Joseph Ellin's Commentary
Like many engineers written up in ethics cases, Michael
Green spends some of his time listening in on other people's
conversations. These informal investigations never prove
fruitless; Michael learns that Al House is abusing his company
privilege of borrowing tools.
Al is far senior to Mike and Mike won't confront him
directly. So he does the right thing and reports the abuse to
proper authority. Al is not impressed by Mike's loyalty to the
company and decides to determine who the stoolie is. He asks
everybody directly which one 'ratted' on him.
Obviously XYZ company has walked into this by allowing Al to
cross examine his subordinates. Evidently XYZ is not able to
deal effectively with this abuse of policy. Al's boss should
have made it clear to Al that the identity of the person who
'ratted' was confidential company information that he was not
to attempt to find out; presumably Al is in enough hot water
already not to want to disobey this order. And the other
engineers in Al's unit should have been notified not to
cooperate with Al if he should try to question them.
Is XYZ company really interested in preventing abuse of
privileges? If they are, Michael would seem pretty secure in
simply admitting to Al that it was he who turned him in. What
can Al do about it, since presumably Michael is protected by
Al's superiors? Any retaliation Al takes against Michael can be
reported, and Al gets into deeper trouble. But if this seems
too risky to Michael, he can refuse to answer, telling Al that
he doesn't think it's an appropriate question to be put to a
fellow engineer (which it isn't). Al can draw his own
conclusions, but since he's clever enough to figure out that
one of the other engineers in the unit might have turned him in
and then lied about it, Michael's refusal to answer might not
only protect Mike from Al's retaliation but might earn him a
couple of points in Al's mind as someone who can't be easily
intimidated. Meanwhile Michael should report Al's attempt at
intimidation and make it clear that he expects XYZ to protect
him if Al should retaliate. Michael is actually in the stronger
position here and should make use of his advantage.
Instead, Michael lies to Al. There are cases in which lying
is the only way out, but this doesn't seem to be one of
them.
Cite this page:
"Joseph Ellin's Commentary"
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
3/27/2006
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Thursday, February 09, 2012
<www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/CompanyResources/CompanyResourcesEllin.aspx>