Ethical Challenge Analysis: Google

Nature of the Ethical Dilemma

At the heart of Googles culture is the motto Do no evil. This motto is the motivating value for many of the companys workers, so it was no surprise when workers protested Googles contract with the Pentagon to provide AI analytics for the Pentagons drone technology as part of Project Maven. Employees were upset that their company appeared to be violating the core value of do no eviltheir reasoning was that Pentagon drones would likely be used in warfare, and would likely lead to the killing of innocent men, women and children, as routinely happens according to various news reports. Employees protested. Googles CEO therefore had a choice to make: commit to the Pentagon contract and betray his workers sense of the companys most important value, or abandon the partnership with the Pentagon and satisfy employees. Being a public company, Googles CEO was also aware that shareholders had a stake in the equation: government contracts can often be lucrative and good for businessso turning one down would mean a loss of revenue for the company, which could hurt shareholder value. Then again, if he really stood by the companys motto, he also had to think about stakeholders in places like the Middle East, where drones were often used to deliver explosive payloads. What if, thanks to Googles work, these drones did end up killing or wounding innocent civilians? Googles CEO, therefore, had multiple considerations to make: employees were not happy about the contract, but having a good relationship with the Pentagon could be good for business; shareholders had to be thought of, but so too did the possibility that there could be real life or death implications for people in other parts of the world based on Googles work on Project Maven. Should the CEO betray the companys culture and employees sense of the companys main value by abandoning the principle of do no evil in order to satisfy shareholders and develop a business relationship with the Pentagon?

Primary Stakeholders

The primary stakeholders in this issue were the employees, the CEO, the Pentagon, shareholders, and the communities that might be impacted by the use of the drone technology in other parts of the world. The employees interest in the issue was that the decision to work with the Pentagon on Project Maven appeared to them to violate the code of ethics that they signed onto at Google, which was to do no evil. In short, they felt that the company was asking them to violate the very principle that the company sought to promote in the workplace culture.

The CEOs interest in the issue was that, as head of the company, he had to make the final decision. He could understand the employees point of view, but he also had to consider business strategy, shareholders, and what the real values of the company were. This issue would set a precedent one way or the other, so it was important to make the right call.

The Pentagons interest in the issue was that it wanted to work with Google to get the project up and running. Tasked with providing defense systems for the country, it wanted Googles analytics team to provide services that would make this possible. The Pentagon was eager to work with the best, and its choice was Google.

Shareholders are always pleased when a company obtains contracts that will help to increase revenue, because it means there is more profit to go around. Therefore, shareholder interest in this issue was mainly financial and focused on their return on investment. If the contract was retained, it would...…existing.

From the justice perspective, the decision to end the contract was the right one because in so doing the CEO showed that everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally, no matter how small. If the workers and communities were upset by the contract, they deserved to be heard. Googles motto is, after all, to do no evil, and the only way to do that would be to listen to what these stakeholders in particular have to say. There would always be new opportunities later on to satisfy shareholders and potentially the Pentagon.

I would thus say that the CEO made the right decision about abandoning the contract. It might hurt the companys profits in the short-term, but by working out the relationship with the Pentagon, the company could keep that line open and seek out different projects that were seen as non-lethal in nature. By keeping employees and communities happy and showing that it stood by its own principle, the company saved face and reaffirmed its commitment to its core value.

Main Lesson for Managers

The main lesson for managers that can be taken from this situation is to listen to all stakeholders and reflect on how their views correspond or relate to the companys core values. If certain stakeholders have a reasonable complaint that the company is violating its own core values, then the manager should consider doing something about that. Companies are not there just to satisfy shareholders no matter how they do it. Companies also bare a social responsibility to workers and communities, and the core values of the company should reflect that responsibility. Thus, a manager should never dismiss a legitimate complaint from workers in such a case. Sometimes they are right, and it is management that has made the wrong decision. Correcting that misstep is vital and managers should take the…