1. The document discusses the relationship between engineers and managers in organizations and how to navigate ethical issues. It outlines that engineers and managers may have different perspectives and priorities. 2. Engineers should understand an organization's culture to know how issues are framed and to act responsibly. There are three main types of cultures: engineer-oriented, customer-oriented, and finance-oriented. 3. Decisions can be either proper engineering decisions (PED), which require engineering expertise, or proper management decisions (PMD), which involve factors like cost and scheduling.

1. Engineers and Managers
ENGINEERS IN
ORGANIZATIONS

2. Main Ideas
 The common law doctrine of employment at will
has been modified by the courts and by statutes to
give some protection to employees in the
workplace

3. Main Ideas
 Employees should become familiar with the
culture of the organization in which they are
employed and take advantage of organizational
resources in order to enhance their own integrity
and independence

4. Main Ideas
 Engineers and managers have different
perspectives, both legitimate, and it is useful to
distinguish between decisions that should be
made by managers or from the management
perspective and decisions that should be made by
engineers or from the engineering perspective

5. Main Ideas
 Sometimes organizational disobedience is
necessary. There is disobedience by contrary
action and disobedience by nonparticipation, but
the most widely discussed type of organizational
disobedience is whistle blowing. Theories have
been developed of justified whistle blowing

6. Main Ideas
 Roger Boisjoly’s attempt to stop the launch of the
Challenger illustrates the conflict between
management and engineering perspectives in
decision making. His testimony before the Rogers
Commission raises questions about when whistle
blowing is justified

7. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 Paul Lorenz was a mechanical engineer employed
by Martin Marietta. He was laid off on July 25,
1975, for allegedly failing to engage in acts of
deception and misrepresentation concerning the
quality of materials used by Martin Marietta in
designing equipment for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
 The equipment was for the external tank of the
space shuttle program
 Before he was laid off, Lorenz was informed that
he should “start playing ball with management”

8. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 After being laid off, Mr. Lorenz filed a tort claim
against Martin Marietta for wrongful discharge on
the grounds that he was fired for refusing to
perform an illegal act
 Federal law does prohibit knowingly and willingly
making a false representation to a federal agency
 Lower courts rejected Lorenz’s claim on the
grounds that Colorado recognizes no claim of
wrongful discharge against employers

9. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 In 1992, the Colorado Supreme court concluded
that “Lorenz did present sufficient evidence at
trial to establish a prima facie case for wrongful
discharge under the public-policy exception to
the at-will employment doctrine.”
 The Court directed a new trial in accordance with
its findings, but the new trials never took place,
probably because of an out-of-court settlement
between Mr. Lorenz and his former employer

10. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 The Lorenz case is an important case in the
development of the law regarding the rights of
professional employees in the workplace.
 The crucial idea in the case was the so-called
“public-policy exception” to the traditional
common law doctrine of “employment at will.”
 Traditionally, U.S. law has been governed by the
common law doctrine of “employment at will,”
which holds that in the absence of a contract, an
employer may discharge an employee at any time
and for virtually any reason

11. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 Recent court decisions, such as this one, have held
that the traditional doctrine must be modified if
there is an important interest at stake.
 Precisely how far the public policy exception
extends is still being formulated by the courts, but
it includes such things as . . .
 A refusal to the break the law
 Performing an important public obligation
 Exercising a clear legal right
 Protecting the public from a clear threat to health and
safety

12. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 In addition to the judicial modification of at-will
employment, dissenting employees have also
received some statutory protection, primarily
through whistle blower laws
 The first such state law was passed in Michigan in
1981
 If the employee is unfairly disciplined for reporting
an alleged violation of federal, state, or local law to
public authorities, the employee can be awarded
back pay, reinstatement to the job, costs of
litigation, and attorney’s fees.

13. The Caseof Paul Lorenz
 Many cases in the area of what might very
generally be called “employee rights” involve
nonprofessional employees, but our special
interest is professional employees, especially
engineers
 Many of the cases, like the Lorenz case, involve a
conflict between professional employees and
managers
 In fact, most of the classic cases in engineering
ethics involve conflicts between engineers and
managers

14. The Pessimistic Account
ENGINEERS AND MANAGERS
“There is a natural conflict between management and professionals because of
their differences in educational background, socialization, values, vocational
interests, work habits, and outlook” – Joseph Raelin

15. Engineersand Managers
 First, although engineers may not always maintain as
much identity with their wider professional
community as some other professionals (e.g., research
scientists), engineers do often experience a conflict
between loyalty to their employer and loyalty to their
profession
 Most engineers want to be loyal employees who are
concerned about the financial well-being of their firms
and who carry out instruction from their superiors
without protest
 At the same time, as engineers they are also obligated
to hold paramount the health, safety, and welfare of
the public

16. Engineersand Managers
 Second, many managers are not engineers and do
not have engineering expertise, so communication
is often difficult.
 Engineers sometimes complain that they have to
use oversimplified language in explaining
technical matters to managers and that their
managers do not really understand the
engineering issues

17. Engineersand Managers
 Third, many engineers who are not managers
aspire to the management role in the future, where
the financial rewards and prestige are perceived to
be greater
 Thus many engineers who do not yet occupy the
dual roles of engineer and manager probably
expect to do so at some time in their careers
 This conflict can be internalized within the same
person because many engineers have roles as both
engineers and managers

18. Engineersand Managers
 For example, Robert Lund, vice president for
engineering at Morton Thiokol at the time of the
Challenger disaster, was both an engineer and a
manager.
 Before the disaster, Lund was even directed by his
superior to take the managerial rather than the
engineering perspective

19. Engineersand Managers
 This account of the differences between the
perspectives of engineers and managers suggests
the possibility of frequent conflicts
 This prediction is confirmed by a well-known
study by sociologist Robert Jackall

20. Engineersand Managers
1. Jackall’s study implied that managers have a
strong and probably overriding concern for the
well-being of the organization. Well-being is
measured primarily in financial terms, but it also
includes a good public image and relatively
conflict free operation
2. Managers have few, if any, loyalties that
transcend their perceived obligations that they
might consider to override or even
counterbalance their obligations to the
organization

21. The Importance of Organizational Culture
BEING MORALLY
RESPONSIBLE

22. Being Morally Responsible in an Organization
Without Getting Hurt
 In order to be morally responsible in an
organization without suffering the fate of the
employees in Jackall’s study, engineers must first
have some understanding of the organization in
which they are employed.
 This knowledge helps engineers to understand:
1. How they and their managers tend to frame issues
under the influence of the organization and
2. How one can act in the organization effectively,
safely, and in a morally responsible way

23. Being Morally Responsible in an Organization
Without Getting Hurt
 Dennis Gioia was a manager at Ford
 He made the recommendation not to recall the Pinto,
even though the car had been involved in the tragic
deaths of passengers after relatively minor accidents
 He describes his experience at Ford as follows:
 “My own schematized . . . knowledge influenced me
to perceive recall issues in terms of the prevailing
decision environment and to unconsciously overlook
key features of the Pinto case, mainly because they did
not fit an existing script. Although the outcomes of
the case carry retrospectively obvious ethical
overtones, the schemas driving my perceptions and
actions precluded considerations of the issues in
ethical terms because the scripts did not include
ethical dimensions”

24. THREE TYPES OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

25. Engineer-Oriented Companies
 In these firms, there is general agreement that quality
takes priority over other considerations, except safety.
In the words of one manager, “We have overdesigned
our products and would rather lose money than
diminish our reputation.”
 Engineers often described their relationship to
managers in these kinds of firms as one in which
negotiation or arriving at consensus was prominent
 Engineers often said that managers would rarely
overrule them when there was a significant
engineering issue, although they might make the final
decision when primarily such issues such as cost or
marketing are involved

26. Customer-Oriented Companies
 Decision making is similar to that of engineer-
oriented firm, but with four significant differences
1. Managers think of engineers as advocates of a
point of view different from their own. Whereas
managers must focus on such business factors as
timing and cost, engineers should focus on
quality and safety
2. More emphasis is placed on business
considerations than in engineer-oriented
companies

27. Customer-Oriented Companies
1. As with engineer-oriented companies, safety
outranks quality. Sometimes quality can be
sacrificed to get the product out the door
2. Communication between engineers and
managers may be somewhat more difficult than
in engineer-oriented forms. Managers are more
concerned about engineers’ withholding
information, even though consensus is highly
valued

28. Finance-Oriented Companies
 These firms are more centralized and this has
important consequences.
 For example, engineers may receive less
information for making decisions and
consequently their decisions are given less weight
by managers
 Managers are less inclined to try and reach
consensus, and engineers are seen as having a
“staff” and advisory function

29. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
 Acting in an ethical manner and with little harm to
oneself is generally easier in engineer-oriented and
customer-oriented companies than in finance-
oriented companies
 In the first two types of firms, more respect is
given to the types of values with which engineers
are typically concerned, especially quality and
safety
 Communication is better, and there is more
emphasis on arriving at decisions by consensus
rather than the authority of the managers

30. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
1st, engineers and other employees should be
encouraged to report bad news.

31. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
2nd, companies and their employees should adopt a
position of “critical” loyalty rather than uncritical
or blind loyalty

32. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
3rd, when making criticisms and suggestions,
employees should focus on issues rather than
personalities

33. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
4th, written records should be kept of suggestions
and especially of complaints

34. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
5th, complaints should be kept as confidential as
possible for the protection of both the individuals
involved and the firm

35. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
6th, provisions should be made for neutral
participants from outside the organization when
the dispute requires it

36. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
7th, explicit provision for protection from retaliation
should be made, with mechanisms for complaint if
an employee believes he or she has experienced
retaliation

37. Acting Ethicallywithout Having to Make
Difficult Choices
8th, The process for handling organizational
disobedience should proceed as quickly as possible

38. Functions of Engineers and Managers
PROPER ENGINEERING AND
MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

39. Functionsof Engineersand Managers
 How should we establish the boundary between
decisions that should be made by engineers and
those that should be made by managers?
 The primary function of engineers within an
organization is to use their technical knowledge
and training to create structures, products, and
processes that are of value to the organization and
its customers
 The function and consequent perspective of
managers is different. Their function is to direct
the activities of the organization, including the
activities of the engineers

40. Functionsof Engineersand Managers
 These considerations suggest a distinction
between what we call a proper engineering decision
(PED), a decision that should be made by
engineers or from an engineering perspective, and
what we call a proper management decision
(PMD), a decision that should be made by
managers or from the management perspective

41. Functionsof Engineersand Managers
PED: a decision that should be made by engineers or
at least governed by professional engineering
standards because it either . . .
1. involves technical matters that require
engineering expertise or . . .
2. falls within the ethical standards embodied in
engineering codes, especially those that require
engineers to protect the health and safety of the
public.

42. Functionsof Engineersand Managers
PMD: a decision that should be made by managers
or at least governed by management
considerations because . . .
1. it involves factors relating to the well-being of the
organization, such as cost, scheduling, and
marketing, and employee morale or welfare; and . . .
2. the decision does not force engineers (or other
professionals) to make unacceptable compromises
with their own technical or ethical standards.

43. Responsible Organizational Disobedience
1. Disobedience by contrary action, which is
engaging in activities contrary to the interest of
the company, as perceived by management
2. Disobedience by nonparticipation, which is
refusing to carry out an assignment because of
moral or professional objections
3. Disobedience by protest, which is actively and
openly protesting a policy or action of an
organization

44. What is Whistle Blowing?
 The origin and exact meaning of the metaphor of
whistle blowing are uncertain.
 There are three possible sources of the metaphor:
1. A train sounding a whistle to warn people to get off
the track
2. A referee blowing a whistle to indicate a foul
3. A police officer blowing a whistle to stop wrongdoing

45. What is Whistle Blowing?
The problem with all of these metaphors is that
they depict whistle blowers as outsiders, whereas a
whistle blower is more like a team player who calls
a foul play on his own team.
“One who reveals wrong doing within an
organization to the public or those in positions of
authority.” – American Heritage Dictionary

46. What is Whistle Blowing?
One reveals information that the organization
does not want revealed to the public or some
authority
One does this out of approved channels

47. Whistle Blowing is morally permissible if
1. The harm that “will be done by the product to
the public is serious and considerable”;
2. The employees report their concern to their
superiors, and;
3. “Getting no satisfaction from their immediate
superiors, they exhaust the channels available”
within the organization

48. Whistle Blowing is morally obligatory if
1. The employee has “documented evidence that
would convince a responsible, impartial observer
that his view of the situation is correct and the
company is wrong”; and
2. The employee has “strong evidence that making
the information public will in fact prevent the
threatened serious harm.”

49. Some Practical Adviceon Whistle Blowing
1st , take advantage of any formal or informal
processes your organization may have for making
a protest
2nd , determine whether it is better to keep your
protest as confidential as possible or involve
others in the process
3rd , focus on issues, not personalities
4th , keep written records of the process
5th , present positive suggestions in association with
your objection

50. Whistle Blowing and Organizational Loyalty
 Boisjoly’s attempt in the teleconference to stop the
launch was probably not an instance of whistle
blowing
 It certainly was not an instance of external whistle
blowing because Boisjoly made no attempt to alert
the public or officials outside Thiokol and NASA
 His actions on the night before the launch were
probably not even internal whistle blowing
because . . .

51. Whistle Blowing and Organizational Loyalty
1. They did not involve revealing information that
was not known (rather, they made arguments
about the information already available) and
2. He did not go out of approved channels
 His testimony before the Rogers Commission,
however, might be considered a case of whistle
blowing because it did fulfill these two criteria

52. Whistle Blowing and Organizational Loyalty
 His testimony revealed information that the
general public did not know, and it used channels
outside the organization, namely the Rogers
Commission.
Members of the
Rogers Commission
arrive at the
Kennedy Space
Center.