Kenneth L. Carper's Commentary on "Company Interests and Employee Involvement in Community"
Author(s):
Kenneth L. Carper
Elizabeth Dorsey is involved in a moral dilemma arising from
a conflict in roles. Her role as a citizen of Parkville and an
environmental conservationist is in conflict with her role as
an employee of CDC, Inc. Role conflicts always present
difficult ethical challenges because they test loyalties and
commitments (Nelson and Peterson 1982).
This commentary will first consider Elizabeth's personal
dilemma as presented in the case study, from Part I through
Part XII. After consideration of Elizabeth's situation, a few
additional questions arising from the field of environmental
ethics will be presented.
I & II
Elizabeth becomes aware of the role conflict. Her employer
is seeking expansion space, and none is to be found in the
inner city where the firm is now located. Parkville's
recreational and wildlife area is an attractive site for CDC,
but it is Elizabeth's hometown and she has been instrumental in
keeping commercial development out of the area.
Elizabeth's situation is made more difficult by the pressure
exerted by CDC management. This pressure is not appropriate.
David Jensen should not accede to Jim Bartlett's request,
whether or not David is aware of Elizabeth's role on the
Parkville Environmental Quality Committee. David should defend
Elizabeth based on her value to CDC as an engineer, not as a
potential political agent.
The type of pressure Jim Bartlett seeks to exert on
Elizabeth would use her merely as a means to an end, rather
than respecting her as an intrinsically valuable human being
(Rachels 1986, pp. 114-117). What he is demanding of her has no
relationship whatsoever to her professional obligations.
David should inform Elizabeth of Jim Bartlett's request, so
she will be better able to assess her situation and make
informed choices. This information should be presented in a
non-threatening way, and David should also assure Elizabeth of
his support.
In his discussion with Elizabeth, David may be able to gain
some insights regarding the environmental quality of the
Parkville site. Her opinions may be useful to the CDC Planning
Committee, so they can be more informed as to the impact of the
committee's proposal on the environment.
III & IV
Elizabeth is presented with the opportunity to reveal her
conflict. The sooner she discusses this with David, the better.
Employers have an obligation to avoid placing employees in
situations of apparent conflict of interest, but in order to do
so, they must be informed. If David isn't already aware of her
past work, Elizabeth should definitely discuss this with him
and enlist his support. She may be headed for an unpleasant
confrontation and she will need informed allies, whose support
is founded in mutual understanding and trust.
V
The dilemma presented in Part V should never have arisen.
Truthfulness earlier would have kept Elizabeth out of this
situation. Avoiding truthfulness in conflict of interest
situations merely delays the confrontation and makes it more
severe.
David now is in a very awkward situation. He has been forced
to admit to his superior that a subordinate has been less than
candid with him. His ability, and his desire, to support
Elizabeth in later confrontations may have been damaged along
with his credibility. However, neither David nor Jim is
justified in ordering Elizabeth to "cool it." Such action
involves excessive demands for loyalty and is clearly an abuse
of management authority (Martin and Schinzinger 1989,
pp.174-177).
VI
The option presented in Part VI is a good approach. It
effectively takes Elizabeth out of the controversy. She won't
help. She is not friendly with the Council, and she identifies
the reason. She doesn't support CDC's proposal and makes it
clear that she couldn't possibly be an effective advocate for
CDC even if she did support the proposal.
This action shifts the burden for the ethical dilemma back
to CDC management. Elizabeth has not threatened to use her
position to either undermine CDC plans, or to profit within the
firm from her unique relationship with Parkville.
VII
Jim again demands that pressure be exerted on Elizabeth to
"cool it." David should discuss with Jim the moral implications
of this pressure. Also, David has the responsibility to inform
Elizabeth again of her precarious situation. If David really
values her as a person, he will offer to help sort out the
alternatives and potential consequences with her. Combining
their two perspectives may enhance understanding.
VIII
Elizabeth should not break confidentiality with her employer
when the opportunity is presented. She has some responsibility
to her employer in this regard. The information will soon
become public. Elizabeth's neighbors may be upset with her, but
she should be able to articulate her reasons for
confidentiality. Reference could be made to the ABET Code of
Ethics which states that "Engineers shall treat information
coming to them in the course of their assignments as
confidential." Some have noted that this statement is too broad
(Martin and Schinzinger 1989, pp. 182-188). Certainly, employer
confidentiality should be breached in cases involving public
safety.
Other alternatives could be defended on moral principles,
should Elizabeth be absolutely convinced that her silence will
prevent proper public planning procedures from occurring. A
careful assessment of potential outcomes should be undertaken
before Elizabeth reveals her privileged information.
IX
In Part IX, Elizabeth is forced to evaluate the strengths of
her conflicting commitments. Proceeding further publicly may
seriously jeopardize her career with CDC. Other role conflicts
may also emerge at this point, such as her role as economic
provider to her family. Her public position really shouldn't
jeopardize her future with CDC, as it has nothing to do with
job performance. However, in this circumstance, the threat is
clear. Certainly, any informed party would find it acceptable
for Elizabeth to step aside and let the CDC proposal be judged
on its own merits.
X
Elizabeth decides to make a public statement. If she is
going to speak out, it should be done in this way. She has a
right to political positions as a citizen. This includes the
right to provide input to land-use planning decisions. But she
has correctly expressed these opinions in general terms,
consistent with her past public positions on the subject. The
media may establish the connection between Elizabeth and CDC,
but she importantly has not directly and specifically
criticized her employer in the public arena.
However, Elizabeth's public statement does carry some
important connotations. It may actually serve to "muddy" the
decision-making process so that Parkville residents are not
able to look objectively at the CDC proposal. Hopefully,
Elizabeth has carefully considered her unique position of
influence prior to speaking out.
With regard to the continuing threats from Jim Bartlett,
David should reply forthrightly. He should tell Jim that he did
convey Jim's warnings to Elizabeth, but that he tempered the
information with his own judgment and offered Elizabeth his
support to exercise her conscience.
There may be a component of sex discrimination in Jim
Bartlett's attitude. Special care is required of managers in
situations where males have traditionally held dominant
management positions. In these situations, female employees
find it more difficult to be assertive. David should ask Jim if
he would make the same implied threats and charges of
disloyalty towards a male employee in Elizabeth's position.
XI & XII
Parts XI and XII investigate the perspectives of the
Committee for Environmental Quality and the typical Parkville
citizen. Elizabeth should discuss her opinions with the
Committee for Environmental Quality, but she shouldn't take a
leadership role unless she is willing to jeopardize her
job.
It is probably more important that Elizabeth ask to discuss
her concerns with the CDC Planning Committee, especially if her
concerns are founded in specific issues of unique environmental
sensitivity. Elizabeth is not going to be an effective advocate
on either side, for her motives will be questioned by both
sides. Her conflicting roles inject unnecessary confusion.
Parkville residents should be allowed to review the CDC
proposal objectively. Consideration of all the facts in an open
public forum should enable the community to judge the proposal
on its own merits.
Additional Questions
The role conflicts encountered by Elizabeth in this case
study are so interesting that one might overlook some equally
interesting moral questions from the field of environmental
ethics (Martin and Schinzinger 1989, pp 262-278). Space does
not permit discussion of these questions, but a thorough review
of the case should include the following:
- Why does Elizabeth commute 60 miles each day if she is
truly concerned about environmental quality? What form of
transportation does she use?
- Is the Parkville site unique? Is it particularly
sensitive to development? Or is this a case of the "Not In My
Backyard" objection to changing land use?
- Has Parkville become an exclusive community for affluent
commuters, and if so, have the original residents been
displaced by the high taxes associated with preservation of
undeveloped land?
- What about the citizens who live in the big city, those
who can't afford to live in Parkville? Do they have regular
access to the environmentally protected area, or is it
enjoyed only by the residents of Parkville?
- Denial of the CDC proposal may result in further
congestion and pollution of the inner city. What are the
ethical implications resulting from this alternative?
- Can communities like Parkville hold out forever? There
are many examples of quality environmental projects involving
cooperative business and government alliances. Maybe this is
the best opportunity Parkville will ever have to preserve its
quality of life, considering economic and environmental
factors. Is it possible to sacrifice a little in order to
preserve most of an environmental asset?
- Consider the implication of CDC's plans as they impact
the inner city. Abandoning the current location will reduce
the tax base that supports city services. How will this
affect those who must live in the city?
These questions deal with broader environmental issues. They
are not directly related to Elizabeth Dorsey's dilemma. If we
had specific answers to the questions about Parkville, however,
we might be able to better assess the fundamental moral
principles guiding Elizabeth's reasoning.
Suggested Readings:
- Martin, Mike W. and R. Schinzinger 1989. Ethics in
Engineering (2nd edition), McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
NY
- Nelson, Carl and S. R. Peterson 1982. "Conflicts of Roles
in Engineering Ethics," Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
NY, Vol. 108, No. E11, January, pp. 7-11
- Rachels, James 1986. The Elements of Moral Philosophy,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 114-117.