Whistle-blowing Report for the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Coursework Example

Whistle-blowing Report for IMechE (Name) (University Affiliation) (Date) Words: 1586 1.0 Introduction The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) is charged with advising as well as leading its members as far as whistle-blowing is concerned. Whistle-blowing blowing has been a controversial issue in many corporations, which leaves professional engineering bodies in dilemma as they need to draw the line between moral responsibility and professional duty. In simple terms, whistle-blowing is process whereby an employee, sometimes a former worker, reveals information relating to a significant moral issue to a third-party either internally or externally (Oliver, 2009). Moreover, the information being revealed is often unauthorized by the recommended organizational channels. The whistleblower often takes such a step with the hope that an action would be taken to control the situation at hand. IMechE has the responsibility of informing its members about the importance of putting the public’s interest first before anything else. Through IMechE, the members need to understand that their profession is associated with the health, safety as well as the welfare of the public and as such should protect them at any given time. Engineers have the obligation of whistle-blowing issues, which, if left unattended, can cause harm to the public (Schwartz, 2011). More often than not, the management will give little attention to these matters and would not want anyone to reveal them to the public. This is because it would not want the company to get a bad name. As such, this report seeks to advise the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) about the importance of whistle-blowing. The report also offers IMechE suggestions of how its members should engage in whistle-blowing: moral guidelines. The report also highlights the moral guidelines IMechE members should consider before or while whistle-blowing, as uncouth whistle-blowing can attract serious legal liabilities. 2.0 Whistle-blowing from a Mechanical Engineering perspective. According to Schinzinger and Martin (2000), whistle-blowing occurs as a result of larger ethical problem within an organization. Moreover, they also argue that top mechanical engineers as well as other human resource managers often break the professional ethics. That is, they do not pay attention to the employees’ pleas. As such, employees have to seek other avenues (whistle-blowing) in order to reveal the potential or ongoing issues within the organizations, which if not addressed could bring harm to the public. Using the “1967 Goodrich Air Force Brake problem case,” example, a former employee of Goodrich Wheel and Brake company, Kermit Vandivier was fired because of whistle-blowing. Vandivier informed the public, more so the government inquiry that the qualification test report prepared by Goodrich was fabricated and went against the ethical guidelines of Goodrich personnel. Kermit’s courage of whistle-blowing cost him his job but saved many aircraft companies from big losses as well as avoidable accidents. From the above example, it is clear that IMechE has the sole responsibility of advising its members the need to adhere to the Engineering code of ethics. IMechE should inform its members that they have the engineering obligation of whistle-blowing failed innovation, in order to protect the public from harm. Fleddermann (1999) points out that engineers should not be blinded by the employee-employer loyalty largely to the extent of rationalizing ineptitude as well as failed innovations. Fleddermann (1999) also adds that the company may not be willing to disclose or rather stop a failed innovation because they fear losses. Moreover, such companies would not want their reputation compromised due to failed innovations. Similarly, Oliver (2009) is of the opinion that members of the engineering professional should hold their superiors accountable through exposing their wrong doings. 2.1 Duties Engineers have to the Public The IMechE has the obligation of letting their members know that they are mandated to serve the public both directly (innovation of products) and indirectly (whistle-blowing). Through IMechE, members should be aware that they could be responsible for failed innovations as well as other potential risky issues if they do not raise an alarm in time. Like any other engineer, mechanical engineers should prevent events from worsening through whistle-blowing, and should get their facts straight to avoid loop holes for scapegoats. According to Martin (2002), the first rule of the code of ethics in all engineering professional bodies is the duty to the public. All engineering members are encouraged to prioritize the public’s interest as far as their career is concerned. Thus, the welfare of the public as well as their welfare should always come first in their career, as human lives are more important than obedience (Martin, 2002). Accordingly, whistle-blowing is compulsory when human lives or the public’s welfare is concerned. Therefore, IMechE should advise its members that they have the moral duty to protect the public’s welfare as well as prevent harmful products from reaching the consumer through whistle-blowing. 2.2 Duty Engineers have to other Engineers Whistle-blowing is often a personal decision, and many will fear to whistle-blow lest they are known and victimized. As Oliver (2009) puts it, “nobody wants to be a martyr though everyone would wish to become a hero.” When an employee manages to prevent a tragedy through whistle-blowing, his fellow engineers envy him or her. However, they sometimes they talk ill of the whistleblower saying that the whistleblower did not do much to deserve all the heroism. Thus, the IMechE should let its members understand that whistle-blowing takes great courage, and anyone who succeeds in it should be respected and seen as role model. Instead of being jealous, the members should be encouraged to help their fellow engineers in whistle-blowing. For instance, they can help their colleagues by availing them with enough information or evidence, which can be used as a proof of the revealed allegation. In case of victimization, fellow engineers should stand by their colleagues as it shows solidarity in transparency and accountability. 2.3 Moral Guidelines in Whistle-blowing Even though whistle-blowing is a moral responsibility for each engineer, the freedom of carrying out such an obligation should always be accompanied by moral guidelines. Whistle-blowing should not be an avenue for revenging on the supervisors or the management; neither should it be used for malicious intentions. IMechE should discourage its members from such thoughts as they interfere with the primary objective of whistle-blowing within a company (Harris et al. 2005). As such, whistle-blowing should be conducted with considerable harm that could result from a company’s acts of commission or omission. Moreover, the IMechE should advise its members to consider whistle-blowing when they realize that some harm has occurred and has not been noticed. Additionally, employees should blow the whistle when they realize that there could be a potential harm to the client, fellow workers, and the public or even the shareholders. Moreover, employees should raise alarm when they realize that an event may occur again in the future (Schinzinger & Martin, 2000). In addition, Schinzinger & Martin (2000) should advise workers to be always cautious when whistle-blowing as it relates to revealing sensitive information to the public, which is against the organization’s rules. Accordingly, engineers are advised to collect enough as well as concrete evidence that can back up their claims in case it takes a legal battle. 3.0 Recommendations There are five important proposals, which IMechE should consider using as far as advising its members on matters of Whistle-blowing are concerned. First, IMechE should advise its members to consider whistle-blowing when the harm they want to report, is considered serious. In other words, the actual harm should be worth the risk associated with whistle-blowing as it means an employee risking losing his or her job due to disobedience and disloyalty. Second, the engineer should ensure the harm to be revealed has been adequately documented to stand the test if challenged. IMechE should also advise its members to ensure that they have raised the concerns to their immediate supervisors before resorting to whistle-blowing. Third, engineers should whistle-blow upon getting insufficient attention from the superiors as well as exploiting the formal and informal channels. Moreover, the employees should ensure that they have consulted relevant lawyers to inquire for possible legal liabilities. Ultimately, the employees should resort to raising alarm externally when the only hope lies in whistle-blowing. Conclusion The report has highlighted the significance of Whistle-blowing as it has depicted that whistle-blowing helps in limiting risky events that can otherwise harm the public. The report has also advised IMechE to remind its members that they have a duty to the public: protect them from harmful products as well as take care of their welfare. Moreover, the paper has outlined the obligation of engineers to the public as well as other engineers. In order to be in line with relevant moral values, the report has recommended various ethical guidelines, which IMechE can propose to its members in case of whistle-blowing. References Fleddermann, C.: 1999, Engineering Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.course.sdu.edu.cn%2FG2S%2 Harris, C. E., M. S. Pritchard, and M. J. Rabins: 2005, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, third edition. www.course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20131017113053223.pdf Martin, M. W.: 2002, ‘Personal meaning and ethics in engineering’. Science and Engineering Ethics 8, 545–546. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-002-0008-3#page-1 Oliver, D. (2009). Whistle-Blowing by Engineers and Reverse Whistle-Blowing on Engineers. In American Society for Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education. Schinzinger Roland and Mike Martin: 2000 Introduction to Engineering Ethics, McGraw-Hill: 167-184 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcourse.sdu.edu.cn%2FG2S%2FeWebEditor%2Fuploadfile%2F20131018102149728.pdf&ei=zNmyVMKxLsyI7AbXxYDABw&usg=AFQjCNGCjDnz2Io3mYUdM4-nontxMx_nYg&sig2=wTvKoim93-BFz4bOa2ZcEA&bvm=bv.83339334,d.ZGU Schwartz, A. (2011). Structural engineers— legal and ethical obligation to the public: How far does it extend? | civil + structural ENGINEER. Cenews.com. Retrieved 13 January 2015, from http://cenews.com/article/8359/structural-engineersmdash-legal-and-ethical obligation-to-the-public-how-far-does-it-extend Read More

Using the “1967 Goodrich Air Force Brake problem case,” example, a former employee of Goodrich Wheel and Brake company, Kermit Vandivier was fired because of whistle-blowing. Vandivier informed the public, more so the government inquiry that the qualification test report prepared by Goodrich was fabricated and went against the ethical guidelines of Goodrich personnel. Kermit’s courage of whistle-blowing cost him his job but saved many aircraft companies from big losses as well as avoidable accidents.

From the above example, it is clear that IMechE has the sole responsibility of advising its members the need to adhere to the Engineering code of ethics. IMechE should inform its members that they have the engineering obligation of whistle-blowing failed innovation, in order to protect the public from harm. Fleddermann (1999) points out that engineers should not be blinded by the employee-employer loyalty largely to the extent of rationalizing ineptitude as well as failed innovations. Fleddermann (1999) also adds that the company may not be willing to disclose or rather stop a failed innovation because they fear losses.

Moreover, such companies would not want their reputation compromised due to failed innovations. Similarly, Oliver (2009) is of the opinion that members of the engineering professional should hold their superiors accountable through exposing their wrong doings. 2.1 Duties Engineers have to the Public The IMechE has the obligation of letting their members know that they are mandated to serve the public both directly (innovation of products) and indirectly (whistle-blowing). Through IMechE, members should be aware that they could be responsible for failed innovations as well as other potential risky issues if they do not raise an alarm in time.

Like any other engineer, mechanical engineers should prevent events from worsening through whistle-blowing, and should get their facts straight to avoid loop holes for scapegoats. According to Martin (2002), the first rule of the code of ethics in all engineering professional bodies is the duty to the public. All engineering members are encouraged to prioritize the public’s interest as far as their career is concerned. Thus, the welfare of the public as well as their welfare should always come first in their career, as human lives are more important than obedience (Martin, 2002).

Accordingly, whistle-blowing is compulsory when human lives or the public’s welfare is concerned. Therefore, IMechE should advise its members that they have the moral duty to protect the public’s welfare as well as prevent harmful products from reaching the consumer through whistle-blowing. 2.2 Duty Engineers have to other Engineers Whistle-blowing is often a personal decision, and many will fear to whistle-blow lest they are known and victimized. As Oliver (2009) puts it, “nobody wants to be a martyr though everyone would wish to become a hero.

” When an employee manages to prevent a tragedy through whistle-blowing, his fellow engineers envy him or her. However, they sometimes they talk ill of the whistleblower saying that the whistleblower did not do much to deserve all the heroism. Thus, the IMechE should let its members understand that whistle-blowing takes great courage, and anyone who succeeds in it should be respected and seen as role model. Instead of being jealous, the members should be encouraged to help their fellow engineers in whistle-blowing.

For instance, they can help their colleagues by availing them with enough information or evidence, which can be used as a proof of the revealed allegation. In case of victimization, fellow engineers should stand by their colleagues as it shows solidarity in transparency and accountability. 2.3 Moral Guidelines in Whistle-blowing Even though whistle-blowing is a moral responsibility for each engineer, the freedom of carrying out such an obligation should always be accompanied by moral guidelines.

Whistle-blowing should not be an avenue for revenging on the supervisors or the management; neither should it be used for malicious intentions.

Read More