|
|
|
|
|
       |
 |
|
|
As I See It: Just Doing My Job by Victor Rozek Assume the economy cycles out of recession and corporations are again scrambling to hire knowledgeable IT personnel. If you had the option to work for one of several companies, how would you choose? Compensation? Advancement opportunity? Interesting work? Probably not one person in a hundred would make the decision based on the type of business a company conducts. Whether this oversight results from cultural catalepsy or willful inattention, it is, I believe, the greatest business scandal of our time.
The disgraceful corporate behavior we've recently witnessed is only half the story. The problem is not limited to how people conduct business, but to what business they conduct. And since corporations are merely collections of people legitimized by charter and bound by common purpose, by extension the employees of any given enterprise must bear some measure of accountability for the products and impacts of their company. The operative word in the last sentence is "some," and the question is "how much." The answer is "I don't know." It depends on the depth of your personal ethics, the strength of your convictions, and the steadfastness of your integrity. What I do know is that people are often damaged and exploited in the name of commerce, and that such harm is possible because employees seldom ask themselves, "Does this company's business align with my personal values?" I also understand that any notion that proposes radical accountability, and therefore a change in conventional behavior, will encounter objection and resistance. Few things are defended so vehemently as the rationales for what we do or neglect to do. Quite rightly it will be pointed out that people must work to survive, and few are fortunate enough to control all aspects of their employment. Besides, we have an overriding obligation to ensure the welfare of our families. It can be argued that people with the financial flexibility to meet their obligations while unemployed are better positioned to take a courageous moral stand than those living from paycheck to paycheck. In any case, we don't want to be held responsible for the behavior of a large system of which we are but insignificant cogs. True, the modern corporation has become a complex entity and employment choices are not always transparent. There are many mitigating circumstances that make it difficult to establish clear boundaries. Lack of direct involvement, for one. IT personnel are typically in support positions, and there is no direct cause-and-effect link between most IT functions and the final impacts of production. Certainly an argument can be made that a programmer working for a clothing manufacturer is no more responsible for sweatshops than the bookkeeper or the janitor. The soundness of that argument, however, diminishes with the severity of the consequences being ignored. Handgun manufacturers, for example, will argue that they are not the ones who pull the trigger. They are not. But although the enabler can righteously claim not to be the addict, each plays a part in the continuing addiction. And what of diversification? A conglomerate that sells cigarettes may also sell food products. A company that makes chemical weapons also manufactures fertilizer. Where do you draw the line? The devilish complexities of this ethical conundrum were unknowingly simplified by, of all people, George Carlin. During an irreverent probe of American values, he asked his audience, "What would you do for a dollar, and what would you do with a dollar?" The question provides a good starting point for inquiry and is particularly appropriate in a time when greed has been elevated to the status of virtue. The answer speaks to the broader impacts of our labor and to the type of world we are co-creating. Would you design a pornographic Web site? Would you consult with a repressive regime on the installation and use of advanced computing technology? Would you work for a known polluter or a business that employs child labor? There are an estimated three million land mines in Cambodia, all of which were imported. Would you work for a company that manufactures them, or maintain the software that tracks sales and distribution? Would you work for a company that seeks to privatize the global commons by procuring water rights in third-world countries, denying access to drinking water to those unable to pay? Would you be an analyst for a corporation that manufactures terminator seeds good for only one crop rotation, forcing farmers whose ancestors have collected and replanted seeds since the dawn of agriculture to buy their product? Would you work for an oil company that hires security forces that intimidate and kill an indigenous people who object to drilling on their land? How about a soft drink company that sells its products in dozens of poor countries where nutrition is already meager and dental work is not available for children? The choices are neither simple nor clear. The only certainty is that, if you don't do it, someone else will. The truth is that, unless massive numbers of people make courageous choices, a few isolated acts of discernment will have no impact whatsoever. Except, of course, on the person choosing. The prices for being out of integrity with our values, for tolerating a mismatch between our actions and beliefs, are great. Among them are a loss of self-esteem, unremitting regret, and a growing cynicism that expands in proportion to the degree to which we have compromised our values. Conversely, when we align our actions and beliefs, we reclaim our self-esteem and dust off our discarded idealism. The challenge of making responsible employment decisions is especially germane to IT professionals, because those who breathe life into tomorrow's computers are the enablers of the future. The difficult question worthy of consideration is, should we assume personal responsibility for our part of our employer's impact, regardless of how small and seemingly inconsequential our part appears to be? And how might we and the world be different as a consequence? It's an individual decision made at the confluence of personal needs and personal ethics. It will vary with context, but perhaps the overriding framework for considering one's source of employment is concern for the greater good. In this context there is no win/lose; there is only win/win or lose/lose. The world is too interconnected and interdependent to survive the ancient belief that one group or individual can win only at the expense of another. Winning by doing harm is illusionary, just as winning an argument by shaming your partner has no lasting value. A simple method for testing the worthiness of an employment choice is to ask yourself if, at some point in the future, you were obliged to justify your work and the outcome generated by your company, would you fall back on the self-absolving mantra "I was just doing my job?" It's a common excuse used to rationalize many sins, but ultimately it fails to exonerate. Hiding behind the fact that someone paid you to do the wrong thing qualifies as the peacetime equivalent of "I was just following orders." Emerson wrote, "We must hold a man amenable to reason for the choice of his daily craft or profession. It is not an excuse any longer for his deeds that they are the custom of his trade. What business has he with an evil trade?" IT professionals have the unique ability to endow powerful machines with purpose. They have a rightful role in deciding what end that purpose will serve. Who wouldn't you work for?
|
Editor
Contact the Editors |
|
Last Updated: 9/23/02 Copyright © 1996-2008 Guild Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
BCD INT'L