Engineers in Organization: Responsible Organizational Disobedience

Sometimes engineers attempting to be both loyal employees and responsible professionals

and citizens encounter difficulties. The engineer finds himself/herself in a position of
having to oppose his/her managers or his/her organization. The expression "organizational
disobedience" is the generic term to cover all types of actions taken by an employee that is
regarded as contrary to the wishes of his/her employer. This may either be against a specific
directive of a superior or a general or organizational policy, and may involve either a single
act or a continuing series of actions.
There are at least 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.

Disobedience by nonparticipation, which is refusing to carry out an assignment because

of moral or professional objections.

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 her carry out this
disobedience?

1.

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, managers 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 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.
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, there are examples of
harm to the individual and the organization.
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 o'clock affects the organization
does not do justice to the realities of business and community life. On these grounds, a
manager might assert that the organization's right to the loyalty of its employees requires the
employee not to harm the organization in these ways.
On the other hand, an employee's freedom suffers substantial curtailment if organizational
restriction force him/her to curtail activities to which he/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 employee's 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 engineer's 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 employee's
life outside the workplace. In a society that values individual freedom as much as our 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 outside the workplace.
Therefore, two observations may be appropriate.
First, some actions by employees outside the workplace harm an organization more directly
than others. An engineer's campaign for tighter restrictions on his/her own company's
environmental pollution will probably have a more direct effect on his/her company than an
engineer's 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 employee's
activities outside the workplace encroaches on his freedom. Curtailment of activities closely
associated with one's personal identity, and with strong moral or religious beliefs is more
serious than limitation of activities that are associated with more peripheral belief. 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.

2.

Disobedience by Nonparticipation

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. Examples, an
engineer/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, and an engineer may request not to be asked to design a
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 cods, 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 one's
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
assignment, but many organizations have found ways to respect employees' views without
undue economic sacrifice.

3.

Disobedience by Protest.

In some situations, engineers find the actions of the employer to be so objectionable that they
believe mere nonparticipation in the objectionable activity is insufflcient. Rather, some form
of protest, or "whistleblowing" is required.
3.1

What is Whistleblowing?

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of a whistleblower as "one who reveals

wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority." This
suggests two characteristics of whistleblowing:
one reveals information that the organization does not want revealed to the public or some
authority, and
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 whistleblower may bypass his immediate superiors, especially if they are
involved in the wrongdoing.
In external whistleblowing, the whistleblower goes outside the organization, alerting a
regulatory organization or the press.
Another important distinction is between open and anonymous whistleblowing.
In open whistleblowing, the whistleblower reveals his identity.
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 whistleblower's actions are acts of
disloyalty to his or her organization. Therefore, whistleblowing needs a justification.
3.2

The two major approaches to the justification of whistleblowing:

3.2.1 Whistleblowing: A Harm-Preventing Justification

Whistleblowing is morally permissible if:
a. The harm that "will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable ";
b. The employees report their concern to their superiors, and
c. Getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels
available" within the organization.

Whistleblowing is morally obligatory if:

i.

the employee has "documented evidence that would convince a responsible, impartial
observer that his view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong"; and

ii.

the employee has "strong evidence that making the information public will in fact
prevent the threatened serious harm."

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 that others would be convinced of the wrong and the
harm might be prevented. There is also the risk to ones career if there is little chance the
whistleblowing will have the desired effect.
Taken as general tests for justified or required whistleblowing, however, the above criteria are
subject to criticisms; namely:
1. The first criterion seems too strong and 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, one's 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 no time to do this before a disaster will occur. Also, sometimes
employees have no effective way to make their protests know to higher management
except by going public.
4. It is not always possible to get documented evidence of a problem. Often, 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
whistleblowing could not prevent harm and would not even be morally permissible, much

less obligatory. Thus, if criterion 4 is not fulfilled, whistleblowing might not even be
permissible.
3.2.2 Whistleblowing: A Complicity-Avoiding View
The obligation of the whistleblower is derived also from the need to avoid complicity in
wrongdoing rather than from the ability to prevent harm.
Engineers are morally required to reveal what they know to the public (or to a suitable agent
or representative of it) when:
1.
2.
3.
4.

What you will reveal derives from your work for an organization;
You are a voluntary member of that organization;
You believe that the organization, though legitimate, is engaged in a serious moral wrong;
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;
5. You are justified in beliefs in items 3 and item 4 above; and
6. You believe items 3 and item 4 above are true.
According to above justifications, the moral motivation for blowing the whistle is to avoid
participating in an immoral action, not to prevent harm to the public. One blows the whistle to
avoid violating moral precepts, not to prevent harm to the public.
The approach to the moral justification of whistleblowing has several distinct disadvantages:
First, since preventing harm to the public is not a motivation for whistleblowing, 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 ones risks one's career.
There are problems to the above moral justification approach for whistleblowing:
First, the requirement that what one reveals must derive from one's work in the organization
(1) and must contribute to the wrongdoing (4) seems much too restrictive.
Suppose engineer Joe is asked to review a design for 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 above approach, Joe would not have any obligation to blow the whistle
because the design had nothing to do with Joe's 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, the above moral justification approach for whistleblowing 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, the belief 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, one's
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 one's moral integrity, even if by some more objective standard one is
not actually involved in wrongdoing.
Finally, the above approach does not take sufficient account of perhaps the most important
justification of whistleblowing, 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.
3.3

Some Practical Advice on Whistleblowing

Some practical considerations on protesting organizational wrongdoing:

First, take advantage of any formal or informal processes the organization may have for
making a protest. Your organization may have an "ethics hotline" or an ombudsman. Many
managers have an "open 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 the 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 non-confrontational 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 "keep 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, "I have a problem that I want to bring to your attention, but I also think I have

a way to solve it." 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 problem in a practical way.

4.0

Summary

Common law on the rights of employees in the workplace 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 virtually for any reason.
Conflicts between employees, including engineers, and managers often occur in the
workplace.
In order to preserve their careers and their integrity. Employees should educate themselves in
the "culture" of their organization. They should also adopt some common-sense techniques
for minimizing the threats to their careers when making a legitimate protest.
Given that engineers and managers have different perspectives, problems can be avoided if
organizations make a distinction between decision that should be made by managers and
decisions that should be made by engineers.
In general, engineers should make the decision when technical matters or issues of
professional ethics are involved. Managers should make the decision when considerations
related to the well-being of the organization are involved and the technical and ethical
standards of engineers are not compromised. Many decisions do not neatly fall into either
category, and the line-drawing method can be useful in deciding who should make a decision.
Sometimes organizational disobedience is necessary.
One type of organizational disobedience is engaging in activities (typically, outside the
workplace) contrary to the interest of the organization, as these interests are defined by
managers.
Another type of organizational disobedience is refusing to participate, or asking to be relieved
of an obligation to participate, in some task in the organization. A third type of organizational
disobedience is protesting a policy or action of an organization.
The most widely discussed example of this third type of disobedience is whistleblowing.