An article that appeared in the New York Times entitled Web Companies Walk Fine Line on Free Speech (Sengupta, 2012), elaborates on how web companies need to address and monitor free speech in addition to having the foresight to plan for eventual outcomes in a global environment. New York Times contributor Somini Sengupta (2012) provides several examples of social media organizations that implement foresight practices when users have the ability to express their rights to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can be harmful to other people’s right to freedom of religion. Just last week, an anti-Islamic video uploaded to Google’s YouTube website sparked outrage around the world. According to Sengupta (2012), the White House asked Google to determine if the video content was more hate speech rather than freedom of speech. Additionally Sengupta (2012) states that Google refused to see the video as hate speech because the video did not expressly rouse violent acts against Muslim religious communities. But is Google shifting the responsibility off their organization? Additionally reported by Sengupta (2012), Facebook took action to control the outcome of the video by blocking links specifically to the video to avoid being in violation of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Facebook administrators were implementing foresight to avoid an objectionable outcome regarding the anti-Islamic video.
Internet organizations with global websites need administrative principles to forecast outcomes and tactical strategies for immediate response. In addition to forecasting, organizations should use reports, planning, and budgeting to fully understand the potential outcome of varying circumstances. These practices relate directly to Jules Henri Fayol’s belief in administrative leadership and managerial ability (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Moreover, Fayol recommended that organizations use structure throughout the organization to maintain managerial control. “Fayol also presented an early list of management principles, including: unity of command, hierarchical transmission of orders, separation of powers among distinct departments, and centralization and decentralization” (Wren & Bedeian, 2009, p. 214). Fayol clearly conceptualized the importance of managerial training and organizational structure. Fayol’s insights into the elements of management would help web companies clarify their role in the global environment as well as help Internet organization visualize and define a mission statement reflective of cultural acceptance, social responsibility, and unsurpassed leadership through unity of command and the elements of management.
References
Sengupta, S. (2012, September 16). Web companies walk a fine line on free speech. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/technology/on-the-web-a-fine-line-on-free-speech-across-globe.html?ref=sominisengupta
.
Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2007). The evolution of management thought. (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Interesting and timely issue. While I see the abstract connections that you are making with Fayol, perhaps you could make some concrete extensions here. What kind of training? What type of Organizational structure? How does centralization/decentralization impact google's decision making? What would Weber say?
ReplyDelete