by Kirsten McHugh, The Good Project researcher
The word “Zoom” has a different connotation today than it did three months ago. Rather than “zooming” around bustling cities in cars and on public transport, many of us are constantly logging into the Zoom platform for meetings, classes, and conversations. Most of the time, the process works just fine, but there are times when the learning curve of online face-to-face interaction is disrupted. Audio gets stuck on mute, video share buttons are accidentally shut off. The human element is also highlighted in these moments. Children pop in and out of conference calls and journalists forget to pair trousers with their suit coats.
Privacy and security is yet another layer of complication surrounding the platform (an ethics blog for another day!). Companies have quickly acted to encourage users to protect their communications with passwords and install much needed patches to their Zoom applications.
However, what do you do, when it isn’t some nefarious outside hacker or a technical glitch that you have to worry about, but rather, once trusted coworkers?
In a recent Dear Prudence post in Slate Magazine, an anonymous writer describes how she unwittingly discovered a private conversation between two participants which took place through Zoom during the meeting. After receiving the transcript from the call with her coworkers, the writer found that two female colleagues had a side chat mocking her weight; it was all there in black and white for the writer to painfully examine. Embarrassed for herself and the two modern day mean girls, the writer asks Dear Prudence whether she should keep the matter a secret, or speak to her HR department.
This situation brings to the forefront issues of both neighborly morality and the ethics of roles. Howard Gardner introduces these two concepts in a 2012 New York Times blog. The simple explanation:
Neighborly morality relates to how you show kindness and respect to those in your immediate social circles. (Gardner often relates neighborly morality to The Golden Rule or The Ten Commandments.) Included are the kinds of prosocial behaviors which we try to imbue in our children and which tend to flow easily in daily interactions.
In contrast, ethics of roles refers the standards and regulations expected of those acting in a professional capacity. Gardner illustrates this concept by linking it to the Hippocratic Oath for those in the medical field, or our expectation that journalists seek the truth and report on facts in a neutral or disinterested manner.
A lot of the discomfort described by the writer comes from the tension between these two ways of viewing her and her colleagues’ choices and behaviors. Neighborly morality was disregarded when Natalie and Lisa engaged in their side chat, tearing the writer down based on a superficial evaluation of her body. Neighborly morality also tugs on the writer’s heart when she considers that going to HR with this information may result in the two women being penalized or even losing their jobs (a high price to pay, particularly in these lean times).
Natalie and Lisa not only disregarded their neighborly morality, but also their ethics of roles. As professionals, they were not fully engaged in the formal meeting and they did not respect their colleague as an equal and valuable member of the team. The writer also must consider the ethics of roles pertinent to her work position. To be specific: while she would rather avoid making this embarrassing situation public, by not bringing it to the attention of her HR department she is allowing unprofessional behavior to go unchecked. She is also not sharing vital information that chats during Zoom are transcribed along with all group notes for the meeting host. This negligence could lead to further issues when Zooming with those outside of their organization.
In the article, Danny Lavery, author of this Dear Prudence article, encourages the writer to bring the matter to HR. The Lavery argues that the rest of the company needs to know what “private” means on Zoom (or any other new technology) and that the writer deserves to expect professional behavior from her co-workers at all times. She is encouraged not to concern herself with the possible repercussions for the two other women. In this way, Lavery argues for the ethics of roles to take precedence over neighborly morality.
I have to agree with Lavery. To be sure, speaking up might seem harder than repressing the incident in the short-term, but in the long term it will keep this wound from festering and perhaps growing into an even larger problem.
Have you ever been in a situation such as this? In pondering and arriving at a decision when faced tough dilemma, how did you decide how best to respond? Do you tend to lean on the tenants of neighborly morality, or do you look to the ethics of roles?