Comment