| Author |
Message |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 06:46 pm: |    |
My firm has currently been hired by a developer to do a project. Part of the project includes demolition of a famous historic building. Since I am a member of the local landmarks chapter, I have a real problem with destroying this beautiful old building. I am surprised that my firm would even consider taking this job since many of our projects include historic preservation. Ironically we market ourselves as “preservation architects”.
How do I tactfully tell my boss that due to my conscious that I can not work on this project? |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 85
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 06:56 pm: | |
Before you tell him/her you can't do it, find out why they ARE doing it. Perhaps their reasoning will be agreeable with you. If not, then it seems wholly ethical and fair to respectfully decline the project. If that goes badly for you, then it's not the firm that agrees with your ideology anyway. |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 212
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 07:02 pm: | |
That's what 'at will' employment is all about. How strongly do you feel about it? Unless you're prepared to look for another job, you're not committed. Change comes when people in your position are willing to lay it on the line. So, it's kind of a silly question because if you have to ask, then you're not really committed. |
Julie Root
Senior Member
Username: julie_root
Post Number: 56
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 07:21 pm: | |
I have a long time colleague who is refused to work on labs that had animal testing facilities within them. Once he simply made that preference known the partners accepted it as fact. He was a senior technical design person and he would answer technical questions of colleagues who were working on the job, but was not actively involved on those types of projects. Most people in the firm thought it was admirable of the person and the partners that they could agree to disagree on having these types of projects in the office. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 09:01 am: | |
Anon #2: Ahhh, a battle of principle, where have you been? Don't do anything based on emotion...how will you buy $4-5/gal. gas if you're unemployed? Maybe I'm just jaded working for a large public agency run by politics, but trust me, this issue will seem insignificant in 6-days, 6-weeks, 6-months (select one). Here are trusty words of advice in politics: 1. Have plenty of patience. 2. Only fight the battles you can win! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:34 am: | |
Jaded Anon: I strongly disagree.
"Only fight the battles you can win!" usually translates to "...battles you are certain you can win." This renders principle meaningless, which I suppose is your point. Not that fighting a losing battle to the death is useful or practical either, but conscientious objection does historically make an impact even if a particular battle doesn't succeed.
That said, you do have to decide how far you are willing to go. See posts above... |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 349
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 11:15 am: | |
Well, I put this question to my son, a philosophy major, soon to be PhD, who teaches business ethics courses (among other things). Here's his response:
Seems on the surface like it's not an ethical dilemma, but more of a social dilemma. Seems like she (gender picked at random) has already decided what she thinks is the right thing to do, and the worry is now how to communicate this to the boss without negative consequences.
Ethically there's some good justification for what she's doing, as long as there's no specific contract that she herself would be violating by not working on the project. Her membership in the landmarks chapter has placed a certain responsibility on her, one which handily doesn't seem to conflict with the stated mission of the business. (Unlike if she felt bad about tearing down any building at all, or even worse, felt bad about putting UP buildings...much more of a conflict between job and personal values there.)
So the question becomes how best to tell her boss about this, and that's going to depend on who the boss is. I think the landmark chapter membership is an important part of the equation. Asking her to work on this project would be like asking a Vegan to take a prospective client to the local steakhouse--it might help the business, but it wouldn't be respecting the employee as a person in her own right. As long as she doesn't have a history of pulling out of projects based on similar issues, I'd say she has good ground to stand on. Most likely, the project can be done by someone else in the firm, I assume.
If the boss is a really good sort, she might even want to question the taking on of the project in the first place, if she feels stongly enough. The 'preservation architect' billing does indeed seem to conflict with tearing down great old buildings (Thomas K. Javoroski).
I also think that you have already decided what is right, and now you need to communicate this decision with your bosses. Your membership in the landmarks chapter does lend credibility and weight to your decision and your position. You have a responsibility to uphold the tenets of the organization.
Raising the questions of ethical practice with the company, an avowed "Preservation Architect" might serve the greater good, too. All of us must make the kind of decisions involved here; what will you do when your principles are challenged? Where do you "draw the line"? What are you willing to compromise on in order to earn your living? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 11:43 am: | |
Anon #2: Is it more important to do "things right" or do the "right thing"? If the task being performed is not essential does it really matter how well it was done? Would management value being told they are wrong? Probably not!
Like it or not, this is a society based on free enterprise and capitolism. Anon #1's firm has already made their position clear on this principle by accepting the PSA to provide this service for what we presume is a healthy profit. My point to Anon #1 is, before you choose to go up against management, just be sure you are committed enough to take such a risk.....or just perhaps are there more essential battles to wage for Anon #1 that would benfit his career? |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 350
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 11:55 am: | |
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. - Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992) |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 12:30 pm: | |
When was the last time you heard management wax philosophical? "Raise the sperm count", Lock and Load", "Kill Zone", "Lunch is for wimps!" - Gordon Gecko (1988) |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 333
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 01:17 pm: | |
This problem used to come up during the Vietnam war years (I started working just after that) and the office I worked in had a number of people who refused on grounds of conscience to work on military facilities. the firm accommodated them when possible, but it was known that if the only work in the firm was military, you were probably facing a layoff. I think that's fair on both sides: you can make your preference known, but if it restricts you from being fully employed, then there may be some personal consequences to bear. |
Tom Javoroski (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 01:13 pm: | |
To add a few things to my 'by proxy' post above...
"Don't do anything based on emotion..."
That's fine. Your ethical priciples can be based in large part on reason rather than emotion. But if what you're saying is 'Don't do anything based on *ethical principle*', I definately disagree. Avoiding acting on ethical principles, particularly in the business world, is the recipe for the Enrons, WorldComs, Hwang Woo-Suk's, and Jack Abramoff's of the world.
All of these were to some extent people who placed career goals over ethics, people who failed to consider whether they should be doing what they are doing, aside from the 'should' of practicality. And even there, they all failed (how are they all doing today?).
"this issue will seem insignificant in 6-days, 6-weeks, 6-months (select one)."
Of course it will. Any situation you choose to ignore will eventually seem insignificant, regardless of how significant it *should* seem. The genocide in the Sudan seems insignificant to most of us, as it's easy for us to not think about it. Taking a direct hand in tearing down a building you think shouldn't be torn down is nowhere near the scale of genocide, of course  But if you start looking for a way to divide the ethical principles you *should* follow from those you don't have to bother with, you're on a slippery slope to Ken Lay's house and/or office for a light snack.
How to buy $4-5/gal. gas if you lose your job? Get another job, and buy the gas with a clear conscience. That's how.
It's also probably not a horrible thing in this case, if actually threatened with the loss of your job, to lodge your official complaint and then do the work. I don't know how happy I'd be working for someone who threatened to fire me over this sort of issue, but that's something to determine yourself. While this *is* a matter of principle, it's not like you're being asked to kick puppies or evict people or something You might not feel good about it, but it may be that the lodging of your protest is all you can reasonably do. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 04:19 pm: | |
By Anon #2: Are you familiar with the concept of an Emotional I.Q.? Repeated studies have shown us that those that have a high Emotional I.Q. (the ability to control ones emotions in a benefitial manner) succeed in life to a far greater degree than those with just a high I.Q. As Benjamin Franklin once said "Passion never governs wisely". |
|
4specs.com Home Page