Michael Davis' Commentary on "Company Interests and Employee Involvement in Community"
Author(s):
Michael Davis
People like to advise someone in Elizabeth Dorsey's
situation, "You cannot serve two masters." The advice confuses
Dorsey's situation with that of a slave.
A slave has a master, an owner with absolute power over him.
Only one person can have absolute power over you at any one
time. You can only serve that master properly by serving no
other. A slave with divided loyalties is, by definition, a bad
slave.
Dorsey is not a slave. She is a free person. A free person
has no master. Having no master leaves her free to develop
relationships with whom she pleases. With such relationships
come loyalties, commitments, and other interests. Sooner or
later some of those interests will come in conflict. Freedom is
messy.
Freedom is especially messy for engineers. The engineer,
simply by working as an engineer, undertakes to serve the
public, clients, employer, and profession--four "masters". The
engineer also tries to serve himself in a morally appropriate
way. That is, he tries to earn a decent living by serving
public, clients, employer, and profession in the way engineers
should. Each profession tries to define itself so that, for
example, serving the public does not conflict with serving
one's employer. But, since human foresight is weak, such
conflicts still occur.
Dorsey has conducted herself as a good engineer should. Not
only has she used her engineering knowledge to benefit her
employer, she has made it available to a citizen's group she
believes to be serving the public interest. She has, in the
words of the NSPE Code III. 2.a, "[worked] for the advancement
of the safety, health, and well-being of [her] community." And,
as a result, she is in trouble.
Her employer has asked her to lobby for it. Lobbying is
normally the responsibility of Public Relations (or some other
department without engineers). Nonetheless, engineers may
properly participate in lobbying as engineers. They may provide
help on technical questions. An engineer could, for example,
properly make a presentation to Parkville's city council
explaining how CDC's plan would protect the environment.
An engineer's participation in lobbying is, however,
necessarily limited. An engineer cannot put the weight of her
professional judgment behind whatever her client or employer
wants. She must believe what she says. Deception cannot be part
of her job. Engineering codes of ethics are unanimous on that.
(NSPE Code III.3.a.)
Yet, down the chain of command has come this request for
Dorsey's non-technical help in lobbying for CDC's proposal.
What can be said about the request itself? There is, I think,
nothing inherently wrong with it. But for her interest in
Parkville's environment, Dorsey might have been happy to do as
asked, lobbying not as engineer or loyal employee, but simply
as Liz Dorsey, commuter (someone who would like to work nearer
home).
So, David Jensen, her supervisor, has no reason not to
convey the request to her. Indeed, whether he knows of her
activities in Parkville or not,he has an obligation to give her
the chance to decide for herself what she will do (as well as
an obligation to his superiors to do as asked). He should,
however, consider which Dorsey he is asking (engineer, loyal
employee, or commuter). Which he thinks he is asking will
affect his tone and may well affect how Dorsey responds.
Dorsey's problem is the result of her (properly) having a
life of her own about which her employer (or a part of it) does
not know. CDC has ignorantly put Dorsey in a bind. What should
she do? If Jensen sounds at all like a superior when he asks
her to lobby, Dorsey's first impulse will probably be to
protect her privacy, avoid confrontation, and tell a "white
lie". While such lies are (generally) morally permissible, they
are not consistent with an engineer serving her employer as a
faithful agent. White lies do not meet "the highest standard of
integrity [in professional relations]". (NSPE Code III.1] An
engineer who feels it necessary to tell an employer white lies
should seek a new employer. Something has gone seriously wrong
between her and her employer.
What should Dorsey do? She might begin by explaining
everything to Jensen and asking his advice. He is a potential
ally. He may well dislike having to ask a subordinate to do
something "political". He may know how firm the request is,
what assumptions it rests on, and how best to respond. The
request is not necessarily written in stone. It might even be
written in water, no sooner made than forgotten. Senior
executives do not always appreciate the effect their works will
have on subordinates. Jensen is more likely to be helpful if
treated as a helper.
But let's suppose the worst. Though Dorsey seeks Jensen's
help, he eventually sighs in exasperation, "I'm only the
messenger. You must decide for yourself and take the
consequences." What should Dorsey do now? She must, I think,
say something like this: "Sorry. No can do. I've been working
with the Parkville Environmental Quality Committee for more
than a year now. They'll certainly oppose CDC's plan. I don't
want to choose between CDC and my neighbors. Tell the people
upstairs that I have a conflict of interest."
Dorsey should, I think, say something similar to the
Parkville Environment Quality Committee even if she believes
CDC is clearly in the wrong. Unless she is willing to quit CDC
now, she should not directly help the Committee. The most she
should do is advise the Committee on how to find another
engineer. She should do no more than this for at least three
reasons.
First, openly confronting CDC is likely to poison her
relations with her superiors. She has access to information
outsiders would not have. CDC probably has no way to know
whether any of that information is relevant to the Parkville
plan. They are therefore likely to view her as a potential spy,
an enemy within.
Second, the public is likely to suppose that she knows more
than she in fact does. Employees generally do not openly oppose
their employer unless it is doing something outrageous. Dorsey
is likely to be identified as a CDC employee. Her opposition
will therefore carry more weight than it would had she no
connection with CDC. CDC will find her status as an employee
working against it. Unless CDC has done something to deserve
that disadvantage, Dorsey should not treat her employer as if
it does.
Third, Dorsey probably can't conduct herself properly while
working for CDC and helping the Committee. The more headlines
she gets for the Committee, the more likely her relations at
work are to go sour. The more her work relations sour, the more
likely she is to overdo or underdo what both CDC and the
Committee need to have done right. She would not be able to
provide either with the independent judgment she guarantees
anyone for whom she works as an engineer.
So, she should thankfully take Bartlett's advice when it
comes. "Cooling it" will allow her honorably to maintain good
relations with both her employer and her neighbors. Being an
engineer does not require her to choose between them this
time.