Bursic 2:00
R08
ETHICALLY ANALYZING OBLIGATIONS TO A FORMER
ENGINEERING EMPLOYER
Laura Traczynski (lnt12@pitt.edu)
AN ETHICAL DILEMMA IN
CONSTRUCTION
Living the Dream?
For five years, I worked in construction management with
a concentration in bridge design at Inspire Engineers Inc. My
job entailed overseeing the design and construction process
for various projects. I would create a design schedule, develop
a budget, and manage a construction team to make the project
a reality. For the first four years of my employment, I enjoyed
my work in the field and looked forward to developing
innovations in civil engineering. Over the past year, however,
the company has not met my standards of professionalism.
The members of my construction team had lost their respect
for my authority, and they did not care to follow my exact
instructions. Although I brought this issue to the attention of
Inspire Engineers Inc., the company failed to take any action.
This lack of respect inhibited the quality and enjoyment of my
work. In addition, Inspire Engineers Inc. neglected many
professional obligations because the company was focused on
competing with Smith Construction. For three decades, the
two competitor companies have been obsessed with
outperforming one another in project revenue. While Inspire
Engineers Inc. was caught up in this competition, the
company overlooked fundamental components in
construction. The cooperation focused completely on
financial gain, so basic safety precautions in construction and
the needs of the employees were ignored. Although I enjoy
work in the field of engineering, Inspire Engineers Inc. and
the company’s construction team created obstacles in my
professional life.
Lightweight Transportable Bridge Project
For nearly two years, I managed the construction of an
innovative transportable bridge. Transportable bridges are
often used after the event of a natural disaster. After an
original bridge is destroyed in a disaster, the mobile bridge is
transported via truck to the site and erected in about ninety
minutes. This bridge technology has significant applications
because after natural disasters, it is essential to reconnect
communities. Food, supplies, and safety must be provided to
isolated areas as quickly as possible [1].
However,
transporting the bridges has become a challenge. Since the
impressive weight of these bridges must be taken into
consideration, it takes a significant amount of time to deliver
them to areas with difficult terrain. When rescuing people
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-03
from natural disasters, time is a crucial factor. In this
particular project, I worked with carbon-infused materials to
reduce the weight of a transportable bridge by twenty-five
percent [1]. The bridge design is composed of lightweight
material, and can be easily transported by a vehicle since it
weighs less. With this advanced technology, mobile bridges
can be transported through a wider range of areas, including
rocky terrain and steep mountainsides. With the innovative
material of this transportable bridge, the way that bridges that
transported could be forever changed.
An Unexpected Offer
When the bridge project was nearly completed, I was
faced with an ethical conflict involving Inspire Engineers
Inc.’s competitor. During the last week of the project’s main
construction phase, Smith Construction contacted me about
an engineering position. The competitor firm offered me a
construction management job, with guaranteed respect from
construction teams and a greater salary than Inspire Engineers
Inc. After much consideration, I accepted the position from
Smith Construction and resigned from Inspire Engineers Inc.
My decision was based on my former company’s indifference
toward my professional well-being and the promising
opportunities from Smith Construction. When I left the
company, my transportable bridge project was virtually
completed in construction, with only a few minor technical
issues left to consider. However, I had not sealed off any
construction documents on the project, so it was considered
‘incomplete’.
Unfinished Business
A month later, I had fully transitioned into a satisfied
employee at Smith Construction. I enjoyed my work, and I
felt proud of the quality of my projects, because my new
construction team respected my role as a manager. I felt
content with my professional life, until I was suddenly faced
with an ethical dilemma. While I was working at my new job
at Smith Construction, I received a call from an engineer at
Inspire Engineers Inc. The engineer informed me that the
transportable bridge project had been technically completed.
The project was ready for the production stages, but this
process could not begin until I sign the construction
documents for the bridge. The company now needs my
signature, because I am the only engineer that is truly familiar
with every component of this project. Therefore, I am the
only qualified person to approve of the safety and
sustainability of the transportable bridge.
Laura Traczynski
Making a Choice
I must now make a decision to either help Inspire
Engineers Inc. or deny the cooperation’s wishes. I will use
ethics to approach this choice. First of all, I will use the
egotistical approach of ethics to consider my personal
opinions and future career. Then, I will analyze how my
decision will directly affect other people involved in the
situation. By definition, an ethical choice is “a decision that
is both legally and morally acceptable to the larger
community” [2]. Therefore, I will consider two larger
communities that will be affected by my decision: Inspire
Engineers Inc. and the general public that will need
transportable bridges. After considering the ethics in this
situation, I will make a choice to ignore Inspire Engineers
Inc.’s request, agree to sign the documents, or develop a
compromise.
THE IMPACT ON ME
To begin, I will base my ethical decisions from my own
personal interests. A survey was conducted in the Hong Kong
construction industry to evaluate what influences engineers in
ethical decision making. In this survey, it was found that
egoism, where personal interest is the foundation of morality,
impacts an engineer’s ethics [2]. Therefore, in the situation, I
must consider how my decision affects my interests. First of
all, I could consider my relationships with Inspire Engineers
Inc. and Smith Construction. According to an ethical study,
an engineer’s ethical decisions with a company are based on
his/her relationship with the company and his/her treatment
as an employee [3]. By this logic, I am more likely to make
the decision that will benefit the company I identify with,
which is currently Smith Construction. I have been much
more successful and satisfied with my new employer, so I am
more likely to favor the company. If I am to deny Inspire
Engineer Inc.’s request, Smith Construction would gain from
my previous employer’s loss. Therefore, it is in my best
interest to deny Inspire Engineer Inc.’s request.
Also, in the same ethics survey conducted in Hong Kong,
an influential factor in an engineer’s decisions is the impact
on one’s future reputation and career [2]. The decision I make
will affect my professional standing with Smith Construction.
According to Scot Hughes, a mechanical engineer employed
by Bechtel Plant Machinery, Inc., an engineer should not
represent a previous employer while working for a different
cooperation. He stated, “I would be surprised if a previous
employer would ask for a former employee to sign something
after they departed the company. In my opinion, it would be
wrong to sign the document as you have no right to represent
a company that you no longer work for” [4]. If I support work
completed by the competitor company by signing the
construction documents, Smith Construction will most likely
be dissatisfied with my decision, and I may suffer direct
consequences, such as losing my job. To make a decision, I
must consider the risks in my future professional life.
MY DUTY TO THE COMPANY
Although I am no longer an employee at Inspire Engineers
Inc., I will consider how far my work with the company
extends. According to one of the fundamental canons of the
NSPE Code of Ethics, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall act for each employer…as faithful
agents or trustees” [5]. If I am to follow this code, I am
obligated to finish my business with Inspire Engineers Inc.
and complete all necessary documents for the transportable
bridge project. I am no longer an employee of the company,
but I must continue to respect their practice. Also, The NSPE
Code of Ethics states that, “Engineers shall accept personal
responsibility for their professional activities” [5]. Even if I
ignore the request and refuse to sign the documents, the
lightweight transportable bridge is still my project. I cannot
change the fact that it was my assigned work and
responsibility to create this bridge. Also, I cannot deny that I
closely worked with the project and devoted countless hours
into it. So by this code of ethics, it is my duty to complete the
work assigned by Inspire Engineers Inc. and finish the
construction papers. Based on the canons of the NSPE code
of ethics, I am obligated to fulfill my duties with the
transportable bridge project, even if I no longer have a direct
relationship with Inspire Engineers Inc.
MY DUTY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
While making a decision on signing the construction
papers, I must examine how my choice impacts communities
that need lightweight transportable bridge technology. Based
on the first canon of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Code of Ethics, “Engineers shall recognize that the lives,
safety, health, and welfare of the general public are dependent
on engineering judgements, decisions and practices
incorporated into structures…” [6]. As an engineer, I will
acknowledge that my first priority should be the safety of the
general public, and every decision I make will affect
thousands of people. If I do not sign the construction forms,
the innovative mobile bridge will not be immediately
available to the public. If the lightweight bridge is not
produced, transportable bridges cannot be quickly delivered
to areas with difficult terrain, and a great amount of time will
be wasted when people are in danger after natural disasters.
In this precious time, citizens could be harmed or even lose
their lives. It is essential that this technology is available to
any citizen in any region. According to Zackary Easterly, a
chemical engineer employed by Genesis Engineers, “My first
goal as an engineer is to help people. If I lose sight of this
goal, then I’ve lost my purpose an engineer” [7]. Ultimately,
engineers must be committed to improving people’s
lifestyles. To make an appropriate decision, I must consider
2
Laura Traczynski
how my actions as an engineer with affect people’s wellbeing.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
Refusing the Request
First of all, I have the option to deny Inspire Engineers
Inc.’s request and not sign the construction documents, but
this choice does not agree with my morals. The decision to
refuse the request would be based on the idea of egoism. It
would be in my best personal interest to sabotage Inspire
Engineers Inc.’s development, because they hindered the
quality and enjoyment of my life as an engineer. Also, I am
now employed by the competitor company, so I would
professionally benefit from Inspire Engineers Inc.’s failures.
Nevertheless, I do not feel comfortable with this option. If I
refuse the request, I would be violating basic codes of ethics.
It is my responsibility to complete my work with the company
and respect their business. Although I would become
successful from Inspire Engineers Inc.’s losses, it is not
morally right to abandon my own project. Also, by not
completing the project documents, I would be hurting the
people who need lightweight bridge technology. It is
ethically incorrect to ignore innocent people affected by
natural disasters. Even though my current employer and I
could profit from my refusal to seal the construction
documents, this decision would contradict my values as an
engineer.
Fulfilling the Request
On the other hand, I could complete my unfinished
business with Inspire Engineers Inc. and sign the construction
papers. I have concluded that my duty to finish my previous
work and serve the general public outweighs my personal
interests. Smith Construction may be disappointed in my
decision to assist the rival company, but in any case, client
needs are more important than company conflicts. A case
study conducted by the National Academy of Engineering
determined that, “The fact that two firms are in direct
competition should have no bearing upon the responsibility of
the engineer to assume responsibility for the work and take
appropriate steps for the benefit of the client” [8]. Therefore,
if my current employer has correct morals, it will be
understood that cooperate rivalries should not stand in the
way of people’s needs. I have to decided seal the construction
documents, regardless of the possible consequences from
Smith Construction.
longer an employee of my former company, so I should
receive an extra payment to follow the cooperation’s
instructions. According to a case study with a similar
dilemma, it would be ethical for an engineer to request an
additional charge, because he/she must still show
accountability for the new employer [8]. Simply completing
the documents with no additional fee could create questions
about my loyalty to Smith Construction. However, I cannot
completely agree with this option. As an engineer, I should
want to fulfill my duties without the need for extra
compensation. Even if I want to prove my loyalty to my new
company, I should not need extra payment for completing my
former obligations. While demanding an extra fee from
Inspire Engineers Inc. is a valid compromise to satisfy both
companies, I have greater professional expectations for
myself.
MAKING A DECISION
After analyzing my options, I have decided to complete
the construction documents without asking for additional
compensation. Any conflict with Inspire Engineers Inc.
should be set aside. Even if Smith Construction threatens my
job, I will remain unchanged in my decision. I chose an
engineering career, because I want to solve problems that
pose a threat to society. A lightweight transportable bridge is
an excellent solution to fulfill my professional dreams.
Company conflicts are not enough to make me abandon my
project. I would advise future engineers to realize the ultimate
goal of their profession. Engineers find the problems that
hinder everyday living and develop solutions to make
people’s lives easier. Engineers should disregard personal
conflicts when citizen’s lives are at risk. Despite the
consequences I could potentially face, I will remain
unchanged in my decision to seal the construction documents.
ACCEPTING THE REQUEST
In summary, the most ethical solution in this scenario is to
complete construction documents for the lightweight
transportable bridge project. My personal interests have been
outweighed by my duties to my previous employer and the
general public. It may have been my decision to end my
career at Inspire Engineers Inc., but I am obligated to
complete any unfinished work with the company. In the end,
I have chosen the engineering field, so that I could have the
opportunity to help innocent citizens. For as long as I
continue in this field, I will put all of my effort into helping
as many people as possible.
REFERENCES
Demanding Additional Compensation
As a compromise between the two choices, I can demand
an additional payment from Inspire Engineers Inc. to fulfill
the company’s wish. This option is logical, because I am no
[1] B.R. Russell, A.P Thrall. (2013). “Portable and Rapidly
Deployable Bridges: Historical Perspective and Recent
Technology Developments.” J Bridge Eng. (online article).
3
Laura Traczynski
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.19
43-5592.0000454
[2] L.C. Fan, P.W. Fox. (2009). “Exploring Factors for
Ethical Decision Making: Views from Construction
Professionals.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.. (online
article).
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%2910523928%282009%29135%3A2%2860%29
[3] D. Tow, M. Loosemore. (2009). “Corporate Ethics in the
Construction and Engineering Industry.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute
Resolut.
Eng.
Constr..
(online
article).
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.19
43-4170.0000012
[4] S. Hughes. (2015, October 30). Interview.
[5] (2015). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (online article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[6] (2006). “Code of Ethics.” American Society of Civil
Engineers. (online article).
[7] Z. Easterly (2015, November 1). Interview.
[8] (2006). “Refusing to Sign/Seal Construction DocumentsCase 96-3.” National Academy of Engineering. (online
article). http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/7770.aspx
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
(2015). “Design/Build a TE/STE Relationship.” Texas Tech
University.
(online
article).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
(1989). “Duty to Report Safety Violations Case 89-7.”
National Society of Professional Engineer. (online article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/Ber89-7.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my parents, who helped me find my
additional sources. I would also like to thank my friends for
keeping me on track during this project.
4