Legally this is entirely ok, Armstrong had warned the employee (Abel Lenz) not to record confidential discussions they were having and he continued to do it anyway. Directly disobeying your CEO is definitely a legal and contractual cause for firing, however the manner which Mr. Armstrong handled it was not exactly morally acceptable. Firing him in front of his co-workers was like a public shaming, something which he did not deserve and was not necessary for Mr. Armstrong to do. Mr. Armstrong even acknowledged his moral wrong doings and later sent out a memo to the Patch team saying:
"I am accountable for the way I handled the situation, and at a human level it was unfair to Abel. I’ve communicated to him directly and apologized for the way the matter was handled at the meeting."
I believe the action was morally unacceptable but that Mr. Armstrong handled it well , arguably in the best way that he could have.
This is definitely legal, as the employee Abel was warned to not record confidential discussions, which the circumstances deemed as confidential. Armstrong handled the situation in an unacceptable way, which was morally wrong. Armstrong fired Abel in front of thousands of AOL employees, which was unacceptable for many reasons, one of which was causing Abel to lose an enormous amount of face. Granted, Abel should not have taken his camera, but no matter what, it was an unacceptable way for Armstrong to treat Abel. Armstrong could have fired Abel after the meeting, and that could have been a better option than firing in front of thousands of employees.
Although Tim Armstrong had every right to fire Abel Lanz for violating company rules, Armstrong's decision to fire Abel Lanz is ethically and morally wrong as he chose to fire Lanz in front of 100,000 workers. Not only did Lanz lose his job, but he was also humiliated in front of co-workers.
It is essential to think of the pain inflicted by Armstrong towards Lanz. As quoted in a post above, Armstrong realized the mistake of firing Lanz in the manner that he did as he claims to have apologized to Lanz. Thus, it is essential that one must consider the implications of his or her actions in order to avoid actions that are morally wrong - and this article emphasizes that notion.
As others have already stated, Armstrong had every legal right to fire Lenz for doing what he had been previously been warned not to do - take pictures and/or record meetings. However, Armstrong was morally wrong in firing Lenz in the manner he chose to do so. Armstrong easily could have discreetly fired Lenz instead of embarrassing him in front of 1,000 of his co-workers. While Lenz was wrong for disobeying previous demands, Armstrong was harsh in firing Lenz with no reason or explanation. Whether he should have been fired or not is not being debated, but the issue at hand is the way Armstrong handled the situation and I do believe Armstrong's actions were wrong.
I would say that this act by CEO Tim Armstrong is hard to determine, but overall not morally right. I say this because he embarrasses the employee and is disrespectful in the way he fires him. Armstrong definitely has the right to let go of any employee, but it would be more humane if he did not do it in front of the entire staff. As stated by the news staff, the man was simply just trying to do his job as a photographer so the immediate termination seems a bit unfair. Overall, it is not what Armstrong did but the way he went about the firing the employee that makes it immoral.
Legally this is entirely ok, Armstrong had warned the employee (Abel Lenz) not to record confidential discussions they were having and he continued to do it anyway. Directly disobeying your CEO is definitely a legal and contractual cause for firing, however the manner which Mr. Armstrong handled it was not exactly morally acceptable. Firing him in front of his co-workers was like a public shaming, something which he did not deserve and was not necessary for Mr. Armstrong to do. Mr. Armstrong even acknowledged his moral wrong doings and later sent out a memo to the Patch team saying:
ReplyDelete"I am accountable for the way I handled the situation, and at a human level it was unfair to Abel. I’ve communicated to him directly and apologized for the way the matter was handled at the meeting."
I believe the action was morally unacceptable but that Mr. Armstrong handled it well , arguably in the best way that he could have.
This is definitely legal, as the employee Abel was warned to not record confidential discussions, which the circumstances deemed as confidential. Armstrong handled the situation in an unacceptable way, which was morally wrong. Armstrong fired Abel in front of thousands of AOL employees, which was unacceptable for many reasons, one of which was causing Abel to lose an enormous amount of face. Granted, Abel should not have taken his camera, but no matter what, it was an unacceptable way for Armstrong to treat Abel. Armstrong could have fired Abel after the meeting, and that could have been a better option than firing in front of thousands of employees.
DeleteAlthough Tim Armstrong had every right to fire Abel Lanz for violating company rules, Armstrong's decision to fire Abel Lanz is ethically and morally wrong as he chose to fire Lanz in front of 100,000 workers. Not only did Lanz lose his job, but he was also humiliated in front of co-workers.
ReplyDeleteIt is essential to think of the pain inflicted by Armstrong towards Lanz. As quoted in a post above, Armstrong realized the mistake of firing Lanz in the manner that he did as he claims to have apologized to Lanz. Thus, it is essential that one must consider the implications of his or her actions in order to avoid actions that are morally wrong - and this article emphasizes that notion.
As others have already stated, Armstrong had every legal right to fire Lenz for doing what he had been previously been warned not to do - take pictures and/or record meetings. However, Armstrong was morally wrong in firing Lenz in the manner he chose to do so. Armstrong easily could have discreetly fired Lenz instead of embarrassing him in front of 1,000 of his co-workers. While Lenz was wrong for disobeying previous demands, Armstrong was harsh in firing Lenz with no reason or explanation. Whether he should have been fired or not is not being debated, but the issue at hand is the way Armstrong handled the situation and I do believe Armstrong's actions were wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would say that this act by CEO Tim Armstrong is hard to determine, but overall not morally right. I say this because he embarrasses the employee and is disrespectful in the way he fires him. Armstrong definitely has the right to let go of any employee, but it would be more humane if he did not do it in front of the entire staff. As stated by the news staff, the man was simply just trying to do his job as a photographer so the immediate termination seems a bit unfair. Overall, it is not what Armstrong did but the way he went about the firing the employee that makes it immoral.
ReplyDelete