Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical Grounds
IEEE Ethics Committee
11/11/96
Introduction
The goal of these guidelines is to provide general advice
to engineers, including engineering managers, who find
themselves in conflicts with management over matters with
ethical implications. Much of this advice is pertinent to
more general conflicts within organizations. For example, it
is not unusual in technical organizations for there to be
hard fought battles regarding purely technical decisions that
do not necessarily have any ethical implications--but do have
impacts on the probabilities of success of products. The
assumption here is that the engineer's objective is to
prevent some serious harm, while minimizing career
damage.
Many ethics related disputes are caused by attempts to
satisfy irreconcilable constraints. For example, suppose it
is impossible to test a product adequately in time to meet a
delivery date. Missing the delivery date constitutes a highly
visible failure, with clearly defined penalties. There may be
no obvious indication that an important set of tests has been
omitted, even if this leads to a substantial increase in the
probability of a life threatening system failure. Under such
conditions, there is a temptation to meet the deadline by
skipping or shortening the tests. Such decisions might or
might not be in accordance with company policy. If not, then
an engineer or manager objecting on ethical grounds usually
has an easier, but usually not easy, problem. The chances of
resolving the problem within the organization may be quite
good. If the decision is consistent with the views of upper
management, then the problem is far more serious for the
dissenter. The following guidelines, based on the experiences
of many people, are designed to maximize the chances of a
favorable outcome for the ethically concerned manager or
engineer.
Back to top
1. Establish a clear technical
foundation
One should check out the alleged facts and technical
arguments as thoroughly as possible. If feasible, get the
advice of colleagues that you respect. Carefully consider
counter-arguments made by others. A good way to ensure that
you understand someone else's position, is to restate it to
the satisfaction of that person. At any stage, if convinced
that the other person's arguments are valid, do not hesitate
to change your position accordingly.
This does NOT mean that you must be able to validate your
position with near mathematical certainty. This is seldom
possible in the real world. In most engineering work, we must
operate with incomplete information and make reasonable
engineering judgments. For example, the engineers in the
Challenger case could not PROVE that a launch would lead to a
disaster. But, in such a situation it was sufficient to show
that the likelihood of failure of the O-ring joints was
clearly too great with respect to established safety
standards. The burden was on the other side to justify the
launch--a burden that was not met.
Back to top
2. Keep your arguments on a high
professional plane, as impersonal and objective as possible,
avoiding extraneous issues and emotional outbursts
For example, do not mix personal grievances into an
argument about whether further testing is necessary for some
critical subsystem. Keep calm and avoid impugning the motives
of an opponent. (Of course, there might be a situation in
which the central issue is that an incompetent person has
been given critical responsibilities. In that case, it may be
necessary to attack that person's qualifications. But this
should be done without malice.) Try to structure the
situation so that accepting your position will involve as
little embarrassment as possible to those being asked to
change a decision. For example, you might be able to allow a
manager to take credit for realizing that a course reversal
was called for. Avoid overstating your case. Your credibility
can be seriously undermined by exaggerated, invalid
figures--even on matters not central to the main issue.
If the matter turns into a serious conflict, efforts will
be made to portray you as some sort of crackpot. Avoid
behavior that could be used to support such an attack. In
both written and oral arguments be cool, clear, concise and
accurate. At all times behave as a competent, ethical
professional.
Back to top
3. Try to catch problems early,
and keep the argument at the lowest managerial level
possible
Calling attention to a problem at an early stage makes a
satisfactory solution much more likely. As time goes on,
personal commitments to a particular course of action become
deeper, and making changes becomes increasingly expensive. It
is always less costly to resolve the dispute at the lowest
organizational level possible. Move up the chain of command
only when it is clear that this is necessary.
Back to top
4. Before going out on a limb,
make sure that the issue is sufficiently important
If a situation reaches the point where further protest may
be costly, consider whether the stakes are sufficiently high.
For example, if the issue involves only financial risks for
the employer, then, if managers are acting unreasonably, it
is probably not worth risking your career.
Back to top
5. Use organizational dispute
resolution mechanisms
Good organizations have procedures, not always formal, for
resolving disputes. After having exhausted informal efforts
to persuade your manager, then you must consider using these
mechanisms. Since this will almost certainly damage relations
with your manager, this step should be taken only after a
careful review along the lines discussed in guidelines 1 and
2. If you have an ally higher up in the management chain, you
might appeal to that person for advice and possibly to
intervene as a mediator.
If your organization lacks such a dispute resolution
procedure, consider championing the creation of one. This
could be invaluable in minimizing future problems.
Back to top
6. Keep records and collect
paper
As soon as you realize that you are getting into a
situation that may become serious, you should initiate a log,
recording, with times and dates, the various steps that you
take (e.g., conversations, email messages, etc.) Keep copies
of pertinent documents or computer files at home, or in the
office of a trusted friend--to guard against the possibility
of a sudden discharge and sealing off of your office. But be
careful not to violate any laws!
Back to top
7. Resigning
If efforts to resolve the conflict within your
organization fail, then a decision must be made as to whether
to go further. It should be realized that there will almost
certainly be a significant personal cost involved if you
proceed. It is very unlikely that you would be able to remain
with the organization, unless your job is governmental in
nature, protected by civil service regulations or the like.
One obvious choice is to resign. The advantages are: (1) This
adds credibility to your position--makes it obvious you are a
serious person. (2) Arguments that you are being disloyal to
your employer are disarmed. (3) Since you are likely to be
fired, resigning may look better on your record.
The drawbacks are: (1) Once you are gone, it may be easier
for the organization to ignore the issues you raised, as
others in the organization may be unwilling to carry on the
fight. (2) The right to dissent from within the organization
may be one of the points you wish to make. (3) You might
thereby lose pension rights, unemployment compensation, and
the right to sue for improper discharge.
It would be wise to consult an attorney before making this
decision.
Back to top
8. Anonymity
In some situations, engineers may see serious harm being
done within their organizations, but recognize that publicly
calling attention to it may cause personal repercussions
beyond what they are willing to accept. It might be possible
to report the problem anonymously to others who may be able
to take action, e.g. a regulatory agency, a senator, or a
reporter. One problem is that an anonymous report may not be
taken seriously. Providing enough information to make the
report more credible may make it easy for the organization to
identify its source. Being exposed as a purveyor of an
anonymous report may be even more damaging to the engineer
than the effect of openly making the report would have been.
A reporter might distort the facts to make the case more
"newsworthy". Nevertheless, this route is sometimes taken in
preference to doing nothing at all. In such a case, one
should be particularly careful not to malign any individuals
and one should convey in the message means for verifying the
claims made.
Back to top
9. Outside Resources
If, after the failure of internal conflict resolution
measures, you decide to take the matter outside the
organization, whether or not you decide to resign, care must
be taken in choosing where to go. In many cases, an obvious
place is a cognizant regulatory or law enforcement agency.
Other possibilities include Members of Congress (from one's
own district or state, or the head of a relevant committee),
state or local government officials or legislators, or public
interest organizations. Of course some combination of these
might be chosen. Although it is usually not a good idea to
take one's case directly to the news media, they generally
become involved eventually, usually in reporting actions
taken by whatever entity the engineer has contacted. One must
take special pains to be accurate and clear when dealing with
journalists so as to minimize sensationalism and distortion.
When given a choice among media organizations, choose those
with reputations for fairness and accuracy.
Guidance and support from one's professional society is
potentially a powerful aid to engineers in the kinds of
situations considered here. Efforts are under way within the
IEEE to improve the machinery for providing such support.
Regardless of whether one obtains professional society
support, it would be useful to engage an attorney to advise
on the many legal aspects of the situation. But in
considering their advice, one must take into account the
tendency of attorneys to discourage any acts accompanied by
legal risks.
Back to top
Conclusions
Following the above guidelines will often lead to a
satisfactory resolution of the problem at issue. However the
situations treated here are inherently difficult. No tactics
or strategies can guarantee a happy outcome. It takes courage
and dedication to risk one's job, or even career, on ethical
grounds. Many who have done so have suffered severe
consequences, at least in the short run. It is not uncommon
for the engineer's position to prevail, while the engineer is
fired. Sometimes, the immediate battle is lost, but the
result of the battle is that fewer such bad decisions are
made in the future. Finally, one should also consider the
personal consequences of yielding on a matter of principle
when the result may be severe harm to others. This can cause
a lifelong loss of self esteem.