Executive Summary
Engineering ethical principles are guidelines that define expected rules of engagement for professionals in the dynamic engineering field. Among the common ethical principles are accountability, integrity, safety, and moral authority in executing duties. It is the responsibility of engineers to exercise due diligence and expertise approach in addressing different social concerns. The professionalism approach is meant to avoid ethical dilemmas such as structural failures as a result of human error and inability to make rational decisions. Most unethical work cultures are characterized by pitiable professionalism, lack of teamwork, irresponsibility, and laxity in executing duties. These traits might transform an individual into a dishonest, disloyal, and irresponsible in his or her line of duty. From the Mississippi River Bridge collapse and Chernobyl nuclear meltdown cases, it is apparent that human error in decision making resulted in death of more than two hundred people. To avoid reoccurrence of such cases, there is need to implement continuous and comprehensive ethical training programs for engineers across the globe.
Engineering Ethics: Application in the role Execution
Introduction
Basically, ethical principles are the morals that define and drive an organization. According to Hyldgaard (2012), ethics are set of values that are generally acceptable as rules to guide behaviour and actions of an individual. In the engineering environment, the general quality of any role execution matrix is dependent of the culture of such organization since it drives the morale and action of those participating in the production function (Baura, 2006). Irrespective of the line of specialization and size, a proactive organization culture determines the performance and sustainability of all business activities.
As opined by Perlman and Varma (2002), many workers in the US have witnessed or reported actions that are considered unethical within the labour laws. In most cases, these illegal behaviours are rarely addressed, despite the fact that such actions have high costs, especially in the engineering field. Across the globe, the roles performed by engineers shape every aspect of life from roads, food, transport, construction, and manufacturing among others. This means that the general public and other stakeholders trust engineers to be ethical and offer quality services. In the instance of structural failures, unethical practices are often blamed on the engineers’ inability to make rational decisions (Perlman & Varma, 2002). Therefore, this analytical paper will address the significance of observing engineering ethics to avoid challenges that are blamed on ethical dilemmas as a result of poor work or organization culture. Among the ethical principles that will be discussed include integrity, accountability, moral authority, and professionalism as key elements of effective execution of engineering ethical code of conduct.
Theoretical and empirical literature review
Empirical literature review. Past case studies on engineering ethics
Several researchers have carried out case study investigation on engineering ethical guidelines that determine ethical behaviour. For instance, Perlman and Varma (2002) carried out a research on the best strategies for improving engineering ethic through a mixed method approach. The research study involved reviewing the primary principles of engineering ethics and their application in the service delivery. Apparently, the finding revealed that quality performance is a product of ethical work culture, especially in the engineering field. This means that ethical values should be shared by organizational workforce to ensure that reputation and the culture of hard work are maintained. Irrespective of the magnitude or size of an organization, ethical work culture translates into optimal and sustainable work culture.
As established by Perlman and Varma (2002), application of the general ethical guidelines for engineers might not be representational or efficient in providing strategic practice guidance, since existence of these guidelines has not translated into ethical work culture. Despite existence and standardization of these ethical principles, many engineers have been accused of doing shoddy work because of unethical approach to service delivery. For instance, across the globe, many structural failures in major government and private projects such as bridges, bunkers, and road networks have been blamed on unethical work culture among some engineers. Such failures are related to inadequacy in the engineering ethical codes of conduct.
An example of such failures is the Mississippi River Bridge collapse in the year 2007, which was blamed on structural failure as a result of unethical work culture. The investigation into the disaster revealed engineering decision flaws that resulted in the high magnitude of effect. Specifically, the engineers responsible were not strategic in maintenance of the bridge and did not advice the federal government about the impending doom. Besides, in the year of the disaster, there was no maintenance report generated by the engineers responsible, despite the common busy traffic nature of the bridge (Nunnally, 2011).
In addition, the maintenance record was very poor, despite the fact that the engineers were dealing with very sensitive bridge structure. Although the bridge had been declared structurally deficient, the decision to renovate the bridge while in use resulted in the collapse, since the structural worthiness was compromised by modification while in use. The Mississippi River Bridge disaster could not be arrested on time since the slow decision making coupled with unethical work culture had persisted beyond intervention (Nunnally, 2011). As a result, more than one hundred persons lost their lives due to the negligence on the side of the engineers.
From the above empirical literature review, it is apparent that most of structural failures in the field of engineering are blamed on unethical work culture, characterized by poor professionalism, lack of team work, irresponsibility, and laxity in executing duties. Apparently, there is need for ethical paradigm shift among engineers to restore integrity in duty and trust bestowed upon them by different stakeholders. This can be achieved through observing different engineering ethical standards such as safety, integrity, moral authority, accountability, and integrity among others.
Theoretical literature review. Major ethical theories applicable in engineering
There are several ethical theories that are applicable in the field of engineering. Among the notable theories are the virtue theory, right theory, and duty theory. These theories are discussed below.
Virtue Theory
Proposed by Aristotle, the virtue theory indicates that ethical behaviour is a product of traits that persons acquire in their work environment. This means that the ability of an engineer to do the right thing at place of work is as a result of acquiring and developing the right habits (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010). As indicated in the virtue theory, good judgment and wisdom are key instrumentation for practicing virtuous habits for engineers, who often work under very minimal supervision. Among the traits identified as elements of virtue ethics are honesty, loyalty, competence, and responsibility. Lack of these traits might transform an individual into a dishonest, disloyal, and irresponsible in his or her line of duty. In relation to the dynamic field of engineering, virtuous habits are vital towards ensuring that any engineering personnel is self disciplined in service delivery. For instance, a responsible engineer will tend to work towards being the best, even when not subjected to any form of supervision. Such an individual will find it easy to internalise work ethics such as teamwork, self direction, and proficiency (Baura, 2006).
Duty theory
This theory was proposed by Emmanuel Kant. The duty theory indicates that executing a role assigned is the fundamental instrument of ethical actions. This means that actions considered ethical can be listed as duties, which convey reverence for individuals. According to Baura (2006), “when an individual’s duties are recognized, ethically correct actions are obvious” (p. 39) since they are influenced by duty allocation. However, this theory does not detail flexibility in executing actions that are deemed as conflicting roles within a work environment. As indicated in the theory, the duties expected of an ethical individual have a contracting bond for justifying rationality. Therefore, an ethically upright engineer should concentrate on collective responsibility as opposed to self interest, be knowledgeable about the science of proactive service delivery, and seek to incorporate quality duty delivery (Hyldgaard, 2012). In summary, there are two basic principles of duty ethics. These principles are entitlement to liberty, without compromising the roles allocated and professional approach to handling social and work related duties.
Right theory
Proposed by John Locke, the right theory alleges that human being has right to make rational decision in the process of performing a role. The fundamental right is a duty that others should respect, as long as the individual remains rational and focused in role execution (Baura, 2006). For instance, in the engineering field, an engineer has the liberty to be morality upright in capacity development when delivering services entrusted upon him or her. This means that any engineer should support the community through quality services as part of the ethical actions that promote social welfare.
Comparison between empirical and theoretical literature
The empirical and theoretical literature review suggests that engineering ethical guidelines are the primary foundation for accountability, responsibility, and professionalism in service delivery. Apart from just the ethical guidelines, there is need for a proactive paradigm shift by the engineers to embrace self discipline, collective team work, and continuous adherence to acceptable work culture to avoid occurrence of ethical dilemmas in the line of duty. Besides, it is important to reengineer ethical revolution in service delivery, among engineers across the globe, to avoid the current common shoddy jobs associated with structural failures in public and private projects. Such failures betray the trust that the public and other stakeholders have bestowed upon those in the engineering field.
Engineering ethical principles
Accountability
In the dynamic engineering environment, the aspect of accountability has become a vital ethical guideline in the competitive service delivery, as part of the global work ethics. Since all structural and other engineering assignments carry some level of risk and potential danger to the engineers and the general public, the consequences of poor work culture might translate into disaster of unprecedented proportion (Hyldgaard, 2012). This means that lack of accountability in engineering project execution might translate into structural failures, which can result in death or destruction of property by high magnitude. Therefore, the aspect of accountability, as an engineering ethical guidance principle, defines the obligations of those entrusted to carry out quality projects, such as accurate project execution and effective service delivery, as part of the engineering work ethics.
Irrespective of the magnitude of a project, it is expected that engineers assigned the duty of execution should use their position of influence and expertise to effectively deliver since any flaw would attract catastrophic consequences. In the project execution duty, the basic work guidance principle is proactive ethical engagement through accountability as a self-drive trait. For accountability to become an ethical work culture, there is need for voluntary practice and internalisation of this trait as a standardized engineering practice (Baura, 2006). All engineers have the moral obligation to exercise proficiency and perform roles in the best interest of all the stakeholders who have put their trust in their experience and expertise. Therefore, accountability calls for precise decision making and being in a position to embrace positive and negative feedbacks from project execution.
In relation to Mississippi River Bridge collapse in the year 2007, there were series of engineering flaws in handling the situation and being accountable as part of the primary duty of the bridge assessment. For instance, there was minimal exchange of information on the past evaluation records and maintenance roster (Nunnally, 2011). Besides, there was glaring human error in decision making to accomplish the renovation while the bridge was in use. The engineers mandated with the responsibility of maintaining the bridge failed to observe the work ethics of accountability to safety of bridge users during the renovation of the bridge while in use.
A section of the support beams had been compromised by the reconstruction and reinforcement work. This means that it was not prudent for the engineers to authorise continued use of the bridge before completing of the reconstruction work. The lack of accountability in role execution in the above scenario resulted in the death of more than a hundred motorists when the bridge curved in during the morning traffic rush. This action goes against the engineering ethics, which dictate that engineers should make sound decisions, since they have the duty of giving service to the public because of trust bestowed upon them by different institutions.
Moral authority
By a virtue of being in the public service industry, engineers are expected to be steadfast in doing what is right and not necessarily legal in service duty. The engineers have the moral authority to offer quality services since basic tenets engineering service have the potential of affecting everyone. In exercising the moral authority, it is imperative of the engineering institutions to be proactive in creating an excellence culture in service delivery as a decent obligation (Hyldgaard, 2012). The moral authority surpasses the engineering rules since it appeals to the aspect of being human and consistency in making decision and executing duties. Therefore, moral authority is best exercised when engineers embrace focus, teamwork, and consultation. This state can be achieved through continuous attendance of different training programs on prudence and strategic role execution (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010).
For instance, the Mississippi River Bridge collapse could have been avoided if the engineers exercised the moral authority of doing what is right, which is cordoning off the bridge until construction is completed and clean bill of structural worthiness signed. Besides, the engineers could have used their professional influence to mobilise the local and federal government agents to support a decision of closing the bridge, since the expertise trust is bestowed upon them (Nunnally, 2011). If moral obligation was exercised to the latter, the engineers could have avoided the collapse as a result of the compromised structural integrity. Besides, they had the moral authority to stop the public from using the bridge, considering the report in the previous year, which declared the Mississippi River Bridge as structurally inefficient (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010). It was unethical for the engineers to structurally modify the bridge and allowing continued use in the process, since they were aware of the potential danger of such a decision as experts.
Integrity
Integrity, as an ethical principle in the field of engineering, encompasses professionalism, holding moral qualities, and undertaking superior duty at the highest possible competence. Integrity encompasses the ability to exercise due diligence in executing duties assigned by balancing different social, technological, and professional dynamics. It means that integrity is determined by the ability of an engineer to respect and create trust with the third party in exercising duty (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010). In the addressing social concerns from an engineering perspective, it is always challenging on the best approach to adopt to counter the setback of professionalism in the face of differences in the expertise opinion. For example, role obligations within the acceptable integrity ethics might sometimes be compelling due to difference in opinion, thus, resulting in undesired results (Perlman & Varma, 2002). For an engineer to be declared as having integrity, he or she must observe the highest degree of rational decision making, consultation, and prioritisation of actions.
From an ethical lens, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in then the Soviet Union was blamed on lack of decision integrity on the part of engineers responsible. Despite having knowledge of the flawed design of the primary reactor, the standby engineers proceeded with the experiment of testing what could happen when one reactor was switched off, without following the due set regulations. The engineers responsible failed to tell the truth of their expertise opinion, despite having expressed reservations before the commencement of the test (The Chernobyl Gallery, 2015). When loyalty or fear of contradicting those in higher authority ranks influence the expertise decision making process, the group-think phenomenon might arise. As a result, an expert might end up making poor decisions that have catastrophic consequences as was the case in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster.
Safety
Another important engineering ethical principle is safety. Across the globe, all engineers are expected to put their own safety and that of the public first in role execution. In the US, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has been mandated by the federal government to play a role in ensuring implementation of safety ethics (Nunnally, 2011). Whenever safety is compromised, it is expected of engineers to raise the red flag for the sake of public safety. For instance, when structural integrity of a bridge has been compromised, it is the moral responsibility of the inspection engineer to alert the public and other stakeholders as a safety precaution. As indicated in the Mississippi River Bridge collapse and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown disasters, engineers in both cases had prior knowledge of the structural deficiency but chose not to raise the red alarm or cordon off the public from the impending danger (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010). The two disasters could have been avoided if the red flag was raised and rational actions take in time. Therefore, engineers have the professional duty of observing safety and communicating the same to all other stakeholders to ensure that avoidable disasters do not happen.
Major findings of the report
Impacts of ethical engineering behaviour
From the above report, it is apparent that engineering ethics are critical in service delivery since they act as guidance against flawed decision making, which often compromises the role of service delivery among engineers. There is need to observe different ethical guidance principles such as safety, accountability, integrity, and moral authority to avoid instances of structural failures as a result of human error (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010). When the above principles are observed to the latter, cases of ethical dilemma in service delivery can be avoided by engineers.
Impacts of unethical engineering behaviour
Unethical behaviour among engineers has been blamed on increased cases of human error that has claimed many lives. When an engineer or engineers conspire to hide structural inefficiencies or do low standard work, they should take the moral responsibility since they have the alternative of raising a red flag to avoid any impending disaster.
Challenges faced, overcoming them, and recommendations
The first challenge faced in the process of compiling the report was getting resources and right sources of information since case studies on structural failures, as a result of unethical work culture, are very few. The second challenge was how to pick relevant material to use in the literature review since the report was specific to engineering ethics. However, these challenges were addressed through remaining objective throughout the research and report compilation. Further research should be carried out on factors that promote unethical role execution among engineers.
As a result of the rise in number of cases of unethical work culture among engineers, it is necessary to enhance communication and ethical education to promote professional attitude in service delivery (Hyldgaard, 2012). In addition, the current engineering training programs should incorporate the above ethical principles.
Competencies and extent demonstrated
The paper has successfully and explicitly demonstrated how engineering ethical principles can promote accountability, integrity, and observance of safety in duty execution. Besides, the paper has reviewed the possible causes of unethical engineering behaviour as influenced by group-think phenomenon, fear of reprimand, and fear of taking responsibility for wrong actions. The paper highlighted the need for improvement of ethical standing among engineers through continuous training about the different ethical principles such as integrity, due diligence, accountability, and moral authority among others.
Conclusion
The report has clearly indicated that unethical work culture among engineers is influenced by the fear of taking responsibility and the inability to make rational decisions. From the cases of Mississippi River Bridge collapse and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, structural failures are blamed on human error in decision making. Therefore, there is need for engineers to exercise high quality decision making and taking responsibility to avoid disaster that could be prevented by simply raising a red flag or observing expertise guidelines in project execution.
References
Baura, G. (2006). Engineering ethics: An industrial perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hyldgaard, C. (2012). Engineering, development and philosophy: American, Chinese and European perspectives. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2010). Introduction to engineering ethics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Nunnally, P. (2011). The city, the river, the bridge: Before and after the Minneapolis Bridge collapse. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Perlman, B., & Varma, R. (2002). Improving ethical engineering practice. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 21(1), 40-48.
The Chernobyl Gallery. (2015). Chernobyl disaster causes. Web.