Ethics: Rocket Science or Child’s Play?

The general American public consistently ranks engineering as one of the top ethical professions. In fact, a CNN/Gallup poll released on December 1, 2003, to rate the honesty and ethical standards of twenty-three professions found that engineering was second only to the medical professions. Have we truly earned this trust and confidence the public has honored us with, or have we simply tricked the public? In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the ranking may have gone down some, but I definitely believe we earned, deserve, and will maintain this trust. The nation’s trust must still be there since ASCE and the profession as a whole were asked to evaluate the situation in New Orleans and recommend solutions. I am proud to be part of the profession.

Often we look at ethics as a highly complex subject requiring a rocket scientist to understand the complexities. In his book, Winners Never Cheat (2005), self-made billionaire Jon Huntsman says this just isn’t so. The chairman of Huntsman Corporation, who started with basically nothing and founded what is now the largest privately held chemical company in the world, says his success and fortune were built on the five ethical and moral principles he learned on the playgrounds as a child:He goes on to say that these principles he learned as a child were simple and fair, and like a compass, remain simple and fair. He emphasizes these simple compasses provide a path for our moral well being as well as long-term material success. He concludes that acceptable moral values and ethical behavior are “child’s play, not rocket science” (Hunstman 2005).

A year or so ago, I saw Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, arguably the greatest CEO of his time and also an engineer, being interviewed on C-SPAN by students on a college campus. When asked by a rather cynical student how he (Welch), as a devout Catholic, could make business decisions, Welch said it was simple—his business ethics were the same as his personal ethics. When pressed on exactly how he made ethical decisions, he replied that such decisions were based on the ethical principles his mother taught him growing up. He went on to say that there is only one ethical “compass”—your soul will tell you what to do.

In his best selling book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, Robert Fulghum (1989) describes how each year of his adult life he sat down and wrote a personal statement of belief—a credo on how he wanted to lead a meaningful and ethical life. As a young man, these were long statements where he tried to leave no loose ends. As he got older, he noticed the statement got shorter and shorter and he finally realized he already knew most of what was necessary to lead a meaningful life—and it wasn’t that complicated. He finally discovered that what he really needed to know he learned as a child in kindergarten. Here is his credo:

The “rules” Huntsman, Welch, and Fulghum learned from childhood seem rather basic and some could say simplistic. Can these rules really be construed to be a code of ethics? Are these the ethical rules upon which the public has given us such high marks? Let’s look closer at “ethics.”

I conduct the ASCE seminar “Leadership Development for the Engineer,” which includes one hour of ethics training and also the ASCE Webinar “Ethics—The Road Engineers Must Follow.” These seminars and my experiences conducting them provide much of the basis for this paper. In both seminars I use this definition of ethics: “Rules or standards that guide individuals or organizations to do the moral or right thing.” “Moral” means making right decisions in accordance with the principles of right or wrong, while “principle” means “a basic or fundamental truth.” Following this train of logic, ethics are principle based and thus do not change with time or circumstances. As the guru of all management gurus Peter Drucker (1999) said, “what is ethical behavior in one kind of organization or situation is ethical behavior in another.” John Maxwell (2003) agrees, saying, “There is no such thing as business ethics—there’s only ethics.”

Now back to the high ethical and trust rating we as engineers received from the public. ASCE was founded in 1852 by twelve engineers in New York City. One would think that a high priority of this new organization would be to establish a code of ethics for its members. If you thought this you were wrong. The first ASCE code was approved sixty-two years later in 1914. Did ethics mean nothing in our early stages? To understand this, let’s go back in history. Thankfully, Sarah Pfatteicher (2003) wrote a fantastic paper on this subject and much of what you will read here comes from her great contribution to the civil engineering profession.

In 1852 there were only two kinds of engineers—those working on military projects and those working on everything else, called civil projects (thus “civil engineers”). Then, civil engineering included all of the engineering disciplines—mechanical, electrical, etc. (much like NSPE today). Architects were also members and the original name of the society was the American Society of Civil Engineers and Architects. So, the early history we are talking about is the history of the entire nonmilitary engineer profession in the United States. I believe this history will aid you in understanding and applying the current code.

Ethics meant everything when ASCE was formed. Pfatteicher makes this point by quoting a speech of John Jervis when he was inducted as an Honorary Member in 1869: “[T]he engineer eminently depends on character … on his capacity for his profession and his integrity as a man” (Pfatteicher 2003). In that day there were no official credentials that established you as an engineer. Few engineers were products of engineering schools and you learned by working for an established, credible engineer. The only way you could hang your own shingle was to establish your technical competence and good character. Both were required by potential clients and this was well understood within the profession. Therefore, ASCE saw no reason to establish a code of ethics—good character was a given. Since its founding, the early leaders intended society membership to be proof that an individual was fully qualified by competence and character to be an engineer. Members sponsoring a candidate for society membership had to verify the “good character and reputation” of the candidate. Anyone not meeting the society criteria simply was not an engineer at all.

This philosophy of the society continued, although as the number of engineers increased and the society founders passed on, it became more and more difficult to maintain the high standards for membership. There were a number of instances where engineers unfairly competed with other engineers, owners “shopped” for engineers to do what they wanted, etc. Even with these problems the society maintained its position and would not adopt a code of ethics. Many people both inside and outside of the society were very unhappy with keeping this increasingly dated position held by the original founders.

All of this changed when in the late 1800s the courts ruled that states could regulate the practice of engineering (and other professions) and several chose to do so. I refer readers to Pfatteicher’s (2003) paper to read of all the fussing, fuming, and intrigue that occurred because of this ruling. There was in-fighting with other engineering societies that had broken off from ASCE. The bottom line to all of this is that the society finally adopted a code of ethics in June of 1914.

The 1914 code (Pfatteicher 2003) is not even close to the current code. The code dealt with business aspects of the profession. Pfatteicher notes that for sixty years after its adoption, the basic theme was “do not do anything to harm the profession, its reputation, or your fellow engineers.” It was a list of “do nots” intended to keep the profession “honorable.” There was no direct mention of the engineer’s obligation to the public nor of competency. These obligations were considered givens. It was not until the mid-1970s that the code made clear that public safety was the “paramount” duty of engineers. Pfatteicher concludes that until this day Jervis’s “dictum that ‘the engineer eminently depends on character’ still holds true.” The essential message from the nineteenth century engineer is that whatever the content of a profession’s code, the content of [an individual’s] character matters more.”

I will not go into details of the code here since they can be found in the ASCE Official Register and online from the ASCE Web site. The code is divided into three components:

As a member of ASCE, you have no choice but to agree to live by the code. In addition, it is your duty as a member to report to ASCE any observed violations of the code. This is serious business.

I think you will find the code very straightforward with few ambiguities. I do recognize that we live in a complex world where not everything is right or wrong or black and white—there is the gray zone we often enter where true ethical dilemmas exist. This is especially true in the world of litigation and as we enter the global experience. An ethical dilemma is a situation where two or more moral ideals come into conflict and it appears that all of them cannot be respected. But how often does that really happen? How many times do we really know what we should do—the right thing—but are trying to justify what we want to do? Maxwell quotes the ethicist, Michael Josephenson, when he says, “[E]thics is all about how we meet the challenge of doing the right thing when that act will cost more than we want to pay” (Maxwell 2003). I am very pleased that this Journal and the ASCE Newsletter are emphasizing ethics and presenting case studies. I read the case studies religiously. Let me ask you: in most of the case studies isn’t it usually obvious if the action is ethical or unethical and the only question is what should be done about it? Again, I do not want to present the picture that there are not true ethical dilemmas—there are.

Thank goodness there is help out there to assist you in sorting through just about any ethical situation you may encounter. I have already mentioned the three components of the code. The “Guidelines to Practice” will give you a good source to begin looking at specific details. In addition, ASCE has published an excellent eighteen-page document entitled “Ethics—Standards of Conduct for Civil Engineers” (ASCE 2000). This document can be downloaded directly from the ASCE Web site and is filled with excellent usable information written in nonlegalese. There are specific guidelines on topics like conflict of interest, accepting or giving gifts (including meals), outside employment, bribes and kickbacks, whistle blowing, and relationships with competitors. There is guidance in your role in handling situations involving ethical conduct and all three components of the code are presented. This document is an absolute must for engineers.

The “Standards of Conduct” document also contains a very simple test called “the PLUS Test.” Before you make a decision ask the following questions:

Let’s look at “legal.” I think we all know that just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. The Russian dissident Solzhenitsyn said: “I have lived my life in a society where there was no rule of law. And that is a terrible existence. But a society where the rule of law is the only standard of ethical behavior is equally bad.” Huntsman (2005) said, “We are not always required by law to do what is right and proper. Decency, for instance, carries no legal mandate.” Basically, if it is against the law, it is unethical, but just being legal does not mean it is the ethical road for you and the profession to take.

I have a problem with the “S” in the PLUS Test being last. We have already said that ethics are based on principles and there can be no difference in our personal and professional ethics. If you accept this proposition, this should be the SPLU Test. If you can’t pass the “S” test, why in the world would you go on to “P,” “L,” and “U?”

There are other sources of help and guidance available to engineers. One is the management of the organization where you work. Some organizations may have specific rules on what is right that surpass the ASCE code requirements. You always have the ASCE Ethics Hotline available to you. By calling 703.295.6061 or 800.548.ASCE, extension 6061, you can get guidance on any ethical situation you experience (this is also the number you call to report observed ethical misconduct). I called the number and Tom Smith, ASCE General Counsel, answered—so it must work.

You have probably heard through various chains the importance ASCE is placing on global ethics. This is a major and important presidential initiative past ASCE president Bill Henry spearheaded. In addition to doing what is “right,” this initiative also has other influences the task committee considers. In 2005, Engineering News Record reported that world construction amounted to about $3.9 trillion [as cited in ASCE (2005)]. However, the World Bank reported that greater than 10 percent ($390 billion) was lost to bribery and corruption. The 10 percent figure is an average and the percentage is much greater in many developing countries. In the next ten years over 80 percent of infrastructure funding will be in developing countries, as well as in two thirds of the major cities, where there will be major construction.

ASCE as well as the construction and consulting industry are taking a worldwide zero-tolerance stance to corruption. This is being enforced through organizations such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. Many say that nothing can be done about the corruption in other countries and cultures. I differ with that. I am old enough to remember corruption at the Mississippi “beat” level. This is at a much lower geographical level, but I think the lesson is valid. In Mississippi each county is divided into five geographical “beats” with a supervisor elected from each beat. The supervisor basically ran their own highway department within their beat. Often, the only way an equipment salesman could make a sale was to provide a kickback to the supervisor. Everyone knew what was going on and “winked” at the practice although all knew it was ethically wrong. Finally, many of the people got tired of their tax dollars going into the pockets of unscrupulous supervisors and the attorney general began to enforce the law. Several supervisors went to jail and the problem soon went away. I believe that this concept at the global level can work through tough international sanctions and other penalties.

In summary civil engineers have a long and continuing emphasis on ethics, character, and integrity that has served us well and will continue to do so in the future. We must maintain the respect and trust we have earned from the public. I agree with Huntsman’s position that ethics are child’s play, not rocket science.

Most everything I’ve covered can be summarized in the words of some very wise individuals I have quoted in the text and below:

I believe Stephen Covey (1998) captured the essence and simplicity of ethics when he wrote: Before you make a decision ask—Is it right?