Henry West's Commentary on "Dealing with a Costly Error"
Author(s):
Henry West
I
In retrospect, Carl should have talked with Kevin Rourke
about the distributions systems, if he foresaw a problem there.
But Carl has little practical experience; if he accepted
Kevin's explanation--that the caustic system is used so much
less--he might well have accepted things as they are. It may be
that it isn't an ethical question so much as a matter of
judgment as to whether there will be a problem. But if Carl
anticipates that there is likely to be a problem, with severe
environmental consequences, such as a leak or a valve left open
which would discharge excessive amounts of caustic into the
waste water system, he should at least raise the question of
whether it would be wise to modify the caustic distribution
system. The cost might be such, and the risk of a problem so
remote, that it would be reasonable to do nothing. But if Carl
has a concern, he should pursue the matter.
II
When the emergency arises and Carl has located the problem,
he must immediately report it to the plant manager. He also
needs to report that it isn't known how long the valve was
open, and that requires reporting who left it open and that he
failed to have it checked earlier. To do otherwise would be
irresponsible, and since he would have eventually had to
acknowledge what he knew, he would be better to be as
informative as possible about it now.
III
Even if it were impossible to trace the excessive caustic
waste to its source, it would be irresponsible of Kevin not to
report it and to do everything he can to neutralize it. If
there is any question about it, think about the situation from
the point of view of those who operate the waste water
treatment plant. Look at it from the point of view of the
general public.
IV
From the point of view of the WTW, Kevin's actions were
responsible and helpful. Otherwise, they might have had a
serious problem on their hands.
Emerson management and stockholders might be short-sighted
and think that it could have saved money by Kevin's not
disclosing the source of the caustic discharge. They might
think that they could have avoided the cost of the hydrochloric
acid used to correct the problem and the modification of the
caustic distribution system which they felt that they had to
make after being a source of accidental discharge. But
enlightened self-interest would dictate that Kevin's rationale
is correct, wouldn't it? They might also be enlightened enough
to think of others affected and want to be a public-spirited
company as well. Other industries and local citizens that use
WTW would be inconvenienced and perhaps have to share the cost
if the WTW service is disrupted.
Suppose, however, that Emerson Chemical is losing money.
Every unnecessary expense puts them that much closer to
backruptcy, and that will cost jobs. Does that make a
difference? Suppose that disclosing and correcting the problem
is going to cost millions instead of tens of thousands. Is
there a point at which being a responsible company is too
costly?
V
Friendship does mean something, and awareness of the
hardship that would be caused by someone being fired counts
too. It has weight but not absolute weight. It can be
outweighed by poor job performance. Is this is a single case of
negligence in Rick's job performance, or is it part of a
pattern?
Carl is responsible for those who work under him; so he
can't just ignore the problem. He can talk to Rick about
whether Rick isn't neglecting his work for his studies and
whether he shouldn't think about cutting back on the latter if
he can't do both.
VI
Kevin is also responsible for those who work under him.
Carl's unit was negligent in checking C-2 in an emergency
situation. He needs to find out not only who was negligent in
leaving the valve open, but why it wasn't discovered in the
emergency check. So he does need to have a serious talk with
Carl. Whether he needs to take any action against Carl probably
depends on Carl's general performance. Has he been negligent in
any other work, so far as Kevin knows?
VII
If Carl claims that he doesn't know who left the valve open,
he is showing a lack of control over his department as well as
being dishonest; so that probably won't help the situation. If
he thinks that Rick has otherwise don't excellent work, he may
try to persuade Kevin to rescind the order that he be
fired.
VIII
If Carl thinks that Rick has been doing excellent work and
thinks that there is a possibility of changing Kevin's mind, he
might ask Rick to reconsider his resignation. If he would want
Rick to stay on the job, he can say that in a letter of
reference. There isn't any need for Carl to tell Rick that he
has orders to fire him, unless the subject comes up. He also
doesn't need to say that in a letter; nor need he say that Rick
was guilty of a serious case of negligence if that was the only
one. If, however, Rick's work hasn't been good, and Carl cannot
honestly write a letter which speaks well of his work, Carl
should explain that to Rick, telling him what he would say in
the letter and letting Rick decide whether he still wants him
to be a reference. It is possible for a letter to call
attention to good points without stressing the bad ones. For
example, the very fact that Rick has regret over his negligence
shows something about his character. Carl may be able to talk
about that even if he can't recommend his job performance.
IX
Carl will have to make an honest estimate of Rick's future
performance. If he sincerely believes that Rick will be
reliable in the future, he could say nothing about the open
valve. If he thinks that Rick's studies are interfering with
his work, he could suggest that the prospective employer raise
that question with Rick. But it will likely cost Rick the job.
He should do it only if, in his judgment, Rick can't handle
both; and maybe he shouldn't do it even then.
X
If Nurrevo doesn't know of WTW's spill, it is in exactly the
situation that Emerson was in, and so the above reasoning would
apply to it. If, however, Nurrevo finds out that WTW has
already disclosed that it has had a spill and will provide the
hydrochloric acid to take care of it, Nurrevo is a different
situation. The spill will be taken care of. There will be no
damage to the WTW. So it is not a question of environmentally
damaging consequences. There is, however, a question of
fairness. If Emerson is cleaning up Nurrevo's mess, Nurrevo
should in fairness share costs. Isn't that what Nurrevo would
want if it cleaned up Emerson's mess?
XI
Andrea could argue with her superior, claiming that in
fairness Nurrevo should report and share costs. If she doesn't
get anywhere with him, she could take the matter to someone
further up in the company, but is it worth it?