Dear. Mr. Copp.
Considering the car crash accident, some of the responsibilities related to the case should also be imposed on you as a competent and professional engineer who conducted the testing procedures. Therefore, your concerns about the liabilities and duties should relate to the ethical and moral implications.
The situation is contradicting because, on the one hand, you did address the managerial department and advice them to postpone the product launch due to the increased risk of end-rear collision that was defined after the testing procedure. On the other hand, ignorance of safety precautions is considered the most serious breach of the production process. Rear-end collision is among the most frequently occurred accidents on the road and, therefore, the drivers should be informed about the risk of buying the Ford Pinto.
Establishing long-term goals within an organization should be a priority for engineers who consider quality and reliability to be the main foundation of the production process. Therefore, determining short deadlines and attempting to accelerate the manufacturing of the new model to sustain competition does not seem to be a reasonable idea. Technical processes should not be suppressed by the deadlines because they can threaten public safety, which is the primary concern of all engineers who follow the code of ethics in Canada.
In particular, the regulation states, “engineers shall act as faithful agents or trustees of their clients and employers with objectivity, fairness, and justice to all parties” (Canadian Engineering Qualification Board, 2012, p. 4). However, in case public safety and the environment are at risk, the concept of confidentiality can be ignored for the sake of social welfare. Transparent policy and reporting should be at stake.
Certainly, your actions could be justified from different angles. Professional commitment to the production process and the organization’s mission and objectives is commendable and, therefore, the company could have gained a competitive advantage over other automobile manufacturers. After all, the organization’s integrity and mission should not be underestimated and the liabilities that engineers take should premise on these principles.
Responding to the challenges of the internal environment is another important strategy for improving the company’s profitability and competitiveness. At the same time, the court procedures held during the case encouraged your testimony and approved your decision to present the evidence and explain the issue (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor, 1981). Under this situation, deceiving information could have had negative consequences for your professional career as soon as the hidden information was revealed. I am confident that you had full right to expose information to the corresponding authorities in case you believe there was a reason to cease the production process and prevent threats to social and environmental welfare.
The above-presented discussion suggests that the solutions can be different, depending on the ethical, moral, and professional underpinning related to the case. In case you strive to change the situation, you can propose a different product or invent innovative techniques for modifying the existing model and integrate new technologies that could be both cost-effective and within an appropriate deadline. The second option is associated with a reasonable allocation of responsibilities that could be introduced through developing a good framework ensuring communication and a collaborative approach. For instance, constant reporting to managers and interaction among the employees is the key to improvement.
Choosing this solution can contribute to the development of safety applications and parts, but the Pinto design was also predetermined by the previously amended governmental regulation. Because no precise federal regulations are outlining the requirements to the car design, as well as safety measures for ensuring public safety, some of the company’s actions could be justified. At the same time, the buyers should also be aware of the quality of the product they are going to purchase. As soon as they are informed about the threats, partial responsibilities will be imposed on them, but not on the company’s technical department.
While evaluating the threats and liabilities imposed on engineers, it is purposeful to refer to the history of governmental regulations that respond to the changes in the Ford Pinto’s design. In particular, when the model was launched was responded to the regulations accepted in 1968, but soon after the release of Pinto, the government quickly amended the standards. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Bureau, the provisions on fuel-system integrity were taken into consideration by the developers of the Ford Pinto (Schwartz). Moreover, the amendment made to the regulations were not ignored either because the company started testing procedures once again. The proposed changes relied on new design schemes and, therefore, this information could be used to justify your actions.
Full reliance on managerial orders is not always the case justifying actions and withdrawing responsibilities. Engineers should also be aware of making important decisions based on their objective evaluation. Efficient leadership should not imply blind adherence to principles and rules accepted within the company because the external environment is as important as the internal business activities. Organizational culture should also be considered a paramount issue in managing human resources and, therefore, managers should have been more sensitive to the recommendations of expert engineers in the field.
However, concealing information does not contribute to a healthy atmosphere, as well as favorable interaction in an organization. Therefore, your task as a professional should lie in delivering evidence and persuading managers that postponing the terms of production would be much more beneficial for the company in all terms. I agree with the idea that “an auto company doesn’t begin tooling until the other processes are almost over: you don’t want to make the machines that stamp and press and grin metal into the shape of car part until you know that all those part will work together” (Dowie, 1977, n. p.).
This is the first thing that each engineer should know. Thus, when the crash test discovered the deviation, engineers were run out of time. Safety and objective evaluation are two guiding tools that professional engineers should observe.
I hope that the above-suggested options and solutions will be carefully analyzed to increase your awareness of public safety and prevent such cases in the future. Mr. Copp, I think that your actions could be justified from certain viewpoints, but you should realize the ethical codes must shape the obligatory condition of professional work. A thorough examination of the guidelines and focus on fairness, accountability, and objectivity should be among the main principles.
Addressing governmental bodies for help does not imply betrayal of an organization’s principles because the latter should serve people’s safety and welfare. As soon as the concept of corporate responsibility is understood, the company must follow these rules to succeed in the future and develop a new ethical framework of organizational culture.
References
Canadian Engineering Qualification Board. (2012). Guidelines on the Code of Ethics. 1-8.
Dowie, M. (1977). Pinto Madness. Mother Jones. Web.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor. Co. 1 19 Cal. App. (1981).
Schwartz, G. (1990). The Myths of the Ford Pinto Case. Rutgers Law Review. 43, 1013-1068.