The BRIXX/Facebook Case Analysis

The BRIXX/Facebook Case Analysis

Introduction

The BRIXX/Facebook case study is about a waitress named Ashley Johnson who worked for BRIXX restaurant and was fired in May 2010 for writing negative comments on Facebook about a customer who had given her what she considered to be little tip. Ashley’s post was accessible to a about 100 friends and members of her family. However, her manager learnt about her post, and fired her. The company management treated the comments as a violation of its policy on social media, and the policy had specifically forbidden making of negative statements about the company on social media sites and disparaging the restaurant’s customers. The company fired her, but she did not fight the termination. The case attracted the attention of the media and the public, and Ashley’s colleagues had their own views regarding the events. Employees from the restaurant said that the comments were sent to the manager by a third party, although they did not know who exactly had alerted the manager. They also said that Ms. Johnson could not identify the person who had leaked the information, and that she had about 100 friends on Facebook. They said that Ashley assumed the employer would not learn about it, and that she had behaved like students who posted on social media unaware that their parents could get wind of their activities.

Ms. Johnson’s dismissal was suggested in the employer’s explanation of BRIXX’s policy on the restaurant’s Facebook page. The management explained that they respected the rights of employees to free speech and engage in the media, that employees were ambassadors of the restaurant and that the company policy had clearly forbidden disparaging of customers and described consequences for those who violated the policy. BRIXX fired Ms. Johnson to solve negative employee representation in the media, but the termination did not work effectively because the company did not address the issues of tips, self-expression, and discussion of personal issues.

Evaluation of Solution

BRIXX restaurant responded to a case of disparaging comments by an employee by firing her, and did not consider the issue of tipping raised by the employee. The employee had been frustrated or angered by a customer who sat on a table for 3 hours and tipped her $5. Most waiters and waitresses usually see that all the customers served get out of the restaurant before they can end the shift. It is highly likely that Ms. Johnson had waited for a considerable amount of time for a customer to leave. She felt that the tip the customer provided was not sufficient to take care of the time she had waited for the customer. Thus, Ms. Johnson was mostly concerned about the tip, and not waiting for the customer to leave. Waiters and waitresses usually benefit from tips especially when their salary is little to take care of their needs. They might be confident that tips will compensate for lower salaries even as they apply for jobs and accept job offers. Ms. Johnson considered her customer to be cheap because the customer did not provide a relatively appealing amount of money. Thus, the customer did not meet her expectations. Her employer failed to address the real issue related to tipping and by extension, waiting on customers for long. BRIXX management rushed to save the company’s image instead.

BRIXX management failed to address the self-expression problem that emerged. The company policy allowed employees to enjoy free speech and engage in social media. Some people might argue that Ms. Johnson was capable of distinguishing between good and negative comments, that she could initiate and participate in a constructive conversation; consequently, they could argue that she knew what she was doing, and the decision to post comments about her customer on social media were informed by careful consideration or awareness of social media policy. Indeed, such people could argue that she owned up to her fault. This argument is valid, because it reveals Ms. Johnson’ self-awareness and free choice. However, it also reveals that she did not know the boundaries of self-expression allowed on social media. It is the reason she said she considered her actions to be “very small” to cause her jobs loss (Gossett 211). The company should have responded with empathy and perhaps a warning. A great company would even revise the social media policy to be specific on issues such as kind of forums to discuss information or raise concerns. Indeed, some forums might include raising issues with the management, in their offices, regarding financial rewards of the job and their adequacy. By firing Ms. Johnson, the company did not solve the problem of self-expression or forum. Forums of the future might not be captured by a company’s social media policy. Employees would likely commit the same mistake as Ms. Johnson in the future.

BRIXX management failed to utilize an opportunity to educate Ms. Johnson and other employees about how to raise grievances in a healthy way. While this argument is closely related to that of self-expression, it mainly focusses on healthy discussions about personal concerns. Employees do not have to express themselves in the media. They might discuss their issues with their friends and colleagues. However, negative comments that attack the integrity of customers can be damaging when shared among colleagues. Employees could hate their work or some customers. They could reduce their interactions with customers to transactional relationships. It is possible to raise an issue and make a lasting positive impact on the audience. BRIXX management could have corrected their employee, even online, and demonstrated how to respond with positivity and patience. They would have demonstrated the ability to nurture their employees to raise concerns.

The termination of Ms. Johnson’s employment was sudden and it failed to pass through many legal and ethical channels and requirements. BRIXX management did not take the employee through proper termination procedures, some of which would have educated her in a transformative way. Many termination decisions are usually suspended legally when union representatives are not involved or when an employee is denied access to union representatives; this happened in the case involving AMR employee (Gossett 215). Thus, BRIXX management failed to educate and nurture the employee in the attempt to salvage the image of the company.

Conclusion

The BRIXX/Facebook case is an example of the growing cases of employer action and regulation of employee behavior online. BRIXX fired Ms. Johnson to solve negative employee representation in the media, but the termination did not work effectively because the company did not address the issues of tips, self-expression, and discussion of personal issues. The employee did not address the root cause of the problem, which was tips, and did not educate and demonstrate how to raise grievances to the employer and express oneself in the media or other forums. The management concentrated on saving the company’s image and enforcing its policy.