Notes from 45th International STC Conference
Anaheim, California, May 17-20, 1998

Notes from Networking Lunch: Making Ethical Choices on the Job

Facilitator: Dan Voss
Communications Department
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida
Lockheed Martin Corporation

Note: Participants shared several vignettes concerning ethical conflicts they faced on the job, and we discussed possible alternatives

• Vignette #1: A husband-wife team worked for a software company. The husband left and went to work for a competitor. The wife remains with the company. The obvious issue is potential conflict of interest. She signed the customary Proprietary Information agreement (like our Conflict of Interest form), but there is still doubt whether the sensitive information she deals with daily can be truly secure within the context of marital communication, even if both parties make an express effort to behave ethically. Should the company fire her? Can they legally fire her? The best alternative offered by the group was for the company to offer her a "golden parachute" to leave under good terms on the condition she sign a legal binder not to divulge sensitive information to a competitor.
• Vignette #2: A project manager was so awful that 4 of the 5 members of the team quit the company. That left the one remaining writer (the one at our table!) holding the bag. Was their action ethical? Yes--one can hardly be called unethical for laying one's job on the line over a disputed work situation. "Unwise," perhaps, but not unethical.
• Vignette #3: A reduction-in-force (RIF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory triggered a litigation alleging discrimination based on race and age. The heart of the problem was that the layoffs were driven by the business need to reduce the support-to-technical ratio from 4:1 to a lower number. Since there was a higher percentage of minorities in the support workforce (where the layoffs occurred) than in the technical workforce (which was not subject to layoffs), the percentage of minorities laid off versus the total population was disproportionate. Los Alamos countered that the proper statistical measure would be the percentage of minorities laid off versus the corresponding percentage of minorities within the RIF-affected population (i.e., the support workers) rather than in the total population. Using that barometer, the minority layoffs were not disproportionate. The battle rages on. Did the company behave ethically? Assuming its statistics are correct, we believed it did.
• Vignette #4: What if one's company is not exercising socially responsible values (e.g., operating factories in Third World nations that exploit child labor)? Quit? Work within the company to seek change? The former, while ethically justifiable, is not likely to improve the situation. But how long can one reasonably be expected to work for change if said change is not forthcoming--in the mean time working for, contributing to, and benefitting from the company that is exercising the unethical behavior? Tough one.