Business Ethical Dilemma One:

Background
Being the sole engineer in my discipline at a large company certainly had its advantages.
It was difficult for people to disagree with me, I generally was able to get involved in everything,
and I was, in a way, able to be my own boss. This was simply because most people around me
didnt understand the technical aspects of what components I was designing. Of course, the
advantages can also be disadvantages. If I ever had questions or needed help with a design I was
essentially on my own. Just like any other profession, just because an engineer is labeled as a
certain type (electrical, mechanical, etc.) does not mean they understand every aspect of the
discipline. For instance, a mechanical engineer that has designed pistons may not understand the
technical aspects of designing a suspension system. Because of this, being a sole engineer in a
company can also be a challenge.
I was working for a consumer products company where I was designing lighting systems
for the products. Like most companies that design and manufacturer their own products, there
were certain development dates and milestones that needed to be complete in order to complete
the development process before the product can be released to production. In addition, there are
certifications that need to be completed from regulatory agencies like UL, SAE, and CE.
Product development cycles at companies are generally aggressive and relay on very few failures
occurring. If at any point the development timeline, cost, etc. slips, upper management must sign
off on the changes. Hence, engineering must work very carefully to ensure no mistakes are made
otherwise key performance parameters will be missed.

Designing Components

I was in the middle of a design phase with a new product launch. I was designing
electrical power supplies to help power lighting systems. With my background, I did not have a
great understanding of the regulations needed to pass UL testing to certify the safety of the
power supply. In addition, I was working with a supplier who did not have a history with
designing this type of product. I reluctantly signed up for an aggressive timeline and cost target
of the product knowing that I was potentially setting myself up for failure. Keeping this thought
in the back of my mind, I submitted several components, schematics, and specifications to UL
testing labs to verify that my power supply would meet regulations. If this power supply failed, I
knew that the entire project would not meet regulations and therefore production would be
delayed. In addition, I had management breathing down my neck to provide any information on
this key component. I was exasperated with how often management kept asking me for status
updates. My only response was, I am pushing UL as hard as I can, but you have to understand
we are small customers of theirs, especially their electronics division. Management did not
accept this response but there was honestly not much else I could do. The entire UL certification
process took about eight weeks, so if I missed anything the process would start over and the
project would slip.

The Design Error

I remember the afternoon very clearly. I was testing some components in the
environmental chambers when I received a phone call from UL. I answered the phone,
Engineering, this is Chris. The person replied on the phone, Chris, this is Juan from UL, we
encountered some problems with the power supplies you submitted. Immediately my heart
sank, as Juan begins to explain that the enclosure (that I chose to save money of course) designed
was actually causing issues during testing. Juan stated he was going to put testing on hold until a

new solution was provided. He also stated that depending on the change, UL might need to
resubmit testing. I hung up the phone and put my hands over my face. My inability to
comprehend the specification was going to cause a major delay in the validation of the power
supply. To make matters worse, due to my inexperience, I did not have a single clue how to fix
this issue. I called the supplier Jim and told him the news about the enclosure. He stated that he
had a solution, but it comes with some safety risks. If we inserted a protective liner on the inner
walls of the enclosure it would pass testing; however, there is a greater risk for safety issues
arising down the road. Jim stated the best part would be that nobody would know that we made
a mistake. I asked if there were any alternatives, and he said to design a new enclosure that
would add major delays and costs. The worst part about this would be that I would have to admit
that I made a mistake that caused major delays in the program. What was I supposed to do?

Business Ethical Dilemma Two:

Background
Working in the engineering department of consumers products can be a fun and
rewarding experience. Probably the best part of this experience is working on products and
innovative ideas long before the product will ever be introduced into the market. The product
development process takes an immense amount of time, resources, and testing to ensure that
products are safely designed before they are released to consumers. Because of this, numerous
prototypes and production replicas are created to test and validate during the development
process. The size of the project and cost generally determines the amount of prototypes that are
created and tested. Hence, when a project is complete thousands of dollars worth of prototypes
are generally leftover. Sometimes these prototypes are destroyed from testing but occasionally
units that are in perfect condition remain. Most companies have a disposition policy to destroy

test units and dispose of the units properly. Although, it seems ridiculous to destroy perfectly
good units, it prevents the company from putting questionable units into the field.

The Issue
We had just designed an innovative new product that we were about to release to the
public. Hands down, this was one of the best products that our group had ever created. It beat
the competition from a performance, cost, and efficiency standpoint. Hence, there was a lot of
excitement surrounding the products and employees were excited to use the products. I had just
shut down the final test of the products and was busy completing the test report when suddenly
Roger, an engineering manager from another division, approached me. Roger asked me what the
plans were for the left over test units and I stated I had not thought of that at this point. I said
that I was going to dispose of it eventually but I hadnt got around to completing this yet since
the test was just complete this week. Roger said he needed it to be removed so we could bring
other products into the lab for testing. He said he would gladly assist in removing and disposing
of it. Although Rogers offer was abnormal, I did not think anything of it and gladly accepted his
assistance.

Disposition of the Test Unit

I stayed later then normal that night to finish up my test report. I decided that before I
went home that I would quick run to the bathroom. In order to get to the bathroom, I had to walk
back by the shipping department. As I was walking back to the bathroom, I was not expecting
anybody else to be around. To my surprise, I noticed that Roger had backed his truck up to the
dock. I was not sure of what was going on, but I noticed that Roger was loading the unit that I
had finished testing into his truck. It finally dawned on me why he was so eager to help me out
with the disposal of the unit; it was because he was going to take it for himself! Roger was my

superior and accusing him of stealing a unit could have a tremendous impact on my career. What
was I supposed to do?

What Actually Happened?

Dilemma One: With the risk of losing my job, I decided that the best approach would be to
contact the project manager and express the issue with UL. I nervously approached his office
and stated that we need to discuss some issues that have developed with the lighting project. I
stated that due to an oversight on my part, the enclosure was not meeting regulations testing at
UL. I presented the two options that were available. I quantified the risks associated with both
options to make the decision as black and white as possible. I recommended using the safer
enclosure because I was concerned about the product safety and our companys reputation. The
project manager thanked me for being open and honest with him. He then stated that I actually
lucked out because the project was being delayed already because of issues related with
equipment on the production line. I breathed a huge sigh of relief and got to working on the new,
safer enclosure. Eventually, the product was released with no ill-effects from mistake.

Dilemma Two: I sheepishly ignored Roger loading the unit up into his truck. As I was driving
home that night, I decided that I was going to talk to my immediate manager in the morning.
The next morning, I approached my manager about the topic. I told him that I saw Roger
loading up the test unit into his truck and I was not sure of what he was using it for. My manager
said that Roger cleared it with the General Manager of the plant so there was nothing that I could
do. At that point, I then realized what type of organizational ethics (or lack thereof) existed in
the company I was working for. I tried to justify in my head that what Roger was doing was
ethical. I used the excuse that the unit was going to be scrapped anyway so it was not costing the
company any money. Still the whole situation did not feel right but I simply ignored it. Later,
the General Manager of the plant was fired and Roger went with him. I never confirmed whether

the reason for severance was related to the test unit. I did eventually leave the company and a
big reason was because of the ethical environment.

Summary
This exercise made reevaluate two situations that I have not contemplated for sometime.
It made me analyze my choices and my immediate reactions when I was placed in unethical
situations. After analyzing each situation, I feel two separate conclusions were formed.
In the first situation, the issue reminded me that being open and honest about the current
status of a situation is always the best option. In this situation, I could have easily taken the easy
route to save my short-term reputation and avoid taking the blame for making a mistake. Later
on, if the power supply would have been considered unsafe and a consumer would have been
injured, I would have been in a lot bigger trouble. In this case, sharing the actually status
prevented any irrational and unsafe decisions from being made. Hence, it is important to
maintain honesty and integrity when in the work environment.
In the second example, I learned that it can be very easy to let unethical environments
flourish. Even though what I felt was happening was wrong, I decided to not doing anything
about it. It is critical to understand that sometimes allowing for unethical practices to continue
can be easier then doing something about it. I am disappointed that after talking to my manager,
I simply turned a blind eye to what was going on around me. Also, I need to understand, that just
because management says it is ok does not make the situation ethical. Not knowing what
Rogers intentions with the test unit where could have resulted in bad situations such as personal
injury to occur. Next time, I will be more cognizant of my surroundings and try to do something
about it.