Case: 0019

Sector: Government agency

 

Private public sector personal dilemma

 

Can an intranet manager justifiably censor information presented on a corporate intranet by reason of being the person responsible for managing intranet content?

 

Summary: In a small public sector agency the Intranet Manager acted as a conduit for all new information content posted on the corporate intranet.  On one occasion she was alarmed to discover that some information she was instructed to put on the intranet seemed to be confidential information relating to her colleagues.  She felt torn between her duty as an obedient employee and her duty to her colleagues.  She sought the advice of her manager and raised her concern through the organisation’s whistleblowing procedure.

 

NOTE: This Case Study is fictitious.  It is informed by experience in the information world, but it does not claim to represent a scenario of actual events or relate to individual people or organisations.

 

Case Study: The Intranet Manager at this organisation had extensive experience of managing intranets based on several years’ work for a large multinational company in the insurance sector.  In her new role she was responsible for uploading content provided by other staff, none of whom outside the IT area had any editorial access to the content management system (CMS).

 

On one occasion she received by email from the Human Resources department a document outlining results of a recent staff pay review.  Whilst preparing the document for uploading onto the CMS she noticed that one of the annexes to the document contained a breakdown of salary bands and the job titles associated with each band.  She was surprised because many job titles in this organisation were unique (e.g. Intranet Manager) so it was possible to work out many colleagues’ salary band.  Having come from a private sector commercial organisation, the Intranet Manager was shocked that such information would be published.

 

She reported her concern to her manager, highlighting her responsibility as an information professional to uphold the confidentiality of information but also her dilemma as an employee.  Her manager appreciated her concerns and recommended seeking the advice of the HR department.  The HR department informed her that it is normal practice in the public sector to publish pay bands, but the Intranet Manager was concerned that they did not appear to understand the explicit breach of confidentiality and her ethical dilemma.  She reported her concern through the internal whistleblowing process.

 

The editors comment...

 

One initially remarks that the Intranet Manager in this organisation is uniquely placed to observe all new content being added to the intranet.  This also put her in a position of trust and responsibility, to colleagues, to the employer and to the organisation’s stakeholders.

 

Coming from the private sector where public accountability may have been less of a priority for the employer, it is understandable that the Intranet Manager was initially quite shocked at the apparent disregard for staff confidentiality.  Knowing that it is normal practice for public sector employers to publish pay bands did not assuage her concern because she observed that the HR department took no regard for the fact that individual staff could be identified by job title in the pay band listing.  It seemed to her that the HR department were simply performing a minimum requirement to publish pay bands irrespective of the fact that in this particular organisation the job titles were often unique.

 

The Intranet Manager’s dilemma here is quite strong.  On the one hand she has a responsibility to perform her duty as an employee, and to ensure that information deemed by her superiors to be published is indeed published.  She also has a responsibility as the gatekeeper for such information.  Additionally, she has a responsibility to prevent the disclosure of information which may compromise staff confidentiality, and to use her unique position as overseer of the whole CMS to report suspected conflicts within information content to the appropriate senior manager.  Finally, the Intranet Manager has personal beliefs, partly based on her several years’ experience as an information professional in a different sector, which she finds irreconcilable with the requirements of the public sector.

 

In approaching her manager in the first instance she has sought to resolve the dilemma through rational discussion.  Similarly, by requesting further advice from the HR department she has acted in a way expected by her employer as a responsible employee.  At this stage, however, the ethical dilemma is not resolved and the Intranet Manager faces a difficult choice.  She probably realises, however, that she has to acquiesce to the instructions of the HR department as they are likely to know better.  However, because she still feels ethically concerned from a personal perspective, the Intranet Manager probably feels that she has no choice but to raise her concern publicly (i.e. through the whistleblowing process) knowing that this is a legitimate action.  Moreover, she believes that by raising this issue through the whistleblowing process not only may she absolve herself from any sanction should the decision to publish pay bands later be demonstrated to be wrong, but she is raising her status to one of responsible and thoughtful professional for whom the moral context of employment is important.

 

The Intranet Manager’s ethical dilemma still remains partially unresolved.

 

We may expect to see similar cases arising out of information professionals’ experience of different cultural, social or organisational norms.

 

 

 

Primary

Secondary

Principles

8

5

Code

D3 E2

B3 B4 B9 C1 C8

Related cases

-

 

References:

To recommend resources related to this Case, please contact the editors.

 

Feedback:

The editors welcome feedback.  To comment on the facts of this Case, or to respond to the editorial review, please contact the editors.

 

Print a pdf version of this Case Study for educational purposes.

Download Adobe Reader

 

Created: v0.9 27-Nov-05 : JG-T

Revised: v1.0 11-Dec-05 : JG-T. v1.01 14-Dec-06 : JG-T.