After their IPO in 2004, Google had a valuation of about $24 billion – and they haven’t looked back. The company currently has revenues of about $137 billion and a share of their stock goes for about $1,700. It is a publicly-traded company.
Virtually anyone who uses a computer and accesses the internet will run into the Google search engine or anyone of its products. The company portrays an image of doing no harm and no evil in the world. It is an ethically impressive image. However, the organization has run afoul of the law on numerous occasions. Its AI (“Alexa”) products have raised numerous privacy issues, the company has been involved in antitrust litigation and its tax avoidance strategies have been legendary.
Philosophically, Google claims to be open and encouraging of free communication among its workforce (there are more than 135,000 employees across the globe). However, many feel the communication is not politically neutral and that even the search functions themselves reflect a bias against any causes which may be considered “Conservative.”
Cracks in the Wall
The ethical problem with claiming to be an open company, where there is “no evil,” is the matter of who controls the dialog of “no evil.” Though the intent may have been open communication where employees have been free to share ideas internally, as was no surprise to anyone, the communication has been largely one-sided.
Those with political views that dissent from the largely progressive majority are bullied and demeaned. There have been open arguments and the news of the dissension has gotten out.
It might be acceptable were Google a private company with a small platform, but with a huge investment community and the claim that Google is an open campus, the dissension has not given the company a good look.
Apparently, the political friction within the company has gotten so bad, it forced the CEO Sundar Pichai to issue a statement which will discourage workers from discussing politics:
“While sharing information and ideas with colleagues helps build community, disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not” Further, a set of guidelines just issued tell workers to “do the work” that they’ve been hired to do — not to spend working time on debates about non-work topics.”
What is Your Purpose?
Google is a for-profit company that has permitted internal dissent. First, there were projects for the U.S. government and military that were not appreciated by the more progressive workers then there was the election of Donald Trump. Which the progressive elements within the company were vocal about in denouncing the GOP policies.
It comes down to an ethical management of the workforce and the purpose of the company. When employees intentionally leaked secret military projects to the more progressive media, a shift occurred from internal dissension to a purposeful objective of harming the company.
As there was little oversite over the years as to the internal debate and the “free” exchange of ideas that in reality, became increasingly skewed, employees began commandeering the dialog to fit their needs. The need was both monetary and political. Leaking confidential projects as they did, damaged the company – and shareholders. However, in taking a political stance, they caused the perception of a neutral information tool to become skewed.
Rationalization in this case was that employees felt bigger than the company. They were taking a stance. While in their private lives there is nothing wrong with that, for a publicly traded company it becomes problematic.
It comes down to which employees should control the dialog in a publicly-traded company? Ethics dictate “no one.” At Google, that point should have been made clear more than a decade ago.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!
