C. J. Gordon----In this age of constant communication, it has become difficult for people to separate their professional careers from their personal lives. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites provide thousands of people, including employers, easy access into the lives of others. Knowing this, it is important to ask the following question: is it acceptable for employers to use a person's personal activities to support their managerial and hiring decisions?
Some would argue that reprimanding an employee for their decisions outside of work is an appropriate response, while others would call it an invasion of privacy. Each perspective can be argued, and there is no easy answer to a question with so many variables. Instead of an answer, employers need to use a more holistic evaluation. The following qualifiers can help employers determine which leisurely activities are punishable and which are not.
Expenses
This is probably the most important factor to take into consideration. If an employee incurs a cost outside of work, they have hampered their peers and their employers, justifying punishment. It is, however, important to keep in mind that there are an infinite number of ways an employee can directly incur company expenses. The following example will help to elaborate.
Say Devon works at an advertising firm, which is pitching a new client. He goes out on Thursday, the day before the pitch, and arrives hung over the next day. He presents the proposal but performs poorly. The advertising firm loses the new client because of Devon and his drinking. Not only does the company lose the contract, but it also wasted the capital it took to prepare the pitch. Ultimately, Devon -- and similarly negligent or irresponsible employees -- should pay a price.
Appearances
An employee's actions outside of work can seriously damage a company's image or reputation. This can deter other businesses from engaging with the company and could lead to a public relations nightmare. Although it sounds like a straightforward call, this can be extremely hard to determine.
A good example of this would be Minnesota Wild hockey player Clayton Stoner's grizzly slaying. It threw wildlife campaigners into a frenzy, many of whom demanded that he never hunt again. It seemed like a bad situation for Stoner, but in the end, he never received any punishment. Even though cries of horror could be heard all over the Internet, it didn't affect the team's fans or standing within the league, leaving no reason for the club to levy a punishment.
Had the team been able to determine that Stoner's actions had harmed their business or product, however, punishment may have been justifiable.
The Job
To a certain extent, what an employee does outside of work won't matter if their position is out of the public or business eye; fast food employees can get away with drinking booze daily as long as it isn't more expensive to employ them than to fire them.
It's important to keep in mind the kind of position an employee holds and what the company does before thinking punishing an employee for their off-work behaviors. If it doesn't affect their job, it's hard to justify punishing an employee for what they do in their down time.
Each employee has a personal life that should stay out of work. When a person's life interferes with business operations, it is important that employers take appropriate measures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
