Ted Lockhart's Commentary on "Owning up to a Failure"
Author(s):
Ted Lockhart
I
For Walt not to say anything at all would suggest that he
agreed with Norm's views. However, to disagree openly with Norm
in the meeting would undoubtedly embarrass Norm, who might
perceive Walt's actions as disloyal both to him and to R&M.
A compromise course of action would be for Walt to ask for a
short recess in the meeting so that he could confer with Norm
and inform him of the change in Walt's views about the failed
equipment. Such a request would probably catch Norm by surprise
and place him in the position of having to choose between
defending a false position or reversing his views about the
source of the equipment problem. However, this seems a less
undesirable state of affairs than to be contradicted by Walt
directly during the meeting. For Walt not to say anything at
all until after the meeting would constitute his participating
in the promulgation of false information and would not be
adequately justified by any ethical considerations, such as
loyalty to employers. Therefore, the most reasonable course of
action for Walt is to ask for a brief recess in order to confer
with Norm.
II
The course of action that Norm is recommending may produce
the best overall consequences if the equipment failure is
highly unlikely to reoccur in the future and if R&M's
openly accepting fault would cause XYZ to purchase inferior
equipment from R&M's competitors in the future. Perhaps
Norm believes that this is what would probably occur. However,
if XYZ is firmly convinced that the equipment failure is
R&M's fault, then for R&M to continue to refuse to
acknowledge this fact may well antagonize XYZ, even with
R&M's `good will' gesture. From the information given, it
is difficult to say how XYZ would react to R&M's taking the
negotiating position that Norm is recommending, but it is
probably safe to assume that neither Walt nor Norm would be
very certain what XYZ's reaction would be. What is certain is
that the course of action that Norm is recommending is
deceptive and dishonest. In the absence of ethical
considerations adequately supporting Norm's recommended course
of action, Walt's view that R&M should be open and honest
about the equipment failure in its discussions with XYZ is the
reasonable position.
The problem is, of course, a "management problem" in the
sense that R&M management must decide what to do. However,
since Walt is being asked to go along with and support Norm's
judgment it is also his problem, and for Walt automatically to
defer to Norm in this matter without considering the ethical
ramifications of such a deferral would be for Walt to fail to
act autonomously.
III
Engineers who move into management should realize that
engineers' dissenting from management's views on technical
matters as well as on business matters is not uncommon and that
for management to expect and to insist that engineers not take
any position on any issue that is incompatible with
management's position on that issue violates engineers'
autonomy and conflicts with engineers' obligations to be
objective and truthful. Engineering managers must recognize
that engineers' dissenting from other engineers' views and from
management's decisions is not unusual and that it is
unreasonable to expect blind obedience from them.
Engineers can reasonably be expected to be judicious in
choosing the ways in which they express their dissent, but they
should not be expected to express it only when and how
management chooses.