Available under Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/3d8499e9-08c0-47dd-9482-7e8131ce99bc@11.15
Sources
- Computing Cases is the primary source for the material below on responsible dissent. It is based on the materials for responsibly carrying out dissent and disagreement that was formerly posted at the IEEE website. The IEEE has since taken this material down.
- The Online Ethics Center has also posted the IEEE material on responsible dissent. The origin of this material as well as a thorough discussion of its content can be found in Carolyn Whitbek, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research: 2nd Edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Chapter 7, "Workplace Rights and Responsibilities, pp. 227-269.
- Much of this material (IEEE Guidelines and a discussion of Dissenting Professional Opinion Guidelines) can be found in Chapter 7 ("Averting the Conflict at the Source")in the following: Stephen H., Unger, Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer: 2nd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, INC.
Generic Forms of Dissent
- Gather more information
- Nolo Contendere (Don't fight it. Go along.)
- Oppose diplomatically. Offer your supervisor alternatives to the wrong he or she has ordered.
- Oppose by confronting. Threaten to go over your supervisor's head or threaten to blow the whistle.
- Distance yourself. Ask to be transferred to another section to avoid being implicated in the wrongdoing.
- Exit. Quit and do nothing or quit and blow the whistle.
- Document your position if your company has a Dissenting Professional Opinion process. If it doesn't, work to have one implemented. By establishing your opposition, you distance yourself morally from the wrong you have documented.
- Which one is right? Use your tests. Which does the best job of satisfying the three ethics tests of reversibility, harm, and publicity? Which does the best job with the ADEM values: justice, responsibility, respect, trust, and integrity?
Introduction to Circumstances of Compromise
The following presents the circumstances of compromise as laid down by Martin Benjamin in Splitting the Difference. (See below for complete reference.) Benjamin provides five conditions that indicate when a compromise may be necessary. But he also argues that integrity helps draw a line beyond which compromise must not go. One should not sacrifice basic beliefs that constitute one's personal identity or self system. A good example of using integrity to draw the line on compromise can be found in the characterization of Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons. (See also the movie of the same name.) In the preface to the play, Bolt explicitly presents what follows as an exercise in articulating and testing integrity.
Circumstances of Compromise
- Under these conditions it may be necessary to "split the difference."
- Factual uncertainty
- Moral complexity.
- Continuing Cooperative Relationship
- Decision cannot be deferred
- Scarcity of Resources
More on Moral Complexity
Martin Benjamin in Splitting the Difference quotes John Rawls on moral complexity: "Diversity naturally arises from our limited powers and distinct perspectives; it is unrealistic to suppose that all our differences are rooted in ignorance and perversity, or else in the rivalries that result from scarcity....Deep and unresolvable differences on matters of fundamental significance...[must be acknowledged] as a permanent condition of human life."
Application of Circumstances of Compromise
- Factual Uncertainty. Where are the chips under consideration going? If they go to an essential system in an operative technology, then their malfunctioning could lead to loss of life. If they go to a non-essential system (like a prototype being tested) then maybe the testing process can be streamlined. This may require compromise between Hughes management, chip-testing team, and customers.
- Moral Complexity: How should an employee like LaRue weigh his loyalty to supervisors and company and his obligation to the public and client? Setting aside his harassment of Gooderal, is Saia's position (or at least a part of it) morally defensible?
- Continuing cooperative relationship: How important should it be to Gooderal that she needs to sustain her relationship with her supervisor, LaRue, for the long term? How important is it that Hughes managers respond to difficult messages rather than attempt to "shoot the messenger." (Again, thinking in terms of continuing cooperative relationship?)
- Decision cannot be deferred: Why is it impossible to defer the decision on whether to respond to test skipping? This case poses several difficult constraints . How many of these can be "pushed back" through negotiation? Could Saia use his newly found accessibility to customers to negotiate with them an extension on the delivery deadlines?
- Scarcity of resources: How are the resources of time, personnel, and money scarce in this case? Is there any way to push back these constraints by negotiating more time (extending deadlines for delivering chips), personnel (bringing in additional people to test chips), and resources (developing better tools to test chips more quickly). Could, for example, it be possible to transfer Hughes employees from other areas to help out, temporarily, on chip testing?
Ethical Dissent
- Establish a clear technical foundation.
- Keep your arguments on a high professional plane, as impersonal and objective as possible, avoiding extraneous issues and emotional outbursts.
- Try to catch problems early, and keep the argument at the lowest managerial level possible.
- Before going out on a limb, make sure that the issue is sufficiently important.
- Use (and help establish) organizational dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Keep records and collect paper.
- These items originate with the IEEE which has dropped them from their website. They can be accessed through the link above with the Online Ethics Center; the list there is more complete. The above is quoted from the Computing Cases website: http://computingcases.org/case materials/hughes/support docs/whistleblowing/ethical dissent.html.
Before Going Public
- Make sure of your motivation.
- Count your costs.
- Obtain all the necessary background materials and evidence.
- Organize to protect your own interests.
- Choose the right avenue for your disclosure.
- Make your disclosure in the right spirit.
- These items come from the IEEE (see online ethics link) and from the manuscript of Good Computing by Chuck Huff, William Frey, and Jose Cruz.
Places to Go
- Government Agencies
- Judicial Systems
- Legislators
- Advocacy Groups
- News Media
- In Puerto Rico, laws 14 and 426 have been passed to protect those who would blow the whistle on government corruption. The Ofcina de Etica Gubernamental de Puerto Rico has a whistle blower's hotline. See link above.
When to Blow the Whistle.
- Serious and Considerable Harm
- Notification of immediate supervisor.
- Exhaustion of internal channels of communication/appeal.
- Documented Evidence.
- Likelihood of successful resolution.
- When the first three conditions are satisfied, whistle-blowing is morally permissible. (You may do it but you are not required or obligated to do it.) This is because you have brought your concerns before decision-makers, given them a chance to respond, and, in the face of their unwillingness to do so, still find the issue of great importance.
- When all five conditions are satisfied, then whistle-blowing becomes morally obligatory. In this case, you have a moral duty to blow the whistle. Here, your duty is grounded in your responsibility to inform those who are likely to be harmed by the wrongdoing.
References
- Richard T. De George, "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case," in Ethical Issues in Engineering, ed. Deborah G. Johnson (1991) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: 175-186.
- Carolyn Whitbeck (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. U.K. Cambridge University Press: 55-72 and 176-181.
- Charles Harris, Michael Pritchard and Michael Rabins (2005) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth: 203-206.
- 1199 reads
