Engineers are often faced with questions that go beyond structural considerations and into the sphere of ethics. Professional and technical codes and standards, as well as laws and regulations, provide a degree of guidance to help engineers navigate such situations, but for the most part, engineers are expected to exercise good judgment and discretion. Every situation tends to be unique—the engineer’s role on a project, the client’s sophistication, time, budget, scope—and this can pose challenges for engineers, particularly those who do not have extensive experience in evaluating professional practice issues. Handling an ethical dilemma well can have an enormous impact on the cost and length of the project, as well as the interests of employers, clients, other professionals, and the public.
A few years ago, a group of experienced engineering educators compiled a series of shorthand "tests" for evaluating and guiding an engineer’s actions when confronted with questions of ethics. Quick, analytical checklists such as this have their drawbacks because they can be somewhat simplistic and fail to get at the underlying issues involved. However, an organized process can serve as a basic starting point to spur critical thought about a particular ethical dilemma and help engineers avoid getting themselves into trouble.
After careful deliberation and study, the engineering educators suggested nine tests for engineers to consider, based on three potential consequences of an engineer’s actions: how engineers personally feel about what they are confronting, about someone learning of their actions, or about getting caught.
The nine tests can be summarized as follows:
Harms test—"Do the benefits outweigh the harms, short term and long term?" This test appears to be similar to a "cost-benefit" analysis, of which engineers are familiar. It balances the pros and cons involved in the ethical issues. Some examples of this test might involve an engineer weighing the disclosure of potentially confidential information against the possible harm that could be done to an employer’s or client’s interests, or harm to the public health and safety.
Reversibility test—"Would I think that this was a good choice if I traded places?" This is the so-called "walking a mile in someone else’s shoes" approach. It also has a component of "The Golden Rule" whereby one is to do unto others as they would like others to do unto them.
Colleague test—"What would my colleagues say?" This is a peer review test and can be seen as measuring one’s actions based upon what is considered to be the mainstream or prevailing view within the profession.
Legality test—"Would my choice violate a law or policy of my employer?" This is a standard that sets a relatively low bar versus what may be the most appropriate choice or action overall.
Publicity test—"How would my choice look on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper?" With the recent flurry of ethical misdeeds within many industries and professions, this test can provide a vivid picture of how pervasive the aftershocks of an unethical action can be.
Common practice test—"What if everyone behaved this way?" This is the so-called "floodgates" approach whereby an individual’s actions are balanced against the prospect that failure to meet an appropriate standard could result in a breakdown of professional standards more broadly.
Wise relative test—"What would my wise old aunt or uncle do? And/or would I want them knowing what I was doing?" This approach considers the integrity of individuals who may have served as mentors to the engineer, and uses his or her standards as guidance to follow.
The hiding test—"Do I want people to know what I am doing?" This is the the general notion that appropriate ethical behavior is the behavior in which you would engage if someone was looking over your shoulder.
The self-respect test—"How will I feel about myself after making this choice?" In the final analysis, one’s ability to live with the decisions and choices one makes in his or her career is the most basic test of ethical conduct.
In developing these nine tests for evaluating actions, the engineering educators emphasized that these tests can serve as guideposts, but in the final analysis, the best decision is to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, rather than allowing the threat of opprobrium and fear of consequences dictate. At the same time, the educators clearly appreciate that, as a practical matter, each engineer brings his or her own unique personal background to each situation, and what motivates one engineer to do the right thing may not necessarily motivate another.
Arthur E. Schwartz serves as a deputy executive director and general counsel for the National Society of Professional Engineers. He provides individualized ethics training programs to engineering companies and organizations of all sizes and areas of practice. For more information on the scope of services and costs, contact him at 703-684-2845 or at aschwartz@nspe.org. Visit www.nspe.org for more information on this or other ethical matters.
