Introduction to Engineering and Ethics Lecture 5 PDF

Lecture5 EngineersinOrganizations& Professional Responsibilities 1400111011 Introduction to Engineering and Ethics Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Workplace Responsibilities and Rights Engineers have professi...

Lecture5 EngineersinOrganizations& Professional Responsibilities 1400111011 Introduction to Engineering and Ethics Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Workplace Responsibilities and Rights Engineers have professional and employee rights and responsibilities. These include loyalty, confidentiality, and ethical conduct. An ethical corporate climate and respect for authority are crucial. Ethical Values Responsibilities to all stakeholders are acknowledged and appreciated. Ethical Language Use of ethical language is legitimized in corporate dialogue. Moral Tone Top management sets a moral tone through words, policies, and personal example. Conflict Resolution Procedures for resolving ethical conflicts are established. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Loyalty, Collegiality and Professional Rights Agency-loyalty Attitude-loyalty Collegiality Fulfilling contractual duties to an Positive identification and Respect, commitment, and employer through actions. willingness to meet moral duties to connectedness among professional an organization. colleagues. Right of Professional Conscience Right of Conscientious Refusal Right of Recognition The right to exercise professional The right to refuse to engage in The right to fair remuneration and judgment in pursuing unethical behavior. recognition for work and responsibilities. accomplishments. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç Engineers and Managers: Conflicting Perspectives Engineering Perspective Management Perspective Focus on technical expertise and safety Focus on organizational well-being Adherence to professional ethics Financial and operational concerns Cautious approach to changes Balancing multiple factors Emphasis on quantitative data Emphasis on decision-making Engineers and managers often have conflicting perspectives due to differences in education, values, and professional responsibilities. Engineers prioritize technical expertise, safety, and adherence to professional ethics, while managers focus on organizational well-being, financial considerations, and balancing multiple factors. These differing viewpoints can lead to tensions in decision-making processes, particularly when safety and ethical concerns compete with financial or operational pressures. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Proper Engineering and Management Decisions Proper Engineering Decision (PED) Distinguishing between proper engineering Decisions requiring technical expertise or involving decisions (PEDs) and proper management ethical standards, especially related to public safety. decisions (PMDs) is crucial for effective organizational functioning. PEDs involve technical Proper Management Decision (PMD) matters requiring engineering expertise or ethical Decisions requiring technical expertise or involving considerations, particularly those affecting public ethical standards, especially related to public safety. safety. PMDs focus on organizational well-being, including financial and operational aspects, Borderline Cases without compromising engineering standards. Decisions where engineering and management Many decisions fall between these extremes, considerations overlap, requiring careful evaluation. requiring careful consideration of both perspectives. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Responsible Dissent in Organizations Reporting Bad News Establish formal procedures for lodging Responsible dissent is crucial for maintaining ethical complaints and warnings about potential issues. standards within organizations. Engineers should be Critical Loyalty encouraged to report concerns through established Balance organizational interests with personal channels, balancing loyalty to the organization with and professional ethics. professional ethics. Keeping written records and Documentation focusing on issues rather than personalities can help Keep written records of suggestions and protect dissenters. Organizations should provide complaints for potential legal protection. mechanisms for neutral evaluation of disputes and Protection from Retaliation protect employees from retaliation. Implement mechanisms to safeguard employees who raise concerns. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Whistleblowing: Justification and Theories DeGeorge’s Theory Davis’ Theory Focus on preventing harm Focus on avoiding complicity Considers public benefit Considers moral integrity Requires exhausting internal channels Does not require exhausting channels Whistleblowing theories provide frameworks for evaluating when exposing organizational wrongdoing is justified. Richard DeGeorge's theory focuses on preventing harm and requires exhausting internal channels before going public. Michael Davis's theory emphasizes avoiding complicity in wrongdoing and preserving moral integrity. Both theories consider the potential benefits and risks of whistleblowing but differ in their primary motivations and requirements. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Case Study: Paul Lorenz and Wrongful Discharge Paul Lorenz was a mechanical engineer employed by Martin Marietta. He was laid off on July 25, 1975 for allegedly refusing 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. After being laid off, he 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. However, lower courts rejected Lorenz s claim of wrongful dismissal on the grounds that Colorado recognized no claim of wrongful discharge against employers. 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 this never took place, probably because of an out-of-court settlement between Mr. Lorenz and his former employer. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç  Case Study: Paul Lorenz and Wrongful Discharge 1 2 3 Refusal to Misrepresent Wrongful Discharge Claim Wrongful Discharge Claim Lorenz refused to engage in Lorenz filed a tort claim for being Lorenz filed a tort claim for being deception regarding materials for fired for refusing to perform an fired for refusing to perform an NASA. illegal act. illegal act. The case of Paul Lorenz, an engineer fired for refusing to misrepresent information to NASA, illustrates the challenges of maintaining professional integrity. Lorenz's wrongful discharge claim led to a landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, establishing the public-policy exception to at-will employment. This case highlights the importance of legal protections for employees who refuse to engage in unethical or illegal practices, particularly in fields like engineering where public safety is at stake. 1400111011 | Introduction to Engineering and Ethics | 2024-2025 Fall | Asst. Prof. Mete Öğüç