Gender and Free Speech at Google (A) - Case Solution

Gender and Free Speech at Google (A) Case Study

In 2017, Google was met with massive protests outside their own doors in California due to an inside editorial by employee James Damore. Eventually, James Damore will be fired by Google due to a breach of Google’s Code of Conduct. Thus, it also sparked outrage from conservative parties, stating that they could get fired for voicing their views. Hence, the issue of gender and the suppression of free speech at Google arose.

The three alternatives for this situation are for (1) Google to double down on its inclusion and diversity initiative, (2) make a formal effort to protect and promote freedom of expression, or (3) launch an initiative to promote psychological safety.

The criteria used to evaluate the alternative are public image, employee safety, company culture, and efficiency.

The first alternative is for Google to double down on its inclusion and diversity initiatives.

Google could engage this by investing in and supporting more minority organizations and promoting inclusive ideals only. The first advantage of this alternative is that it shows that Google cares about the gender problem that perpetuates the country.

As a multi-national company, if Google doubled down on diversity, its public image would improve because protests were calling for Damore’s firing.

The second advantage is that Google would not be breaking the law because the First Amendment protects people from government restrictions, not private companies.

The third advantage is that Google would be restricting the use of hate speech within the company. This can improve company culture and employee safety because the employees of minority backgrounds will know that the place where they work every day is safe and not a place for hate.

However, the first disadvantage is that there would be a restrictive of diverse political views, which is counter-intuitive to Google’s company culture and motto. This could harm the company culture of being an open and different company.

Moreover, the more conservative employees will be highly worried about revealing their affiliation because they could risk their jobs.

The second disadvantage is that the restriction of speech could be used against the minorities that it was initially trying to protect.

The third disadvantage is that the company culture would decrease due to stifling specific ideas and conversations in the company that could be beneficial to everyone to gain a new viewpoint of the world.

The second alternative is that Google could make a formal effort to protect and promote freedom of expression.

A way of doing this is by allowing employees to…