Engineering Ethics
Case Study
Art
Madsen, M.Ed.
Engineering Case Analysis
The problem to be resolved is essentially summarized as follows: Was Engineer A ethically correct in casually mentioning to the CEO his desire, or professional need, to participate in a company-approved Conference, in spite of his immediate supervisor’s opposition to his attendance?
The Two Sides of the Case
On the one hand, it could be stated that Engineer A was wrong,
because he clearly violated the chain of command by inappropriately discussing
with the CEO his need to attend the Conference. This justifiably angered his
boss, Engineer B.
On the other hand, Engineer A could be considered correct
in approaching the CEO because his own superior was clearly disregarding
Company Policy pertaining to Conference
attendance.
In my opinion, this is not specifically an “ethical” issue in the true sense of the NSPE Code of Ethics because it does not concern a professional engineering decision that directly affects the lives of clients or the general public. Instead, it seems to be an administrative dilemma that involves personalities and relationships, rather than purely ethical considerations. Even if it could be considered a violation of hierarchy, the overriding priority is the advancement of company interests through employee attendance at such Conferences. Thus, it is clearly in the interest of the Company that Engineer A attend this conference, and both the CEO and Company Rules agree with this approach. Engineer B may have had departmental priorities that required Engineer A to remain on the job, but he should have explained this to Engineer A and to the CEO, which he appears not to have done.
In summary, therefore, this
lack of apparent logic on the part of Engineer B left the door open for
Engineer A to seek a solution to his desire, and professional need, to attend
the Conference. At the first opportunity,
it was “natural”, not “unethical”, for him to obtain proper
implementation of Company Policy on Conference Attendance. He did so at the time of his unanticipated
meeting with the CEO.
In the case study there seems to be no deliberate attempt
on the part of Engineer A to upstage or disobey his immediate supervisor, but
rather to seek a “just” solution to his Conference request.
Given the foregoing, it would be best for Engineer A to
explain to the CEO that his superior, Engineer B, felt upset by B’s decision
having been overridden by the CEO.
Engineer A could ask the CEO to speak with Engineer B and smooth over
the situation diplomatically. All three
of the parties involved should be aware that Company Policy on Conference
Attendance takes priority over emotions and misunderstandings. Ethics were not
involved in this case, in the formal sense.
Rather, it was an administrative problem.