If you want to be the change you want to see in the world, shout in the ether that this engineer will have a job at your organization.
That’s what is keeping so many of them silent: a mortgage, school fees, maybe a H1B.
That’s what is keeping so many of them silent: a mortgage, school fees, maybe a H1B.
This. Or crowdfund a mega million dollar bounty for evidence of certain types of malfeasance.
The market seems to generally punish whistleblowers, and understandably so. I have never worked for a company that wasn't violating some contract, regulation, or law. In my first job we were forging stuff for PCI compliance. The next job stored medical records in a Git repo.
So most people have something to lose if there is a whistleblower personality around, as much as we might admire them when they reveal the secrets of others.
I wouldn't want to work with one. I am not a manager and even as a low level individual contributor I cut regulatory and security corners to keep bosses happy.
You would get far more whistleblowers if it didn't essentially mean wrecking your livelihood, even if you are willing to sacrifice your career.
I do believe that good engineers like their work and drive a lot of self-esteem from it being valued—more than living off a stipend because they shot their career in the foot. It’s well-paid enough they rarely think they need to rely on the generosity of strangers, and that’s not a bad mindset to keep.
In circumstances like these, people talk about loyalty, notably to their employer; I don’t think loyalty is a bad value, but in that case, you want to advocate for loyalty to the craft and the corps, not the organization profiting from putting people in danger. Engineering values, like the brass ring some get in Canada, are things that you want to support not by saying “we’ll support you if that blows in your face” but “We want people like you to speak up during our meetings.”
Giving engineers a guarantee that their craft, their talent and their willingness to ask tough questions is what you value, as a team lead, is something I occasionally can do (not now, though: changing team) and something I’m happy to compensate at fair market value, because it’s objectively a good thing for me too — not because that would put me at odds with my organization, but I’m willing to sacrifice that for some ideal misaligned with profit.
We need to work on getting eggheads at Boeing understand that their cost-cutting was a bad idea (SkyScanner letting you filter-out plane time is beautifully aggressive that way), but in the meantime, we need to tell people facing tough decisions that engineering is full of hard trade-offs but that security is not one of them, and not one that should need charity.
Yes and:
Make whistleblowing-for-hire official.
IIRC, there's a law practice whose sole activity is suing prescription management practices. Basically forensic accounting meets administrative law.
I want more of that.
Further:
Winner-takes-all seems to be some kind of natural law. And by extension, regulatory capture. Civil society needs countervailing mechanisms that exist outside or separated somehow.
I most like ensuring pro-competition and anti-monopoly policies.
But monopolies will always exist, eg natural monopolies like utility districts and police, so we also need transparency and accountability hacks like you're suggesting.
They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change.
I think a great deal of their ability to drive change is because they know the right things to say to the right people. I.e. they have some diplomatic skills.
Because while they might be able to afford to lose their job, they certainly won't drive any change if they actually do lose their job.
Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. If you need diplomacy for this point, you already have a severe problem here.
Otherwise the head will also fumble. I have been in expensive meetings talking a lot about parking space organization. This always happens if there is nothing interesting related to the business to talk about. Stuff gets off-topic quickly.
That said, change and disruption has a positive connotation in the business of today. But it isn't always positive.
Then, in my eyes at least, you're talking about either relatively minor things, or things which already fall in the bailiwick of the leader. I'm just a line person with no one under me who could last a max two months without a job but I have no problem communicating problems up the chain. I'm probably naive, but I'd think most other people wouldn't have such problems either. If they do have problems this seems like an organizational issue that even the leaders SteveNuts mentions in the GP wouldn't be able to change.
Those issues already surface in any situation, but it's safe to assume that many hold their tongues because they're afraid of losing their income stream.
Lazy people tend to self sort into irrelevance.
If a billionaire slams his toe on the leg of a chair, it still hurts, and being sorry for his real pain isn’t denying his otherwise staggering privilege. It’s an excellent example to use to have him empathize with others. If you want to make them act in society’s interest, you can point out that paying taxes or enforcing environmental regulations won’t prevent them from being rich beyond words.
An engineer worried about being fired experiences genuine distress: you can empathize with that there and then because it’s real. Once they have a job, ask them to be more considerate when designing processes or buildings so that everyone can work comfortably in the shade or without having to fear how they are going to feed their family by the end of the week.