I

Tony may be right in judging that others would not want to receive the bad news until after Christmas. If so, then reciprocity would require that he delay informing the workers. Still the company vice-president is insistent that the workers be notified as soon as possible, and apparently Tony has not given any indication that he objects to doing so. Perhaps it is not clear why the layoff notices should go out so soon. Before Tony decides not to follow Raskin's directive, he should discuss the matter with Raskin, perhaps question why the notifications must be given on Christmas Eve, and explain his reservations about notifying the workers. Perhaps Raskin would react negatively to having his directive questioned and view Tony's reluctance to carry it out as insubordination, but it is also possible that Raskin has not thought his decision through completely and would be grateful for Tony's perspective on the matter.

A very important issue is whether the workers really would not want to know that they are being layed off until after Christmas. Of course, receiving the bad news now would not contribute to their enjoyment of Christmas, but this does not mean necessarily that they would not want to know that they are being layed off. Knowing as soon as possible would allow them to begin looking for other work right away and to plan for possible financial hardships ahead. It might also cause them to spend less extravagantly in any last-minute Christmas shopping in order to prepare with the loss of their main source of income. Thus it is entirely possible that the workers not only would wish to know of the impending layoffs right away but would resent not being informed earlier if Tony were to delay notifying them. Determining what the workers would want to know and what they would not want to know would be very difficult, and Tony would probably be very uncertain that he had judged correctly whatever he decided to do.

Since it is probably the only ethical consideration that is relatively unproblematic in this situation, the most important consideration is simply the obligation to tell the truth and to give people important information affecting their welfare if it is available. To withhold such information because people might not want to receive it right away would be similar to a physician's withholding bad news from a patient about the patient's medical condition "for his/her own good". While paternalism is not always unjustified, the burden is always on one who chooses to act paternalistically to justify doing so. In Tony's situation, the special considerations that would justify Tony's paternalistically delaying notifying the workers that they are being layed off are not terribly apparent. Therefore, if further discussion with Raskin reveals no such considerations, Tony should go ahead and inform the workers this afternoon as directed.

II

Tony should respond honestly by giving the reasons why he chose to delay notification of the workers. Presumably these would include his desire not to spoil the workers' Christmas celebrations and his judgment that they would not really want to receive the bad news until after Christmas. It is unlikely, however, that this explanation would satisfy Arnold, since he may feel that if Tony intended not to carry out his request he should have let Arnold know so that the sort of embarrassing situation that actually occurred could have been avoided. Arnold would be justified in criticizing Tony's actions, not because Tony has not been blindly obedient to Arnold, but rather because Tony apparently did not respect Arnold's opinion enough to let him know that he disagreed with it. Perhaps Tony knows Arnold well enough to know how he would have reacted if Tony had questioned Arnold's decision to notify the workers immediately of their layoffs.

This might excuse Tony's actions if Tony were relatively certain that the workers would wish not to know until after Christmas that they were being layed off and if he were reasonably sure that Arnold would not be receptive to having his decision questioned. However, the first of these conditions, as has already been noted, apparently does not apply to this situation. Therefore, again, we must conclude that Tony acted improperly in not informing the workers of the layoffs.

III

Shirley might react very angrily to learning that Tony decided, in violation of Raskin's directive, to delay the notifications. She might believe that, in keeping such important information from her and the other workers, Tony had violated their right to receive any important information affecting their welfare that was available to him. By basing his decision to delay notification on his assessment of what was best for her, he deprived her of the opportunity to make that assessment for herself. Perhaps she can sympathize with Tony's dilemma and his motives, which appear to be beneficent. However, she can justly criticize his judgment in choosing to act on the basis of paternalistic motives and not to recognize her autonomy and her right to be informed of important information affecting her welfare and that of her family.

Let us first consider the issues confronting Tony in part I of the case. Tony does make a compelling case about not wanting to be a Scrooge and ruin the Christmas holidays for his workers. Having personally been in somewhat similar circumstances (on both sides of the issue) earlier in my career, I can attest that it is very appealing for many reasons to adopt Tony's non-Scrooge stance, if all other things are equal. Unfortunately, they rarely are. For example what if one of Tony's workers is offered an attractive new employment opportunity over the holidays, and, not knowing about the impending layoffs, turns it down because he enjoys working for Tony so much? Or what if someone else personally purchases an expensive new instrument for his own tool chest that will enable him to do his job better for Tony? Or what if still another worker has signed up for an intensive three day short course over the holidays to improve his performance on the job for Tony?

There are many different scenarios that could emerge that would make it inconsiderate for Tony not to inform his workers immediately of the layoffs. In fact, just about the only scenario that would make it considerate is if all of the workers do not get involved in any personal or professional planning for the future over the holidays; an unlikely event. What is involved here is the golden rule or the Kantian respect for persons philosophy. Tony, as group leader, has the responsibility of thinking through his options, considering all of the possible consequences of his actions that he can, and then asking just how he himself would want to be treated if he were in the place of his workers. This is a tough situation for Tony to be in, but presumably he has demonstrated the necessary mental toughness for the job or else he would not have been promoted into it. Also, taking on these tough responsibilities is exactly what he is being paid for as an administrator.

In phase II of the case a different issue has arisen. Once Arnold has his embarrassing chance conversation with Ralph at the church Christmas Eve service, Tony now stands indicted of not just poor judgement but also insubordination. Depending upon Tony's and Arnold's prior relationship, it is entirely possible that the angry telephone call from Arnold to Tony on Christmas Eve could end in Tony being fired. If Tony decides not to be a Scrooge and delay termination notification to his 15 workers until after Christmas, he must tell Arnold of that decision immediately. He cannot blindside Arnold on this since there may be other factors that are involved that Arnold did not take the time to explain to Tony. For example there may be some year-end payroll considerations, or year-end benefit commitments that kick in if the workers are still on the payroll on January 1st. Aside from the insubordinate nature of Tony's action of not doing what Arnold tells him, it is just plain disloyal and, when you get down to it, stupid. The subsequent event between Arnold and Ralph certainly supports the shortsightedness of Tony not telling Arnold that he was going to delay his layoff notifications until after Christmas.

One of the hardest parts of any manager's job is laying off or firing employees. In this case, Arnold Raskin, Vice-President of Manufacturing, faced this difficulty by delegating this task to Tony Furillo. At first glance, it would be easy to blame Arnold for the resulting problems because he would not accept the responsibility himself. On the other hand, Tony is in close contact with the employees he supervises and, although it is never easy to be laid off, the message might have been a bit easier to handle coming from someone the employees knew will. Nevertheless, Arnold gave Tony the assignment, but Tony declined to carry out his task on the day before Christmas.

Tony delayed a difficult task. Because of this delay, an employee learned of the layoffs in an inappropriate manner (during a church service) and another employee placed a $500.00 nonrefundable deposit on a trip that she may not be able to afford. Tony did not want to be a Scrooge. His seemingly charitable act, however, resulted in a great deal of unhappiness--perhaps in more unhappiness that would have happened if he announced the layoffs on Christmas eve.

Tony bases his decision on the golden rule. He claims that "if it were me, I sure wouldn't want my Christmas spoiled." He is reasoning that he should do unto others as he would have them do unto him. He does not think he would want someone to spoil his Christmas, so he does not inform any of the employees of the layoffs. Of course, the assumption here is that having a happy Christmas is the most important thing to be considered in this situation. He never thinks past Christmas to consider how this situation will affect the rest of the employees' lives. He assumes that letting them have one happy day will somehow ameliorate the terrible news they will receive after Christmas.

This type of reasoning is very paternalistic. Tony assumes that he knows what is best for his employees. He thinks that he would want an unspoiled Christmas, so he projects this wish onto his employees. He does not consider that they may hear the information in other ways or that they may make financial decisions based on the assumption that their jobs are secure. Of course, we can all sympathize with someone who has to tell his employees on the day before Christmas that they are being laid off, but Tony cannot assume that the news will be any easier to take after Christmas.

Although Tony had a variety of what he thought were charitable reasons for his actions, his behavior was, in fact, lying. Sissela Bok provides an excellent analysis of this phenomenon in her book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Bok reminds us that lying may harm the people being lied to, but it can also harm the liar. In this case, Tony is clearly harmed by withholding information about the layoffs (his lie). Not only is Arnold angry with him, but Tony must also face the workers after Christmas. It will be especially difficult to face them since at least one of them already knows the situation. In addition, one of them is likely to hold him responsible for her decision to book a vacation and the potential loss of money that could result if she cannot afford it after being laid off. Thus, lying (withholding information) harms Tony as well as his employees.

Tony decided to base his actions on an accepted ethical principle--the golden rule. The resulting problems in this case do not negate this principle. The problem in this situation is that Tony made his decision without considering the full ramifications of the situation. The situation is not as simple as ruining Christmas versus not ruining Christmas. Many other factors need to be considered. For example, would Tony have wanted to learn about his layoff in a casual conversation at church on Christmas eve? Would he have liked to have decided to spend a considerable amount of money without knowing that he would be laid off? The golden rule is an ethical principle that can be effectively applied only if we truly know the full meaning of the situation to ourselves and to others.

Although convinced there may be reason to prefer catalyst B to A, Bernie may also be convinced that deferring to the judgment of the more experienced engineers is the best course of action -- especially in this kind of situation. He may actually be persuaded that the others are probably right. His is a minority view, and he is considerably less experienced. The recommendation apparently cannot wait for further testing. Besides, Alex is Bernie's division head, and Bernie may believe that his job is to do as he is told. So, Bernie may conclude, it is best to support his colleagues' recommendation -- both from the standpoint of Larom, Inc. and his own self-interest.

However, four cautions should be noted from the outset. First, although Bernie may have a general obligation to do what he is told by his superiors, blind or unthinking obedience is not obligatory. He has no obligation to do anything illegal or unethical, regardless of which "authority" requests it. In this case, it is not at all clear that Alex's superiors at Larom would approve of his effort to falsify the report, or that they would fault Bernie for refusing to comply with Alex's request. After all, the report is for them. Why would they willingly agree to be duped -- especially since approving the wrong catalyst could turn out to be very costly to Larom?

Second, Bernie should be alert to the possibility of what sociologist Irving Janis calls groupthink (Groupthink). This is the tendency of cohesive groups to arrive at consensus at the expense of critical thinking. Janis identifies eight "symptoms" of groupthink:

1. The illusion of group invulnerability. ("We've always been right before.")
2. Shared stereotypes. ("We/they" thinking about those outside the group who may disagree -- the other as "enemy.")
3. Rationalizations.
4. Unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality. ("We're all committed to doing the right thing.")
5. Self-censorship by individual members. (Reluctance to "rock the boat.")
6. The illusion of unanimity. (Silence taken as agreement.)
7. Direct pressure applied to ensure conformity when dissenting opinions are expressed. ("We can't wait forever.")
8. Mind-guarding. (Keeping outsiders who have dissenting views from presenting their views directly to the group -- "I'll pass your concerns on to the group.")

Several of these symptoms seem to be present at the initial meeting. There is evidence that at least some of the senior members of the group share the illusion of invulnerability ("We've been working on projects like this for years...."). Rationalizations for not having done more research on catalyst B follows on the heels of this illusion. Given the shared purpose of recommending the best catalyst for the job, the members may believe in the inherent morality of the group ("We know we're on the right side"). Silence in response to Alex's final look around the room for further comments may be the result of some self-censorship (especially if Bernie fails to speak up). This, in turn, feeds the illusion of unanimity. Finally, Alex's evident desire to orchestrate the group to a quick and decisive resolution indicates a readiness to apply direct pressure to any dissenters. Given that much may be at stake for Larom in this situation, Bernie is well advised to be alert to such group dynamics, rather than simply deferring his more senior colleagues.

Third, Bernie seems to be the only one with evidence that catalyst B might be preferable, and his previous work with catalyst B has already impressed Alex. If he does not speak up, who will? It is unfortunate that Alex did not assign Bernie to work on catalyst B earlier. Perhaps sometime earlier Bernie should have made a special point of discussing with his colleagues some of his previous work with catalyst B. But why didn't Alex take the lead? It seems that an opportunity for significant research when Bernie first joined the R&D Division was lost. However, shifting responsibility to Alex for lacking foresight does not relieve Bernie of responsibility for speaking up now.

Fourth, Bernie is not only asked to suppress data about catalyst B but also to alter the other data. That is, he is asked to lie. Alex no doubt sees this as a lie intended to "protect the truth," since he believes that catalyst A really is best. However, as Sissela Bok convincingly argues, even lies of this sort are ethically questionable (Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life). She points out that we have a tendency to overestimate the good that comes from lying and to underestimate the harm that comes from lying. Individually and collectively lies do much to undermine trust. Also, by deceiving others, lies often lead people to make decisions they would not make if they had more reliable information, thus undermining their autonomy. Bok concludes that we should lie only after looking carefully to see if any alternatives preferable to lying are available.

The significant point about which this case revolves is "credibility." If management is to be credible (trustworthy, believable) in the eyes of its employees communications to employees must be open, prompt and honest. A supervisor (in this case, Tony) has the responsibility of communicating to his workers. This communication usually involves passing on information that has been communicated to the supervisor from upper levels of management. It is a part of Tony's job to carry out this communication process and to do so in such a manner that he preserves his credibility and that of the management to which he reports. This responsibility for communicating promptly to the workers supervised is a part of the maintenance of the supervisor's credibility and this communication responsibility is not relieved just because the news is bad!

One can infer from Tony's handling of his communication responsibility by delaying the delivery of bad news that he would have functioned differently had the news been good. Had Arnold asked that Tony inform all the people he supervised that they would get a surprise Christmas bonus, you can imagine Tony would have communicated this news promptly and efficiently. Some supervisors fall easily into the trap of only passing on good news and/or favorable comments. Of course, in so doing, they are undermining their own credibility when the worker finds out through other channels that some information has been withheld.

In the Tony-Ralph-Arnold situation Tony has damaged his reputation and credibility with both Arnold and Ralph. Arnold has every right to be angry and disillusioned with Tony for failing to carry out his responsibility as a supervisor. Although Tony may feel that he was right to wait until after Christmas to deliver bad news to Ralph, in doing so he has caused Ralph to lose any faith he had in the credibility of his supervisor.

Shirley, too, will not only suffer a financial loss but will be reluctant to trust the next supervisor for which she works.

An excellent organizational climate exists when confidence and trust prevail throughout an organization. Management has trust in the employees and the employees have trust in management. In such an organization whenever management presents something in words, either orally or in writing, this communication is perceived by the employees as being true. If the actions of managers are consistent with their words, managers have considerable credibility in the eyes of the employees. Confidence and trust are an outcome of authenticity. Tony's single act of delaying the communication of the "before Christmas layoff" has dealt a serious blow to the confidence and trust the employees have in management in his organization.

The workers Tony supervises will be reluctant to trust him as a communicator and supervisor in the future. Upper management, too, will have lost its trust in Tony's competence as a supervisor and may very well be justified in relieving him of supervisory duties.

I

Tony is told to lay off his entire unit the afternoon before Christmas. What a mess. Naturally he's unhappy with what he's been told to do, but he fails to contest the order. He might talk to VP Arnold again and try to get him to change his mind. Arnold has not given Tony any reason for the rush; Tony has a right to know why the layoffs have to be made in such haste. If Arnold's reason is inadequate, or if Arnold tells Tony he doesn't know the reason and doesn't care to know, Tony is within his rights in delaying, and in telling Arnold he won't do it until someone explains to him why it's necessary, although to do so would risk insubordination. If Arnold has a good reason, Tony has little choice but to carry out the order.

II

What Tony decides to do is disobey Arnold's order without telling Arnold and without finding out what's behind the fast move, and naturally fate is such that things instantly go wrong. Arnold, who finds out about Tony's insubordination through a chance encounter which is also embarrassing to Arnold, is understandably irate at Tony, and Tony had better apologize and hope for the best. He can only make things worse for himself by trying to make excuses. He might ask himself why he didn't tell Arnold that he wouldn't deliver the lay-off notices? Is he afraid or disrespectful of Arnold? Is he unsure that his action is correct? Tony's action behind Arnold's back may be a sign that something is very wrong in their relationship.

III

Now things get worse and worse. Even the victims suffer from Tony's attempt to be Mr. Nice Guy, as Shirley spends big money assuming she still has a job. The moral is that the sooner people receive bad news, the better: attempts to spare them grief may backfire since people make plans based on what they think they know. However you can't blame Tony for not being able to foresee every possible outcome. If he's entitled to use his discretion at all (which is questionable), then he's entitled to act on what is reasonably going to be best for most of the people affected. He's probably right that most would not want their Christmas spoiled by a layoff notice; but there's no guarantee that everyone will be pleased by the delay.

I

Under no circumstances should notification of a layoff be delayed or withheld. Layoffs are never pleasant. There is no gentle way to announce them. The timing their announcement is never right. While the layoff will dampen the holiday, waiting until the day after Christmas to call the affected employees so not to ruin their holiday is absolutely stupid. Consider the impact if they learn about the layoff second hand. It's better to have a tempered holiday with the knowledge of the layoff having been received first hand.

Tony should contact the affected employees as the vice-president instructed and give the bad news personally. While he has the whole afternoon to contact them, he should do it as quickly as possible since some employees may be leaving town and for others the layoff can alter holiday or post-holiday plans. Thus, he must make every reasonable effort to notify the affected employees, even to the point of tracking them down and keeping a log of his contacts. The credibility and integrity of the company is at stake. Deliberately witholding the information for any reason can violate a collective bargaining agreement, cause an unfair labor practice complaint to be filed, or result in legal action against the company.

II

Well, Tony decides not to be a Scrooge and spoil Christmas. So, he plans to wait until the day after to tell the affected employees. Assuming that Tony notified the employees, Mr. Raskin the vice-president, makes a special point of expressing his regrets to Ralph, one of the laid-off workers at the Christmas Eve church service they both attend. The shocked look on Ralph's face makes it obvious to Mr. Raskin that Tony has said nothing to Ralph. Later in the evening, a very angry vice-president calls Tony.

At this point, Tony has no excuse for not doing as he was instructed. He must tell Arnold Raskin why he did not inform his unit of the layoff as he was directed. While this conversation is going on, Ralph may be calling his co-workers asking them what they know about the layoff, exacerbating the situation. Now it is even more imperative for Tony to notify his unit of the layoff immediately. In delaying the news, Tony hasn't made it a happy holiday for anyone.

III

At the last minute on Christmas Eve, Shirley Vandermere makes a non-refundable $500 deposit to secure reservations for a surprise European trip with her husband. Had Tony notified his unit of the layoff as directed, he probably would have called Shirley before 4:30PM. I doubt if she would have then secured the reservations since she was very concerned about the non-refundable deposit, if her husband would even be pleased with the idea, and with the surprise. Now she'll be (to put it mildly) very upset after making the non-refundable deposit for a trip to learn that Tony deliberately delayed notifying her about the layoff. And, she has a triple surprise for her husband: her layoff, the non-refundable $500 deposit, and a trip they may not be able to take because of the loss of her income.

Before commenting on Gerald Wahr's circumstances, it appears that a logical inconsistency in the presentation of the facts of the case need some attention. It is not convincing that Gerald must interview Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc. in order to save the farm. In the second paragraph it is stated, "Since Gerald had expected to return to the farm, he already missed many opportunities for job interviews". Well, since Gerald had planned on returning to the farm anyway it is reasonable to suppose that the Wahr family anticipated additional income from his presence. With his father in the hospital the extra income would not materialize, but bills would. If the hospital stay will be for an "extended period of time," it is not clear why Gerald couldn't work on the farm, for at least a while, and wait for additional engineering employment opportunities to present themselves. There would have to be a breathing room period during which the medical bills and mortgage payments would not yet be overdue. Gerald's presence on the farm would maintain farm income at previous levels, and other engineering employment opportunities could possibly materialize.

To make the urgency of the Pro-Growth Pesticides interview more compelling and convincing, it might be advisable to restate some of the circumstances of the case. For example, Gerald might be in the middle of the first semester of his chemical engineering M.S. degree program when his father unexpectedly passes away after an expensive hospital stay during which the bills quickly mounted. Further, the economic times might be so bad that Gerald is lucky to have even just the one interview with Pro-Growth Pesticides. Grim circumstances, but realistic--and perhaps more convincing for the questions that follow.

Having said all of the above, let us now presume that Gerald is faced with the real quandary of whether or not to interview Pro-Growth Pesticides. It would almost appear that this situation raises questions of common sense as much as ethics, although there are ethical dimensions to the situation that need to be discussed as well. Let us turn to Shakespeare for some guidance on the common sense issues. In "Hamlet", Polonius gives the following sage advice (in addition to quite a bit more) to his son Laertes who is about to travel abroad: "To thine own self be true, for it then follows as the night the day, that thou canst not then be false to any man." If Gerald interviews and subsequently accepts a job with Pro-Growth Pesticides, he clearly will not be true to his own or his father's views on pesticides. If he is truly convinced that pesticides are not only harming the environment generally, but farm products in particular, then there is no way that he will be able to honestly act as a faithful agent or trustee for his employer (NSPE Fundamental Canon #4). It does not take much imagination to envision situations in which, as a Pro-Growth Pesticide employee, he will have to act in violation of his own conscience (while being false to others) and probably of one or more strictures of the NSPE Code of Ethics.

Turning to Gerald's conversations with his friends (part II), several ethical issues do immediately arise. Allen's view that the work will be done even if Gerald refuses the interview ("Your refusing the job won't change a thing") is an age-old rationalization for doing something we know may be or is wrong. If enough people turn their backs on such a rationalization, maybe things will change. Change for the better, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, comes about because a critical mass of people do opt for the morally right path.

Bob's utilitarian argument is based on the premise that Gerald will slow things down a little by not being gung ho after he takes the pesticide job. This raises serious issues involving the means-end principle. Does the good end (organic farming eventually prevailing) justify the dubious means of Gerald dissembling on the job by being less than gung ho?

Don's advice to take the job and try to introduce a few reforms from the inside only makes sense if Gerald is up-front about that in his interview. If Pro-Growth Pesticides is willing to hire someone with Gerald's entrenched views on pesticide use, then maybe he could make a difference. But then Gerald better make sure there are mechanisms within the company to raise differing professional opinions. A number of companies have such mechanisms as company ombudsmen, ethical hotlines or reword procedures for productive disagreements with company policy. If it is Gerald's intent to change the company from within, he better make sure that the opportunities are there to do so.

However, from part III of the case (The Interview), it is made pretty clear that Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc. does not agree that change is needed. Once Gerald is asked his views on pesticides, he pretty much has to have made a decision, in advance, to either have changed his mind or to prevaricate on the issue. If his family's welfare, and the farm are that important to him, Gerald must recognize that he must forego the luxury of his previous strong feelings about pesticides. Only if he can make that conscious decision is he justified in continuing the interview, once into it.

In part IV of the case (Jobs) the question is raised about what kinds of engineering related jobs might be declined because of ethical concerns. Many graduating engineers carefully limit the kinds of companies they interview to rule out (or in) companies involved in Defense Department weaponry contracts or environmentally impact-prone companies. Whatever the case, and whichever the concerns, it is wise for interviewee to think through these issues before even signing up for an interview.

Some people might think that if Gerald Wahr goes for the interview, he is committed to taking the job if offered, but that isn't so. He may find out more about what kind of work he would be doing with Pro-Growth Pesticides and whether he could do it in good conscience. Even if he thinks that it is highly unlikely that he will take the job if offered, his having an interview is not an act of bad faith.

But should he take the job if offered? He probably wouldn't even consider it if it weren't that the family is in dire need of the income, and the income that he would get from an engineering job would be significantly greater than from any alternative. With no other engineering job in prospect, this is his best chance of enabling the family to meet the mortgage payments and his father's medical bills.

Another argument in favor of taking the job is that he would learn about the pesticide industry from the inside. His father had said, "If you really want to show those pesticide folks a thing or two, you've got to be able to talk their language." After working in the pesticide industry, he would really be able to talk their language. And the job need not be forever. While there he can be keeping his eyes open for other positions in chemical engineering which do not compromise his ideals, and he would get valuable experience. Or his father's medical expenses might be paid for, and he could then return to work on the family farm, as planned.

Would an explanation that he is doing it to save the farm be a consolation to his father, or cause his father even greater distress? Would his father accept his own words ("...you've got to be able to talk their language") as a good reason for working for a pesticide company, or would his father feel that Gerald was using his talents and education in destructive ways? Should Gerald even worry about what his father will think? Maybe he should take that into consideration, the way that one takes into consideration the effect of one's action on anyone who is affected, but Gerald should not let his father's attitude make his decision for him. Gerald might have good reasons for taking the job which his father would not accept or that he would not want to state to his father.

II

Allen's first argument looks like an excuse that could be used to justify being co-opted into doing almost anything. But there is some force to it. If a bad result is going to happen anyway, your participation or non-participation isn't going to make any difference. If pesticides are going to be produced and used, it won't help any if you "keep your hands clean." If everyone were to refuse to work in the pesticide industry, then they wouldn't be produced and used, but since everyone isn't going to refuse, what difference does one person's refusal make? This argument has many applications elsewhere. If animals are going to be grown on factory farms and eaten for food by others, what difference does it make that one vegetarian refuses to eat meat? If everyone were to refuse to serve in the military, there would be no more wars; but, if most people are willing to serve, what difference does one pacifist make? Gerald could reply that he is setting a bad example by working in the pesticide industry, and setting a good example by refusing. Others might follow his lead. But it would be naive to think that his example is going to make much difference.

Bob has an intriguing argument. If Gerald takes the job and does ineffective work, that might have better consequences than if someone else takes the job and works effectively, for example discovering ways of making more deadly and environmentally more hazardous pesticides, or how to make them more cheaply so that they are used in even greater quantities. If Gerald were to accept this argument, he would be compromising his integrity in two ways, not only by working to produce a product that he does not believe should be used, but also by working half-heartedly instead of in good faith for his employer. But this is not a completely absurd argument. Sometimes subversion is more effective in hurting an enemy than outright attack.

Don's argument is different. It is not that Gerald could slow down the production of pesticides by poor work, but that he might be able to redirect it into production of less harmful products.

One danger which his friends don't mention is that if Gerald takes the job, he may become corrupted by the environment in which he works. Those around him will be believers in what they are doing. Gerald may have difficulty finding another job and be with the company for years. He may begin to talk himself into believing that what the company is doing has to be done. A nuclear scientist who was assigned to work on the Clinch River breeder reactor in 1966 thought that the danger of an accident with such radioactive materials was such a risk that the plant should never be built. Ten years later, when the project was cancelled, after he had spent the best ten years of his career in producing an effective design, he was terribly disappointed. He had come to believe that the world fuel shortage justifed the use of dangerous nuclear power.

III

Even if Gerald has decided that he wants the job, a lie would probably not help him get it. A perceptive interviewer could see through it. Trying to avoid any answer at all would also probably not work. Gerald could honestly express his concerns about the environment. Most likely the interviewer would then begin to try to sell Gerald on the belief that the company shares his concerns.

IV

As indicated above, it is possible to be corrupted once one's self-interest is involved. If one's work and one's ethical commitments don't match, one is likely to solve the discomfort by compromising one's ethical ideals. Furthermore, people are likely to do better work if they believe enthusiastically in what they are doing. If they are working merely for a paycheck, without any belief that the work they are doing is serving any good purpose, they will feel alienated from the work, feel that they are simply putting in time on the job in order to receive a salary to spend on what they consider their real life. But work ideally can be an expression of one's self, of one's productive powers, of one's contribution to the world.

This is a useful case because it focuses on a deep, recurring nexus of moral problems. These concern the clash between personal ideals or life-plans and the realities of the social and business world. In its most general form the problem appears as a near-omnipresent threat of moral prostitution. Any work which is done at least partly for money is morally suspect, because in those respects it does not advance one's moral ideals, and in some cases it could significantly compromise one's ideals.

It is important to emphasise the general problem of the clash of personal ideals versus social realities, because it is easy to think that it is only the overt moral conflict cases which are morally problematic, such as that presented in the current case. However, there could be any number of jobs which were consistent with Gerald Wahr's general moral convictions, and which yet are also morally problematic. For example, any benign but unchallenging long-term job of no social importance could lead Gerald's friends to accuse him with some justice of having led a morally wasted, pointless life. The sins of complacency may rival those of 'selling out'.

How then can we overcome this central moral problem of the working world? A useful clue is to be found in the slogan 'If you're not working on the solution, then you're part of the problem'. Intuitively, morality requires us to be actively engaged in bringing about solutions to the moral problems of our jobs, whatever the jobs and problems may be. Even in difficult, overtly problematic cases, it may be possible to preserve one's moral integrity by appropriate remedial planning and action. What follows are some reasons and strategies which could preserve the integrity of someone like Gerald in the pesticide business, if he were to enter it.

First, prior to his first interview, Gerald needs to get a good overview of the many aspects of organic versus non-organic farming. He needs to clearly define for himself the actual and ideal contributions of each to the world of agriculture, both present and as projected into the indefinite future. Questions such as exactly what factors make organic farming good, and chemically-assisted farming morally unacceptable, have to be asked, and any exceptions or unclarities in the questions or responses need to be carefully noted by him. He should then use the results to outline a plan for how he himself, working (at least initially) inside the pesticide industry, could do as much to accentuate the benefits and to minimize the potential harms of pesticide use as possible. If the plan intuitively offers enough of these kinds of 'moral profit' overall, he can go to the interview and accept the job with a clear conscience. Otherwise, he should turn it down.

It is useful to compare this strategy with those suggested by two of Gerald's friends. Both Allen ("the work's going to be done anyway..") and Bob (better Gerald than a pesticide 'nut') offer utilitarian solutions. These ignore the pressing personal dimensions of moral commitment which are addressed here. They also totally ignore everything specific about the issue of pesticides versus 'natural' farming. Gerald needs to know that his efforts are morally worthwhile in this specific case, and that he is on the right side -- as part of the solution rather than the problem in this area of agriculture. Here are some specifics he could use in his plan.

First, exactly what are pesticides? The stereotype of a pesticide is of a chemical which kills pests. But more generally in agriculture they are chemical or biochemical factors which promote resistance or immunity -- to diseases, parasites, or to other factors which would prevent optimal growth of a desired crop or species. Understood in this wider context, the agricultural pesticide business is one in which profitable solutions to problems of harmful growth are developed.

Given this wider understanding of what a pesticide business is or should be doing, Gerald can look for morally worthy things to do with some confidence. For example, he doubtless knows that recombinant DNA ('gene splicing') techniques have shown great promise in producing strains of wheat (and other crops) which are naturally pest-resistant. In these cases, the immunity-promoting factors are actually part of the genetic constitution of the crop. Gerald could work within his pesticide company to ensure that it makes strategic alliances with appropriate bio-technology firms, so that it can share in the patents and profits to be made from selling disease-resistant crops (whose use will widely benefit farmers and the public they serve).

Even if Gerald's pesticide company is narrow-minded and reluctant to change, he could prove to them that it was definitely in their own interest to make such alliances and adopt such broader views. The bad image of pesticide companies as merely selling harmful chemicals, whatever the damage to the land, is after all a powerful reason not to buy pesticides from companies having such attitudes.

If a company wants to maintain or enlarge their list of customers, they must be willing to provide whatever will satisfy the real long-term needs of those customers. Most likely this will involve a broad range of customized solutions in each case, involving more disease-resistant animals and crops, more long-term environmental management of land (for example, selling customers more fertilizer and other 'support' items rather than just disease-prevention items), with 'straight' chemical pesticides being supplied only when nothing else will work. Gerald can become part of the solution to pesticide problems by actively working within his company for such longer-term self-interested thinking on the part of his employers.

To finish, note again that the 'threat of moral prostitution' mentioned at the beginning has no general solution; we must carefully analyse each specific case, including the apparently easy ones as well as more questionable cases, to see whether or not a commitment to a role in the business world is morally acceptable. Personal integrity demands no less.