A Critical Analysis Of Ethical Questions In Engineering Case Study

Ethics are an essential part of human life as it guides a person's behavior. Every profession or organization has a code of ethics that governs the way they conduct routine activities. The codes of ethics do not only dictate professional behavior but also outlines possible consequences to be meted on those that violate them. Nonetheless, people are likely to divert from these guiding principles and adopt different modes of doing things. Although such people may be judged as having violated a set code of ethics, different arguments can be put across to justify their conduct. The management of various institutions is often caught in difficult situations as they try to make the best judgment of a situation. It is, therefore, imperative to consider the diverse explanations to an act before judging it as either right or wrong. An analysis of the provided case study identifies ethical questions relating to confidentiality, handling of proprietary information, legal liability, electronic networking, and misrepresentation. Evaluating the questions with a cross-reference to general theories of ethics determines that the research associate acted in violation of set ethical principles. As a consequence, it is recommended that they are subjected to disciplinary action including suspension to avoid legal liability on the side of the company.

In the case study, the research associate discloses to their company crucial information about a competitor innovation. They purport that the rival company's innovation is above board and could push them out of the market. The manager is skeptical of the correctness of the information and hence presses the associate to provide their source of information and prove the credibility of the same. The associate explains that the information was obtained from the rival company's engineer through a LinkedIn chat. The associate explains that he offered falsified analyses reports to the competitor leading to eventual failure of an impending innovation. Although the associate fails to disclose the full details of the competitor’s innovation, they outline the major improvements made that renders it superiors. That includes 20% improvement in performance, 15% size reduction and 10% reduction in the cost of materials.

Based on the information provided, it is clear that if the competitor innovation became a success, it would present a threat to the existence of other companies. By utilizing such information, the chief engineer could save their company from collapsing. On the other hand, the method used in obtaining the information raises ethical questions that need to be addressed. The chief engineer has to make several ethical considerations to determine the rightness or wrongness of the associate’s behavior. A company associate may have full or partial connections to the company and have accessibility to crucial information. Regardless of the level of connectivity, they are considered a part of the company and are bound to remain faithful and loyal. They have an obligation to give their best in ensuring that their company gets a competitive edge over others in the market. The associate in the case study does that by ensuring that the competitor innovation does not come to fruition. The chief engineer can use the information gathered by the associate in adjusting the features of their product to give it comparable quality to the impending innovation. The use of social networking platforms in business is a common practice in the modern world.

The research associate’s choice of networking via LinkedIn is commendable since it helped them link up with the rival company's engineer. It exemplifies an ability to keep up with modern trends. Overall, there are benefits that can be drawn from the associate's behavior. To some extent, the behavior can be justified to be correct based on the utilitarian theory of ethics. The theory insists that the morality of an act is justified based on the end result. Any act that leads to satisfaction of the majority is deemed ethical and vice versa. The argument can, on the other hand, be nullified using the deontological theory of ethics. Deontologists view morality as a duty rather than a means to fulfill the desired end. It is therefore critical to ensure that work processes and their results meet the set ethical standards.

From another perspective, the associate’s behavior can be classified as ethically wrong. The research associate took several actions that went against their ethical behavior. To begin with, they failed to uphold confidentiality. Confidentiality is one of the principles guiding successful business transactions and partnerships. Proprietary information and customer details ought to be handled as discreetly as possible. More often, businesses exchange such information with their associates and other parties as a show of transparency and mutual trust. The rival company's engineer in the case study shared details of their innovation, trusting that the research associate would not disclose it inappropriately. Failure to preserve the information and exposing it to other entities amounts to a betrayal of trust and a breach of the code of ethics. Further, utilization of proprietary information to enjoy benefits that would have been enjoyed by others is both unethical and criminal.

Secondly, falsification and fabrication of information meant for indirect or direct public consumption are also part of professional misconduct. Assuming that the rival innovation integrated some of the altered information in successful future innovations, they could end up producing substandard goods and services for the consumer. Lastly, the research associate went against the terms and conditions of using LinkedIn by assuming an unfounded alter ego. They intentionally failed to update their LinkedIn profile. That means they assumed an alternative and false personality that was misleading, contrary to the LinkedIn's ethical guideline. Based on the arguments above, it would be appropriate to judge the actions of the research as immoral. As a consequence, the chief engineer ought to discard the information provided and initiate disciplinary procedures against the researcher. Although their actions could have been directed towards achieving a just cause, the methods used raises ethical questions. Additionally, the chief engineer could suspend and cut links with the associate to avoid legal liability on the part of the company regarding infringement of proprietary rights. Legal battles have serious economic implications that may cripple the operations of the firm. However, the disciplinary actions taken by the chief engineer on the researcher could threaten the relationships with other employees in the company. They would fear to disclose information that might be crucial to the business for fear of being implicated for infringing the code of conduct. As a consequence, proper flow of information and cordial relationship between the employees and the management are likely to be compromised leading to lowered productivity.

In sum, the case study provides a controversial situation that demands a swift decision from the chief engineer. Ethical questions are raised relating to confidentiality, handling of proprietary information, legal liability, electronic networking, and misrepresentation. A critical analysis of these questions provides a basis for evaluating the actions of the research associate to determine whether they are right or wrong. The evaluation is done in relation to arguments made in the general theories of ethics in particular utilitarian and deontological theories. Although the associate may have acted in the best interest of their company, the entire approach is determined to contradict existing ethical principles and standards. It is therefore recommended that persons in management positions must always seek to uphold the moral fabrics of their institutions. They should, however, be alive to the fact that such tough decision may have negative ethical and economic implications on themselves and their companies.