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

Handling Ethical Dilemmas on the Job... A Panel Discussion

Moderator: Barbara E. Epp, BEA Systems, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

Panelists:
Shirley A. Hancock, Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN
Jeffrey L. Hibbard, IBM Corporation, Yorktown Heights, NY
Constance L. Kiernan, Symbios, Inc., Fort Collins, CO
Lawrence D. Kunz, IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Daniel W. Voss, Lockheed Martin Electronics and Missiles, Orlando, FL

Abstract: Experts in ethics will answer ethical dilemmas in the field of technical communication and on the job. Submit dilemmas (anonymously) to the panel prior to or during the session.

Note: The session sparked a lively exchange. Presented below are 5 vignettes that were used to trigger discussion, plus some other ideas that came out of the session.

The Vignettes...

• Vignette #1. Legality. You work as a technical writer at ABC Company. You are assigned the task of researching the benefits of HTML versus PDF. You find a great Web site with all the information you need and simply copy the text into the document you are working on. Your boss is impressed and shows everyone your hard work.
  
  Responses: The legality and ethics of lifting material from other Web sites can be quite complex. Copyright protects content, but what about the HTML code that forms the container for that content? Historically -- if you can use that term with this relatively infant but burgeoning medium -- it has been common practice to "clone" HTML code and adopt it to one's own purposes. But what if the site itself is so elegant, so well-designed, that there is inherent value in the source code behind it. Is that protected by copyright law as well as the content? And what constitutes "fair use" when it comes to Web "theft"? This was the vignette the panel was least able to pin down; not surprisingly, it led to a maze of gray. The consensus was that if taking the code represented a commercial advantage (e.g., saving money on design and then selling the resulting work for profit), it was unethical; but that if college students learned HTML design by lifting source code and adapting it to their personal sites, that would not be inappropriate. A toughie... and very relevant to our department.
• Vignette #2. Honesty. Each day when you get to work, you spend an hour or two surfing the net for fun and interesting items. After that, you'll spend about an hour throughout the day sending jokes and having e-mail conversations with friends. Although [this practice is] not outlined in your employee reference manual, you enjoy the benefit of having Internet access, e-mail, and the opportunity for networking.
  
  Responses: It came down to purpose and degree--largely a matter of judgment. If the purpose of personal time on the Web on company is personal profit, then zero is the appropriate amount of time. If the purpose is purely recreational (the equivalent of a smoking break, for example), then judgment and moderation come into play. Ten minutes at the ESPN site checking football scores is comparable to ten minutes outside on a break. Two hours becomes excessive. Where's the line? The same place it is for personal phone calls, non-work-related chit chat, reading the newspaper, etc. What about surfing the Net legitimately for design ideas? That falls into the same category as reading professional journals, going to the Information Center to "get smart," etc. If you're genuinely in a "down time" mode, then professional development can legitimately be done on the job. If, however, you have job responsibilities, they obviously come first--and professional development, including job-related Web surfing, must be pushed back onto personal time. What about what kind of sites you visit? That's common sense. If you wouldn't bring it to work in your briefcase to read, then don't go look it up on the Web! [Remember: they can look in your briefcase, and they can see where you've been on the Web!]
• Vignette #3. Quality. You are a technical writing manager at ABC Company. The product manager for the new ABC product, FIZZ, has asked one of your writers to format the engineering specs and make them look good. The PM says that no product documentation is needed to get FIZZ out for an early release. While reviewing the specs and the software, you notice serious problems with the software and the information in the specs.
  
  Responses: Our commitment to our users compels us to take action in a situation like this. One panelist cautioned, however, that we be sure the quality breach is serious before going off to war about it -- since taking a "line-stopping" type of position is bound to carry with it a certain amount of political risk.
• Vignette #4. Fairness. You are the only technical trainer at ABC Company when Chris, the new manager, is hired. You get the impression that Chris resents that you have been at the company longer and that you know more people. Chris immediately hires Lynn and tells you that Lynn is a "dynamo" and how Chris thought you were a prima donna, but now knows that you're not. One day, you, Chris, and Lynn are putting together training materials for the company president. You suggest putting the materials in a binder. Chris dismisses the idea immediately. Lynn says, "I think we should put the materials in a binder." To which Chris replies, "You know, that is not a bad idea!"
  
  Responses: Both the attendees and the panelists felt this incident lay at the trivial end of the office politics scale. However, it does raise the issue of how much one should "fight fire with fire" in a situation like this. For example, is there justification for "pre-emptive backstabbing"? Fairness and justice are not always forthcoming. How far should we adjust our behavior to compensate? We all have to drawn our own lines.
• Vignette #5. Professionalism. You work as a technical writer at ABC Company and are the lead judge in the Tri-State Publications competition, in charge of distributing the entries. Chris Smith, a writer at XYZ Company, the chief competitor of ABC, has submitted an entry. You do not consider Chris a friend and would not feel badly if XYZ did not win an award.. You consider yourself a fair person, so you assign the entry to yourself to judge.
  
  Responses: Professionals should never knowingly place themselves in a position of potential conflict of interest. Even if we do feel confident in our objectivity, and even if we act with total objectivity, in a situation like this the appearance of impropriety is apt to cause as much fallout as actual impropriety. Bad decision.

Some Other Thoughts...

• One participant brought out the concept of :"malicious compliance," which refers to the zealous execution of inappropriate directives when those discharging those directives know it is clearly not in the best interest of the person who gave the directions. Honesty compels us to challenge the directions, not execute them with the full knowledge that the consequences will be negative.
• Another participant brought up a situation where one of her employees was a Sikh whose religious beliefs led him to carry a small ritual knife as part of his apparel. Human resources demanded he be relieved of the knife on the basis that it was a concealed weapon. This brought back memories of the second grader who was expelled because she inadvertently brought her mother's lunchbox to school containing a small paring knife. The consensus was the common sense was a very important part of ethical judgments, and that nonsense like this must be steadfastly resisted by persons of good intelligence and good conscience--if that means rocking the boat, so be it!
• What if the boss and the boss's boss are involved in unethical behavior, you escalate the problem, and your boss's boss assigns your boss to investigate it? That's what the Ethics Office is for. If your company doesn't have one, it may be time to dust off your résumé.