Professional Dilema

¶ … Lead Return Material Authorization Technician I am responsible for failure investigations of defective products. I must determine if, how and why particular products are failures according to specified quality standards, and prescribe remedies, if at all possible -- if not, then the manufacturer must engage in further modifications. This is a process requiring careful attention to detail and protocol, and thus, quite often, egos can become frayed when a particular product is found not to be up to standard.

What were ethical issues you experienced?

In one ethical conflict, my finding regarding a particular product was in dispute. I felt that it was still not up to standard, despite modifications, and that the entire product needed to be overhauled. It was alleged that I was biased because, although the product in question was very close to code regulations, I still found it to be faulty because the necessary modifications were not fully implemented and thus the product still merited its previous status as defective and a failure.

b. Who was involved? (Please use only the first names or initials for the participants.)

Mr. X was a notable client, who often had dealings with the establishment I work with. I had authority because of my job description in relation to Mr. X, but only regarding the particular product and project I had been appointed to investigate.

c. What was the relationship of the other individual(s) to you?

My employer, who hired me, my professional code of conduct and implicit honor owed to me fellow professionals, and my owner personal code of conduct where all 'individuals' involved in my decision-making. Despite assumptions to the contrary, few technicians enjoy finding fault with any type of product. We would like things to proceed as smoothly as possible, according to plan. Everyone wants one's supervisor, customers, and everyone involved in the transaction process to be as happy as possible, and for the fault investigation to be minimal, with little blame apportioned to anyone. In fact, it would be ideal if my occupations involved nothing but approval. However, I would not be doing my job and honoring my ethical obligations to my profession and to the employer who hired me if I simply found every client up to standard.

Analyze the ethical dilemma:

a. Was there a difference in power and authority? Explain.

The ethical relationship between every verifier of quality control and the product's creator or owner is always complicated. On one hand, as the technician, I have a great deal of power in the sense it is my 'say so' that matters -- just like the person behind the desk at the DMV says whether your car is up to standard or not, no ifs ands or buts! However, this does not mean that my status is all-powerful, in terms of the way I am socially perceived. I deal with many individuals of powerful monetary, class, and status positions who might feel superior to me because of their accustomed authority in their own sphere. They feel that their products are always of quality and up to standard, and grow outraged if I do not agree, and attempt to investigate why products have failed and if they are still failures in regards to standards, as did Mr. X.

b. What were the ethics in question?

Given that the product was close to standard, and efforts had been put in place to modify it, my ethical conundrum was as follows -- did I agree to the good faith efforts of the producer and pass the product, stating that it no longer merited a return to the shop for further modifications? Or did I adhere strictly to code?

c. What personal values were in conflict?

Personally, I prefer to be 'the nice guy' and 'cut people a break' in my daily, informal personal life. I also hope, of course, that people do the same to me, giving me a few extra fries in my extra value meal, or allowing minor ethical transgressions to slip past a less than watchful eye. This is fine in a casual manner, one might say -- but not when safety and professional ethics are involved. Thus my personal desire to please my employer and to please the product manufacturer was in conflict with my adherence to particular standards.

d. What were the potential outcomes?

I could allow the product to pass, stating that modifications for its original failure had been made, or I could say that despite the modifications that had been specified, I was still not pleased and felt that it was hopelessly defective and could not be brought up to standard and return it again for further review.