So... (for your consideration)

From: Brownell, Gary
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:57 PM
To: Conde Nast Publications-All; FP Fairchild; Parade - New York; Golf Digest Companies-All; Advance Magazine Group-All
Subject: Internet Access Unavailable

We are investigating the inability to access the Internet from several of our offices. We’ll keep you updated on the progress to restore it.

Gary

Appears harmless, doesn't it? And yet, were you to be a Conde Nast employee and were you to "leak" this to an external source in order to justify why you could not be reached, you might in fact (nay, it appears you would) be terminated.

Clearly absurd... Or is it? As the reputational backlash begins against the venerable publisher, one wonders how large corporations are expected to manage instances such as this - instances that will likely become more frequent rather than less - regardless how tame the content. And while, in my personal opinion, the decision to fire this guy is a clear case of over-reaction, we as communicators have to increasingly consider scenarios such as these and their implications on corporate reputation. How do you "discipline" an employee for breaking what might be a clear cut corporate policy, when all that person has to do to get his/her back (justifiably or no) is unleash a tirade against the "big bad boss" into the blogosphere, and see what sticks?

It is unquestionably a new world order.