Ted Lockhart's Commentary on "Question of Delegating Responsibilities"
Author(s):
Ted Lockhart
I
It is certainly tempting for Dan to convince himself that
his staying on the job and missing out on his vacation would be
unduly cautious and pointless. After all, at this point Dan has
worked with Jerry on the installation procedures, and Jerry
should be able to manage the last 2 installations if he is at
all competent. Dan should certainly let his employer know
before he leaves the project early to begin his vacation, since
his colleagues in the Rancott home office can reasonably expect
him to stay on the job unless they are informed otherwise. The
more difficult issue is whether he should leave early even if
he is given approval to do so by his home office.
One argument in favor of Dan's leaving before the last 2
installations are completed is that the risks of things going
wrong as a result of his doing so are quite low. They are
already low because the installation directions are clearly
stated and no accidents should occur if they are
conscientiously adhered to. They are especially low because he
would be leaving the last two installations in the hands of a
presumably competent engineer who at this point has significant
experience in the installation procedures. However, there is
still the fact that accidents have occurred in the past.
Moreover, even though Jerry has been through the installation
procedure eight times, he is much less experienced than Dan and
may not be aware of the kinds of things that can go wrong or
cause problems. This is especially true if the installation is
complicated and susceptible to unforeseeable problems.
Although Dan's desire to begin his vacation on schedule may
be very important to him, it is difficult to see how this is
relevant to the ethical questions arising in relation to his
decision. If Rancott's policy of having its engineers supervise
all installations is sound, then it is hard to see why Dan's
vacation plans should be weighed against the application of
that policy in this particular instance. Perhaps it will be
argued that Jerry's experience in assisting in the installation
of the first eight units is enough to allow Dan to suspend the
policy under these particular circumstances, but as noted above
Jerry's experience in the installation procedure is still
meager in comparison with Dan's.
Dan's overriding concern as an engineer should be for the
safety of those who will use the equipment. His vacation plans
are secondary. Unless he is firmly convinced that Rancott's
policy regarding installation of the equipment are needlessly
cautious and restrictive, he should remain on the job until it
is completed.
II
Ed's main concern seems to be his "neck" and what would
happen to it if anything went wrong. He is willing for Dan to
leave before the equipment installation is completed as long as
Dan gets all the blame if negative consequences ensue. Either
Ed does not believe in Rancott's policy, which he is presumably
supposed to enforce, or he is willing to see it violated as
long as he suffers none of the ill effects. If he disagrees
with the policy, then he should attempt to have it repealed. If
he agrees with the policy, then he should do his job, which is
to enforce the policy. In either event, his self-serving
attitude about Dan's actions is deplorable.
Dan's obligations are not affected by Ed's position on this
matter. Whether he could have "passed the buck" to Ed if things
had gone wrong has little if any ethical significance. Again,
Dan should stay on the job until it is completed.
III
As in the previous scenario, whether Ed gives official or
unofficial approval to Dan to begin his vacation before the job
is finished and whether Dan will be held responsible by others
if things go wrong is not ethically significant. As a member of
the engineering profession, Dan should assume responsibility
for his actions and make decisions on the basis of his ethical
obligations to the general public, his employer, and his
clients. Even if he is firmly convinced that Jerry is capable
of finishing the installations without Dan's presence, there is
still the small chance that errors will occur if he is not
there to catch them. Furthermore, there is some extra insurance
in having two engineers cooperating and checking each other's
work. Even if both engineers are competent, there is always the
chance that momentary inattention will result in accidents if
there is no backup support. Perhaps duplication of effort is
inefficient, but if the stakes are high it may provide an added
margin of safety that should not be declined.
IV
Dan's signing the papers certainly does raise ethical
questions. For example, what is the purpose of having papers
signed verifying supervision of the installations? Is it a mere
formality that no one pays any attention to? Or is it intended
to be an integral part of the implementation of Rancott's
policy regarding supervision of equipment installation? The
greater likelihood is that signing the papers is intended to be
a check preventing violation of the policy which relies upon
the honesty and integrity of those assigned to carry out the
supervision. For Dan to sign the papers without actually
completing the supervision defeats the purpose of the policy,
which, if the policy is sound, cannot be justified. Moreover,
even if the policy is excessively restrictive and should be
abandoned, signing a statement that one knows to be false is
dishonest and therefore unethical unless there are overriding
reasons for doing so. No such reasons are evident in this case.
Similar arguments apply to Jerry's signing the papers.
V
In this scenario, Rancott must choose between carrying out
its policy regarding supervision of equipment installation or
fulfilling its contractual commitment to the second customer.
It seems unlikely that Dan would be the one who would decide
which is the more important, and it would certainly be
appropriate for him to consult with Ed and others at Rancott on
this matter.
Clearly there would be a stronger argument for Dan's leaving
the completion of the equipment installation at Boulding to
Jerry in order to go on to the next job than if his motives
were to begin his vacation on schedule, since it can certainly
be argued that contractual commitments generate ethical
obligations. Unfortunately, Ed again seems to be preoccupied
with his "neck" and what happens to it and not with ethical
considerations. Consequently, his input is of little help to
Dan. Perhaps Dan can consult with others at Rancott who will be
more forthcoming in their suggestions. Otherwise, Dan must
decide which obligation is more stringent--reducing the risks
to the users of the Rancott equipment at Boulding or fulfilling
the terms of the contract to the second client. The conflicting
ethical considerations are preventing harm vs. promise-keeping.
It is difficult to judge which is the more significant without
additional details. However, in general, it would seem that the
former is normally the more important consideration.