Military Projects in the Workplace: Interviews and List of Interviewees
The project consisted primarily of interviews of five persons at different corporations concerning a short project scenario. The companies were chosen primarily on the basis of diversity in military involvement; my intent was to cover the spectrum from mostly commercial operations to primarily military contractors.
Each of the following interviews was conducted over the telephone, after the participant received a copy of the project scenario.
Interview 1
Person A of Company A began by saying that she had often thought about this issue, especially when she was looking for a job. She said that in her experience, about 20 percent of the people she knew who had been looking for jobs after college had not interviewed with strictly military companies. However, she said that no one had seemed really concerned about commercial companies with occasional military contracts; she thought that the fact that she went to a conservative college might have had something to do with that attitude. In a more personal example, she also mentioned her own sister, who initially refused "to go near a company that made weapons," eventually modified her opinion on the subject as time passed. Finally, she told me that she knew people who would react at both extremes, but that she would give me her general perception of people's attitudes.
When asked about the reaction of company management to this type of objection, Person A said that initially, they would say, "Fine," and help the Employee Q to find a job elsewhere in the company. However, she did not think that management would provide very much help. Recently, her company had begun a series of layoffs, and according to Person A, "the bottom line is most important." She also said that the objection would irritate the employee's manager(s).
Person A also said that one could expect Employee Q's fellow technical employees to be irritated as well, especially if it inconvenienced their work in some manner. She stressed that the reaction would be irritation, not anger. When I asked her if the objection would endanger Employee Q's chances for a promotion, she replied, "Yes," without hesitation, although she said that she was not sure to what extent they would be jeopardized.
If the project did not involve a weapon per se, Person A thought that the level of irritation within management would be higher, but that their actions would not be significantly different. Her answer to the question about where Employee Q might go to be heard was extremely interesting. She replied that the usual persons to speak with would be the employee's supervisor, the company ombuds, or another person in management trusted by the employee. However, she introduced a new twist to this conventional answer by saying that she did not know how either of the last two people could help.
Person A was extremely cooperative and candid during the interview, and she gave informative answers to every question I asked. It was evident that she had thought about issues like this one, and that she welcomed an opportunity to discuss the subject.
Back to Top
Interview 2
Person B, who also works at Company A, commented that "realistically," a situation like that in the scenario could happen anywhere and at any time. She could not think of any specific examples of cases like this occurring. Her prediction of the behavior of company management in the scenario was nearly identical to Person A's: she said that management would be initially supportive, and would try to assist Employee Q in finding another project or job. However, "when push came to shove," the attitude would become "work on it or leave." When asked about the reaction of fellow employees, she said that many factors were involved; for instance, if the military project meant a lot to the company in terms of generating needed profits, support might be lacking. She mentioned the various employee clubs and organizations within her company as a possible support groups for the employee. When asked whether the objection would jeopardize Employee Q's chances for a promotion, Person B replied without hesitation, "Invariably, sure. No matter what people might say."
If the project were not a weapon, Person B said that management would engage in a lot of rationalizing, and that Employee Q would feel a stronger persuasion to work on the project than if it were a weapon. However, she also repeated that the managers would still be initially supportive. Finally, she mentioned three different avenues for Employee Q to be heard: the supervisor, the ombuds, or the Affirmative Action (AA) committee. Regarding the second choice, she said she did not know who the ombuds was, and that it would take her two or three phone calls to find him or her. She elaborated on the last option by saying that the AA committee couldn't do anything about management's actions, but that they could talk the situation through with the employee. She also informed me that Person A was on the AA committee at that particular company location. Person A made no mention of the committee when I interviewed her.
Person B also appeared to have wrestled with these issues before. She commented that if she were assigned to a project, she would definitely not want to work on a "new weapon" like the one in the scenario, and would indeed prefer not to work on a military project at all. However, "you have to be realistic." She felt that if Corporation X is mostly commercial, a great deal of employee support should be expected in this type of situation, but if Corporation X works on many military contracts, employees should not expect as much support.
Back to Top
Interview 3
Person C said that he had no feeling for the military aspect of the scenario as that specific issue had not arisen during his time as a department head at Bell Laboratories. However, he said that in a more general sense, the situation in the scenario arises every day: employees are assigned to projects that they don't want to work on, for whatever reason.
According to Person C, the reaction from management to an objection like this would be quite reasonable. If Employee Q were adamant about refusing to work on the project, management would look for another opportunity elsewhere in the company. If no opportunity were found, management would say, "Hang in there." (The preceding statement bears an interesting relation to Person B's answer: "Work on it or leave.") He said that if he as a department head were confronted with situation, he would try to understand the reason for Employee Q's objection, and would try to work out an alternative project. If nothing else materialized, the employee would have to leave. (It was not clear whether he meant that the employee would have to leave the group or department, or that he or she would have to leave the company entirely.) He said that in his own experience, he had been about 50 percent successful in keeping employees on the job. "Sometimes you have to let them go," he claimed, "because they could make other employees miserable."
Person C felt that the reactions of other technical employees would cover an entire spectrum, from "go after what you want" to "you'd better be careful." Depending on the individual employee's networking within the organization, support could be very high. He said that if the project did not involve a weapon, his own approach would be the same, but Employee Q would probably feel less urgency about the objection.
To the question about resources for Employee Q, Person C's first reply was a humorous one: "the local saloon?" He then listed the resources that the employee would probably use, in order: family, peers, former managers, and immediate management. He accentuated his point by telling me that the immediate managers might be the last to find out about the problem, perhaps days or months later. Person C noted that employee responses to situations like this one are quite diverse; that is why management is so difficult. He also commented that Corporation X's financial situation would have a large bearing on the outcome of this situation. If the company is doing well, an objection will present very little risk; if the company is doing badly, employees will fear even raising an objection. This condition could be exacerbated if Corporation X's commercial side is in decline; military work might be financially necessary for the company.
Back to Top
Interview 4
Person D works at Company B. He told me that Company B is a federal contract service center, and that the military is one of their major customers. Therefore, if a person had a general objection to working on military projects, they would probably not choose to work at Company B. He said that he would consider Employee Q's objection to be to a single specific project, because of its specific objective or source of funding.
Person D thought that the management's reaction to an employee objection would vary with the individual case, but that generally an objection would be accepted. The manager would probably ask the employee (behind closed doors) the reason for the objection. According to Person D, managers would not harass employees, but would be likely to respond by saying, "Fine. There are enough projects that come by." However, according to Person D, if the employee objected to a more general class of projects, the objection would be self-limiting. Company B does contracting work for other non-military Federal agencies, such as the FAA, EPA, and NASA, but all of these contracts together make up only about 25 percent of the corporation's projects. Thus, when asked if the objection would endanger Employee Q's chances for a promotion, Person D answered, "No, but the less flexible you are, the fewer opportunities you have available to you." If an employee confines himself or herself to the non-military portion of Mitre's projects, he or she will have proportionately fewer opportunities to move upward within the company.
If the project did not relate specifically to a weapon, Mr. Krajewski said that questions would arise as to Employee Q's specific problem; management would probe more. He noted that the objection could be a "smokescreen" for a desire not to work under a certain individual or in a certain area of the building.
An employee with a problem like this one would first consult his or her group leader, according to Person D. If the problem were not solved at that level, the employee would meet with the group leader and the department head (second level management). If no resolution is possible, Company B makes it very easy for employees to transfer within the company. However, there is one constraint: once an employee transfers, that employee has to remain in the new position for at least 6 months. Person D also mentioned the Human Resources (Personnel) Department as a resource for counseling and advice. The problem resolution would have to come through management, by a transfer or otherwise. At no point did Person D mention a company ombuds; I am not sure that the position exists at Company B.
Back to Top
Interview 5
Person E, of Company C, provided short, terse answers to most of my questions, with very little elaboration. He said that the reaction from management to Employee Q's objection would be to try to find a way to reassign the employee, and that the objection would not be a "big deal." When asked about the reaction from other technical employees, he replied that "human beings are human beings," and that the objection would probably be an item of discussion for some very brief time. There would be no negative peer comment or pressure. He did not think that the objection would jeopardize Employee Q's chances for a promotion.
When asked about the case where the military project was not a weapon, Person E drew a distinction between types of projects. If the project involved a reconnaissance device, he could understand the complaint. If the project were a new rescue vehicle, he would wonder what the problem was. Presumably, Employee Q's objection arises from some moral code which values life; if the moral code values life, then work on a rescue vehicle should not be precluded.
Person E said that within Company C, an employee with this type of objection would go to the supervisor or manager. He did mention ombudspersons, but added that they were not present at all Company C locations. He said that the Professional Relations Manager (in Personnel) would serve as an ombuds where no official ombuds existed.
Person E confirmed the validity of the scenario by saying that in a mostly-commercial company such as Corporation X or such as his own, this type of situation would be considered completely normal. If a project were created under a military contract, some small minority of the employees would not want to work on it. He also mentioned an example where a certain employee wanted nothing to do with military work, and "we accommodated her, no sweat, no strain."
Francisco Juan Donez, MIT
Cite this page:
"Military Projects in the Workplace: Interviews and List of Interviewees"
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
4/10/2006
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
<www.onlineethics.org/Topics/LegalIssues/LegalEssays/milintro/milint.aspx>