How should a company respond when employees do the wrong thing?

It’s pretty much a truism that every employee has the potential to impact an organisation’s reputation – either positively or negatively.?But it happens most often when things go wrong, and the organisation has to decide how to respond.

This was the reputational challenge for office supplies company Officeworks when a branch employee in their Print and Copy department refused to laminate a page from a Jewish newspaper. She told the Jewish customer she was pro-Palestine and was uncomfortable doing the job.?

Although the incident occurred in March, it made headlines this month with the release?of video footage, and the customer lodging?a complaint of racial and religious discrimination at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The result was a predictable storm of outrage and calls for the employee to be sacked.

Facing mounting criticism and threats of a boycott, Officeworks responded with a conventional?communication plan. CEO Sarah Hunter said the company had investigated immediately and concluded the incident was due to ignorance rather than malice.

“Disciplinary measures were implemented, including a final warning, additional training and relocation to a different store, which were appropriate given the youth, inexperience and clear remorse of the team member.?As education is of paramount importance in such a situation, the team member was also required to visit the Melbourne Holocaust Museum. The impact on the team member was profound and their remorse was deep and genuine.”

Ms Hunter said the employee should not have refused to laminate the newspaper, and that the business “is no place for discrimination, intolerance or racism”.

“Again, I express my disappointment and regret that the incident occurred, as it is entirely contrary to our ways of working and our values. We apologised to the customer at the time, and I take this opportunity to repeat our apology to him and extend it to the broader community for the hurt and upset the incident has caused.”

In the face of intense criticism for many quarters, the company seemingly had a plan aligned with their values and HR policies, and executed well.?

It’s worth comparing with two other notorious examples of what happens when customer relations go?bad. ?Back in 2011, customer Keara O’Neil complained about service at a GASP clothing store in Melbourne’s trendy Chapel Street. The company responded by saying she and her friends had been disruptive;?that they “only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer”; and their clothes are “priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable”. The story went viral around the world and the company eventually apologised . . three months later . . shortly after shutting down the branch where the incident happened.?

Contrast that with the notorious incident at a Starbucks store in Philadelphia in 2018, when two black men waiting for a friend to join them were arrested for supposedly trespassing. CEO Kevin Johnson won widespread praise for his extensive responses?including this statement : “We apologize to the two individuals and our customers for what took place. The way that incident escalated, and the outcome, was nothing but reprehensible – and I'm sorry."

“There have been some calls for us to take action on the store manager. I believe that blame has been misplaced. In fact, I think the focus of fixing this . . . ?I own it. This is a management issue, and I am accountable to ensure that we address the policy and the practice and the training that led to this outcome.“

So, should Officeworks have sacked the employee who denied service to a Jewish customer?? Columnist Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian said no?because, she argued,?sacking the woman?was “too easy” and would “most definitely turn her into martyr, a poster child for the anti-Semitic left”.

That might be rather a stretch, but it does highlight that nothing Officeworks said or did was ever going to?please everybody.?