8.5
RESPONSI BLE ORGANIZATIONAL
DISOBEDIENCE
Sometimes engineers attempting
to be both loyal employees
and responsible professionals and citizens encounter
difficulties. The engineer
finds herself in a position
of having to oppose
her managers or her organization. Jim Otten finds the expression Òorganizational disobedience" appropriate
as a generic term
to cover all types of actions taken by an employee that are contrary
to the wishes of her employer.
Given the similarities between this kind of action and civil
disobedience, the term seems appropriate.23 We do not follow OttenÕs definition exactly, but we use his expression and define organizational disobedience as a protest of, or refusal to follow, an organizational policy or action.
It is helpful to keep the following two points about organizational disobedience in mind. First, the policy that a professional employee disobeys
or protests may be either
specific or general.
It may be a specific directive
of a superior or a general organizational policy, either a single act or a continuing series of actions.
Second, the employer
may not intend to do anything morally
wrong. For example, when an engineer objects
to the production of a faulty type of steel pipe, he is not necessarily claiming that his firm intends
to manufacture a shoddy product. Rather, he is objecting to a series
of actions that would probably
result in unfortunate consequences, however
unintended.
There are at lest three distinct areas in which
responsible engineers might be involved
in organizational disobedience:
1.
Disobedience by contrary action,
which is engaging
in activities contrary
to the interests of the company,
as perceived by management.
2.
Disobedience by nonparticipation, which is re using 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.
What guidelines should the responsible engineer use in deciding when to engage in organizational disobedience in these areas, and how should he or she carry out this disobedience? We consider the first two types of organizational disobedience in this section and the third type in the next.
Disobedience by Contrary Action
Engineers may sometimes find that their actions
outside the workplace are objectionable to managers. Objections by managers are usually in one of two
areas. First, man agers
may believe that a
particular action or perhaps the general lifestyle of an employee
reflects unfavorably on
the organization. For
example, an engineer might be a member of a political group that is generally held in low esteem by the community. Second, managers
may believe that some activities of employees are contrary to the interests
of the organization in a more direct way. For example, an engineer may be a member of a local environmental group that is pressuring his or her company
to install antipollution equipment that is not required
by law or is lobbying
to keep the company from purchasing some wetland area that it intends to drain and use for plant expansion.
In an actual case, Mr. Novosel publicly
opposed his employer in a public debate and referendum and was dismissed.24 How should
an engineer handle such delicate
situations?
Although
we cannot investigate all of the issues fully here, a few observations are essential. Disobedience by contrary
action is not a paradigm
case of harm to the organization (compared, for example, with theft or fraud ), and its restriction by the organization is not a paradigm case of restriction of individual freedom
(compared, for example, with a direction
to do something the employee
thinks is seriously
immoral). Nevertheless, they are examples
of harm to the individual and the organization. Let us consider some of the arguments that
might be offered to confirm this claim.
On the one hand, there
is no doubt that an organization can be harmed
in some sense by the actions
of employees outside
the workplace. A company that has a reputation for hiring people whose lifestyles are offensive to the local community may not be able to hire highly desirable people, and it may lose business
as well. The harm that an organization may suffer is even more obvious
when
employees engage in political activities that are directly
contrary to the interests of the organization. A manager can argue with some persuasiveness that the simplistic assertion that nothing
the employee does after 5 oÕclock affects
the organization does not do justice to the realities
of business and community
lite. On these grounds, a manager might assert that the organization Ôs right to
the loyalty of its employees
requires the employee not to harm the organization in these ways.
On the other hand, an employeeÕ s freedom suffers substantial curtailment if organizational restrictions force her to curtail activities to which she has a deep personal commitment. Nor can the manager persuasively argue that employees
should simply resign if management finds
their activities outside
the workplace objectionable because the same activities might
harm other organizations in the same way. Thus, consistently applying the argument that employees should never do anything that harms the organization results in the conclusion that employees should never engage in
lifestyles or political activities that are controversial. This amounts to a substantial limitation of an employeeÕs freedom.
In surveying these arguments, we believe that a good case can be made that organizations should
not punish employees
for disobedience by contrary action. Punishing employees
for disobedience by contrary action amounts to a considerable infringement on individual freedom. Moreover, employees
may not be able to avoid this type of harm to organizations simply by changing
jobs. Many organizations might be harmed by an engineerÕs political views or efforts on behalf of the environment. Thus, allowing this type of harm to count as justification for organizational
control permits organizations to exert considerable influence over an employeeÕs
life outside the workplace.
In a society that values individual freedom as much as ours does, such a substantial abridgement of individual freedom
is difficult to justify.
Despite
these considerations, however,
many managers will act strenuously when they believe they or their organizations are threatened by actions of employees out side the workplace. Therefore, two observations may be appropriate.
First, some actions
by employees outside
the workplace harm an organization more directly
than others. An engineerÕs campaign
for tighter restrictions on her own companyÕs environmental pollution will probably
have a more direct effect on her company
than an engineerÕs private
sexual life. Employees should be more careful in areas in which the harm to their organization is more direct.
Second, there can be a major difference in the degree to which curtailment of an employeeÕs activities
outside the workplace
encroaches on his freedom. Curtailment
of activities closely associated with
oneÕs personal identity and with strong moral or religious beliefs is more serious
than limitation of activities that are associated with more peripheral beliefs. Therefore, employees should allow themselves more freedom in areas that are closely
related to their basic personal
commitments than in areas
more peripheral to their most important concerns.
Disobedience by Non participation
In
one of the most famous legal cases that falls in this category, Dr. Grace Pierce, a physician, strongly objected to some impending tests
on humans of a drug for diarrhea.
Dr. Pierce had not actually
refused to participate in the conduct of the tests,
but the firm assumed that she would refuse and transferred her to another area. She eventually
resigned.25 Engineers are most likely
to engage in disobedience by nonparticipation in projects that are related
to the military and in projects that may adversely
affect the environment. Engineer James, a pacifist, may discover that the underwater detection system that his company
has contracted to build has military applications and thereupon request
to be relieved of an assignment to the project.
Engineer Betty may request not to be asked to design 乳 condominium that will be built in a wetland area.
Disobedience by nonparticipation can be based on professional ethics or personal ethics.
Engineers who refuse to design a product
that they believe is unsafe can base their objections
on their professional codes, which require engineers to give preeminence to considerations of public safety,
health, and welfare.
Engineers who refuse to design a product that
has military applications because of their
personal objections to the use of violence must
base their refusal
on personal morality
because the codes do not prohibit engineers from participating in military projects. The basis of objections to participating in projects that engineers believe
are harmful to the environment is more controversial. Some of the engineering codes have statements about the environment and some do not; when present, the statements are usually very general
and not always easy to interpret.
Several things should be kept in mind about disobedience by nonparticipation.
First, it is possible (although
perhaps unlikely) for an employee
to abuse
the appeal to conscience, using it as a way to avoid projects he finds boring or not challenging or as a way to avoid
association with other employees
with whom he has personal
difficulties. An employee should be careful to avoid any behavior that would
support this interpretation of his or her actions.
Second, it is sometimes difficult
for employers to honor a request to be removed from a work assignment. For example, there may be no alternative assignments, there may be no other engineer
who is qualified to do the work, or the change may be disruptive
to the organization. These problems
are especially severe
in small organizations.
Nevertheless, we believe an organization, when it can do
so, should honor most requests for nonparticipation in a project when the requests are based on conscience or a belief that the project violates professional standards. Common morality
holds that a violation of oneÕs conscience is a serious moral matter. Employers should not force employees
to make a choice between losing their job or violating personal
or professional standards. Sometimes employers may not have any alternative work assignments, but many organizations have found ways to respect employees Ôviews without undue economic sacrifice.
8.6 DISOBE DI E NCE BY PROTEST
We have saved this third type of organizational protest for a separate section because it is the best known and most extensively discussed form of organizational disobedience. In some situations, engineers
find the actions of the employer to be so objectionable that they believe
mere nonparticipation in the objectionable activity is insufficient. Rather, some form of protest,
or Òwhistle blowingÓ is required. We begin
by making some general comments
about whistleblowing and then consider two important theories
of whistle blowing.
What Is Whistleblowing?
The origin and exact meaning of the metaphor
of whistleblowing are uncertain. According
to Michael Davis, there are three possible sources
of the metaphor: a train sounding a whistle to warn people to get off the track, a referee blowing a whistle to indicate a foul, or a police officer blowing
a whistle to stop wrongdoing.26 One problem
with all of these metaphors, as Davis points out, is that they depict whistleblowers as outsiders, whereas a whistleblower is more like a team player who calls a foul play on his own
team. This ÒinsiderÓ aspect is suggested
by the American Heritage Dictionary 's definition of a whistleblower as Òone who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.Ó This suggests
two characteristics of whistleblowing: ( 1) One reveals information that the organization does not want revealed to the public
or some authority and (2) one does this out of approved channels.
An important distinction is between
internal and external whistleblowing. In internal whistleblowing, the alarm about wrongdoing stays within the organization, although the whistle
blower may bypass his immediate
superiors, especially if they are involved
in
the wrongdoing. In external whistleblowing, the whistle blower goes outside the organization, alerting
a regulatory organization or the press.
An other important distinction
is between open and anonymous whistleblowing. In open whistleblowing, the whistleblower reveals his identity, whereas in anonymous whistleblowing the whistleblower attempts
to keep his identity secret.
Whether internal or external, open or anonymous,
however, a whistleblower is usually defined as a person who is an insider, one who is a part of the organization. For this reason, the question of loyalty
always arises. A whistle blower
Ôs actions are acts of disloyalty
to his or her organization.27 Therefore, whistleblowing needs a justification.
LetÕs look at the two major approaches to the justification of whistleblowing. One uses primarily utilitarian considerations and the other employs considerations more appropriate to the standpoint of respect
for persons.
Whistleblowing: A Harm-Preventing Justification
Richard DeGeorge
has provided a set of criteria
that must be satisfied before
whistleblowing can be morally justified.28 DeGeorge believes
that whistleblowing is morally permissible if
1. the harm that "will be
done by the product to the public
is serious and considerableÓ;
2. the employees report their concern
to their superiors, and;
3. Ògetting no satisfaction from their immediate
superiors,
they exhaust the channels availableÓ within the organization.
DeGeorge believes that whistleblowing is morally obligatory if
1. the employee
has Òdocumented evidence
that would convince
a responsible, impartial observer
that his view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrongÓ; and
2.
the employee has "strong evidence
that making the information public
will in fact prevent the threatened serious
harm."
Notice that the criteria involve
a balancing of harms and benefits in a typical utilitarian fashion.
There is potential
harm to the public,
and this is what initiates the considerations that whistleblowing might
be justified . The public will benefit if these harms are eliminated . There is also potential harm to the organization, and the prospective whistleblower must attempt to minimize this harm by first trying to use available channels within the organization . There is also potential harm to the whistleblower, and the risk of harm
must only be undertaken when there is some assurance
t hat others would be convinced of the wrong and the harm might be prevented. There is no reason, DeGeorge
seems to believe,
to risk oneÕs career if there is little
chance the whistleblowing will have the desired effect. Taken as general tests for justified
or required whistleblowing, however, DeGeorgeÕs criteria are subject to criticisms.29
1.
The first criterion seems too strong.
DeGeorge seems to assume that the employee
must know that harm will result
and that the harm must be great. Sometime an employee
is not in a position
to gather evidence
that is totally convincing. Perhaps
just believing on the basis of the best evidence
available that harm will result
is sufficient.
2. It should
not always be necessary for employees to report their criticisms to their superiors. Often, oneÕs immediate
superiors are the cause of the problem
and cannot
be trusted to give unbiased
evaluation of the situation.
3.
It should not always be necessary
to exhaust the organizational chain of command.
Sometimes there is not time to do this before a disaster
will occur. Also, some
times employees have no effective way to make their protests
known to higher management except by going public.
4.
It is not always possible
to get documented evidence of a problem.
0丘en, organizations deprive
employees of access to the vital information needed to make a conclusive argument for their position. They deprive protesting employees of access to computers and other sources of information necessary to make their case.
5.
The obligation to make the protest may not always mean there will be strong evidence that a protest
will prevent the harm. Just giving those
exposed to a harm the chance to give free and informed
consent to the potential
harm is often a sufficient justification of the protest.
6.
Some have argued
that if the whistleblower does not have evidence that would convince
a reasonable, impartial
observer that her view of the situation is correct (criterion 4), her whistle blowing
could not prevent
harm and would not even be morally permissible, much less obligatory. Thus, if criterion
4 is not fulfilled, whis
tleblowing might not even be permissible.30
Whistleblowing: A Complicity-Avoiding View
Michael Davis has proposed a very different theory of the justification of whistleblowing :ÒWe might understand whistleblowing better if we understand the whistleblowerÕs obligation to derive from the need to avoid
complicity in wrongdoing rather than from the ability
to prevent harm.Ó31 Davis formulates his Òcomplicity theory
Ó in the following way.
You are morally required
to reveal what you know to the public (or to a suitable agent or representative of it) when
( C1) what you will reveal derives from your work for an organization; (C2) you are a voluntary
member of that organization;
(C3) you believe that the organization, though legitimate, is engaged in a serious moral wrong;
(C4) you believe
that your work for that organization will contribute (more or
less directly) to the wrong if ( but not only if) you do not publicly reveal what you know;
( C5) you are justified
in beliefs
C3 and C4; and (C6) beliefs C3 and C4 are true.32
According to complicity theory, the moral motivation for blowing the whistle is to avoid participating in an immoral
action, not to prevent a harm to the public. Thus, it is more in agreement with the basic ideas of the respect for persons
tradition. One blows the whistle to avoid violating
moral precepts, not to prevent harm to the public.
Davis' approach to the moral justification of whistleblowing has several distinct
advantages. First, since preventing harm to the public is not a motivation for whistle
blowing, one does not have to know that harm would result
if he does not blow the whistle. Second,
since preventing harm to the organization is not a motivation for blowing the whistle, one does not have to first work through organizational channels. Third, since preventing harm to oneself
is not a motivation for whistleblowing, one does not have to be sure that blowing
the whistle will prevent
the harm before
one risks oneÕs career.
Nevertheless, there are problems
with DavisÕ theory as well. 33
First, the requirement that what one reveals must derive from oneÕs work in the organization (C1) and must contribute to the wrongdoing
(C4) seems much too restrictive. Suppose engineer Joe is asked to review a design for a structure
submitted to a customer by another member
of the organization in which he is employed. Joe finds the design
highly defective and, in fact, that it would be a serious
threat to public safety if the structure
were to be built. According to Davis, Joe would not have
any obligation
to blow the whistle because the design
had
nothing
to do with
JoeÕs work with the organization. Yet this seems implausible. Joe may well have an obligation to blow the whistle if the design
poses a serious
threat because of its potential
for harm to the public regardless of his own involvement
in the design.
Second, Davis also requires that a person be a voluntary member
of an organization. But suppose Michael, an Army draftee,
discovers a situation
that poses a serious threat to his fellow soldiers. Michael has a moral obligation
to blow the whistle, and the fact that he was drafted seems to have little relevance.
Third,
Davis believes that one is only justified in blowing the whistle
if in fact one believes that serious wrongdoing by the organization
has occurred. But it seems more reasonable to say that one is justified
in blowing the whistle
if one has good reason to believe that wrongdoing will occur. Even if one turned out to be mistaken, one would still be justified in blowing the whistle, especially
from the standpoint of the ethics of respect for persons. Otherwise, oneÕs
moral integrity would be compromised because one would be involved
in activities that at least one believes to
be wrong. To be doing something one believes to be wrong is still a
serious compromise of oneÕs moral integrity, even if by some more objective standard
one is not actually involved in wrongdoing.
Finally,
Davis does not take sufficient account of what many people
would con sider to
be
a
clear-and perhaps the
most
important-justification of whistle blowing, namely that
it is undertaken to prevent harm to the organization or ( more
often) to the public.
Although avoiding complicity in wrongdoing is a legitimate and important justification
for blowing
the whistle, at the very least, it need not be the only one.
Despite the criticisms of both theories,
there does seem to be truth in both. For Davis, whistleblowing must be justified because
the whistleblower violates
the obligation of loyalty. He justifies blowing the
whistle to keep himself from complicity in wrongdoing. For DeGeorge, whistleblowing must be justified
because of the harm it can produce
to the organization and to the whistleblower. These harms can some
times be outweighed by the harm to the public that would
otherwise occur. All of
these considerations seem valid. From a practical
standpoint, they are all important to consider when thinking about blowing the whistle.
Some Practical Advice
on Whistleblowing
We conclude this section with some practical
considerations on protesting organizational wrongdoing.
First, take advantage
of any formal or informal processes your organization may have for making a protest. Your organization may have an "ethics hotline
Óor an ombudsman.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a formal process for registering what it calls ÒDiffering Professional Opinions."34 Many managers have an Òopen door" policy, and there may be other informal procedures
for expressing to a superior
a different assessment of a situation.
Second, determine whether
it is better to keep your protest
as confidential as possible or to involve
others in the process. Sometimes
the most effective
way to work within
an organization is to work confidentially and in a nonconfrontational way with superiors and colleagues. At other times, it is important
to
involve
your peers in
the process so that a manager cannot justify disregarding your protest by assuming that it is the result of one disgruntled employee.
Third, focus on issues, not personalities. People
get defensive and
hostile when they are personally attacked,
whether these people
are your superiors
or your peers. Therefore, it is usually
a better tactic
to describe the issues in impersonal terms
insofar as this is possible.
Fourth, keep written
records of the process. This is important
if court proceedings are eventually involved. It also serves to Òkeep the record straight" about what was said and when it was said.
Fifth, present positive
suggestions in association with your objection.
Your protest should have the form ,ÒI have a problem that I
want to bring to your attention, but I also think I have a way to solve it.Ó This approach
keeps your protest
from being wholly
negative and suggests a positive
solution to the problem you have
identified. Positive suggestions can be helpful to managers,
who must deal with the prob lem in a practical way.