Neil R. Luebke's Commentary on "Company Interests and Employee Involvement in Community"
Author(s):
Neil R. Luebke
This case could easily form the plot for a three-day
television miniseries. All the ingredients are here:
environmentalists versus a large corporation, large
metropolitan interests versus small town values, potentially
thousands of people affected by the actions, and in the center
of it all Elizabeth Dorsey, engineer, who might become a
heroine, a goat, or even a sacrificial lamb. The possibilities
of dramatic scenes of showdowns in corporate board rooms or
City Council chambers boggle the imagination. In the
miniseries, no doubt, the Committee for Environmental Quality,
supported by mass rallies and marches by the citizens of
Parkville, will eventually win over the City Council and send
the political types from CDC packing back to the metropolitan
area. Elizabeth Dorsey, fired from her job with CDC, will be
almost immediately hired by a new environmentally conscious
firm relocating in Parkville but without using a single square
foot of the recreational and wildlife area. Parkville lives
happily ever after, all because Elizabeth Dorsey was true to
her principles. So much for drama.
The case before us, however, often has analogues in more
mundane situations in the real world. The conflict between
business interests, on the one hand, and personal or
professional values, on the other, lies behind many of the most
difficult and troubling cases in engineering ethics. As many
writers have pointed out, the codes of ethics of the
engineering societies often place dual and conflicting
responsibilities on engineers: a responsibility to hold the
public welfare paramount yet at the same time a responsibility
to do one's best for one's client or employer. In our case, not
only Elizabeth Dorsey but several other persons in CDC seem to
judge these two obligations to be in direct conflict.
But must the obligations be in conflict in this case? First,
as described in our story, CDC, Inc., seems to be an
environmentally responsible corporation. Not only does it make
a generous offer to the City Council concerning care of the
wildlife and recreation area, but it is unlikely that Elizabeth
Dorsey herself, given her environmental concerns, would work
for CDC and feel any loyalty to it if the company was not
environmentally responsible. Certainly, Parkville could have
been targeted as a site for corporate building that would be
far less hospitable to the environment than CDC's plan, so
Elizabeth Dorsey's concerns with the environment seem not to,
on the surface of it, be necessarily hostile to the CDC
approach. Second, we might ask, what is in the public welfare?
The Committee for Environmental Quality is admittedly a small
but active citizen group, and at least some maintenance of
recreational and wildlife area seems to be important to the
citizens. On the other hand, there are doubtless other
interests in the town: employment interests, the possibility of
greater local taxes for public improvements, and other economic
benefits that go along with the location of a new firm in town.
So it may be an open question whether the entire recreational
and wildlife area that the Committee for Environmental Quality
wants to preserve should justifiably be preserved. Committee
members may own parts of the town, but they do not own it
completely. Indeed, the corporation may have an interest in
relocating out of the crowded metropolitan area into an area
that would be pleasant for its workers. The corporate officers
should realize that it has nothing to gain by spoiling its own
new nest or by pursuing tactics that alienate a major portion
of the community. Ideally, something like the following might
happen: CDC makes its interests known to the Parkville City
Council; the Parkville councilors then set up a number of
public hearings and discussions so that various local groups
can express their concerns and have their questions
straightforwardly answered. Both city officers and CDC
officials make an effort to be open and public in their
dealings so that Parkville residents will not have the idea
that some political shell game is going on behind closed doors.
In the end, some mutual accommodation may be worked out. The
Committee for Environmental Quality may come to see that
preserving 75 percent of the recreational and wildlife area
joined with a firm commitment from the City Council to maintain
its noncommercial zoning, and with additional funds to help
support the environmental development of the area, is a better
alternative than several other imaginable ones. On the other
hand, if the community is truly hostile toward CDC and has no
interest in expanding its economic base at the expense of its
small-town lifestyle, CDC might drop its plans.
Now let us turn to Elizabeth Dorsey. What moral
considerations are appropriate to her decisions in this case?
First, she should be honest with the people in her corporation
as well as with the people in her community. Her interest in
the environment is not in and of itself disloyalty to CDC.
Furthermore, as a resident of Parkville, she is in a position
to bring home to any official in CDC who asks her the concern
of the community for a certain way of life. In fact, a CDC
official might even be astute enough to ask her opinion about
what should be done. Second, Elizabeth also has an obligation
to maintain any confidential information that is the property
of the company. It is difficult to believe that any information
in a detailed proposal to a city council would remain
confidential for long, however. Since Elizabeth has worked
within the corporation, she might have a better perspective on
the types of plans that CDC has and be in a position to put to
rest any false rumors that members of the Committee on
Environmental Quality might hear or circulate. The really
difficult situation for Elizabeth occurs when three persons in
the corporation, including her immediate superior, decide that
she should be asked to soften up some of the City Council
members. It is unfortunate that a committee member thought that
such a softening-up routine would be a good tactic. It is also
unfortunate the committee chair went along with the idea. When
planning committee chair Jim Bartlett approached Elizabeth's
boss, David Jensen, David should have expressed some qualms
about asking Elizabeth to undertake a lobbying effort on behalf
of the corporation, but he could have said to Jim that he would
talk to Elizabeth about the corporation's plans in order to see
whether she has any ideas or suggestions. David could say this
whether or not he knew of Elizabeth's environmental concerns.
It would not be fair for David to respond to Jim's request by
saying, "Oh, Elizabeth's going to fight you every step of the
way because she's a very active member of the Parkville
Environmental Quality Committee." At that point Elizabeth would
have been labeled the enemy in Jim's eyes without Elizabeth's
having said a word.
Let us suppose that David Jensen does communicate Jim
Bartlett's message to Elizabeth. Before committing herself to
any course of action, Elizabeth ought to find out as much as
she can about the plans. Perhaps she could ask to talk to Jim
Bartlett himself or some of the members of the committee. She
should also be up front with David Jensen, Jim Bartlett, or
anyone else at the corporation concerning her interest in the
environment and her work with the Committee on Environmental
Quality. She should make it clear in the process that she is
not in any manner opposed to the CDC corporation or with a
possible CDC plant location in Parkville. Her only qualms have
to do with the specific site and the possibility of resulting
environmental damage. She should also inform the persons that
the City Council has gone on record as opposing economic
development of the area when it came at the expense of the
environment. Finally, Elizabeth should, insofar as she can,
push for a public and open discussion of CDC's proposal.
If, after learning all the facts, Elizabeth Dorsey is still
firmly in opposition to the CDC move, then she has some hard
decisions to make. At one extreme, she might choose to remain
completely neutral in the matter, refusing to take any role
that is favorable either to the committee or to CDC. At the
other extreme, she might decide she could no longer work for
CDC, resign her position, and devote herself full time to
fighting their proposal for Parkville. On the other hand, if
she sees merit in the proposal, she is confronted by a
different set of choices. In either case, her challenge is to
balance her public commitments with her professional
commitments while at the same time maintaining her personal
integrity.
How would Elizabeth's situation be viewed by other persons
concerned with the case? A citizen of Parkville would, I think,
expect a number of things from Elizabeth. There is the
expectation that she would not do in her fellow citizens simply
in order to continue to receive a paycheck from the
corporation. At the same time, the citizens would not want her
to be unsympathetic to other concerns in the community besides
environmental concerns, since if Elizabeth led the fight and
was an employee of CDC corporation it is clear that she could
garner considerable publicity for herself and her cause,
publicity which would look so damaging that CDC might scrap the
plans completely. In short, a fellow citizen of Parkville might
be concerned that Elizabeth not misuse her special position.
Although some members of the Committee for Environmental
Quality might want Elizabeth to be their reformer "inside the
tent," they ought to be more sensitive to her special position,
a position in which no matter what she says she might be
misunderstood. The committee members should expect Elizabeth to
be straightforward with them and honest in her evaluation of
the merits of CDC's plans. The company and its officials should
not attempt to dictate Elizabeth's ideals or force her to
compromise them. On the other hand, they may also rightfully
expect that Elizabeth would not act in such a way as to
embarrass the company or unjustifiably to impugn its good
name.