Engineer hierarchy was a recent topic on the forum of a professional organization. The person who began the conversation was a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the civil discipline with 40 years of experience (I’ll call him Phil). Phil’s concern was that his company had placed an EIT (Engineer in Training; today this is referred to as EI for Engineering Intern) with two years of field experience in the position of Assistant RE (Resident Engineer?) on a couple projects to which Phil was assigned as the registered professional. The EI was directing Phil to do work that, in Phil’s judgment, was incorrect, showing the EI’s lack of qualifications.
Phil was sufficiently concerned to bring the situation to the company owner/CEO, which resulted in reprimands and demands to be a team player. What the owner/CEO had done was remove the engineering hat and put on the business hat. However, while a business owner may assign company personnel as they see fit, they may not place someone who is not qualified or not an engineer in a position of engineering decision-making. The Assistant RE can manage the process, but they may not direct or participate in engineering design and decisions, which remain the responsibility and obligation of the Engineer of Record (EOR).
Differing Opinions on the Cause of the Problem
The forum discussion resulted in a debate among many engineers, each with a differing point of view.
One engineer indicated that he had been involved in a similar situation. This engineer is a PE with extensive experience in the civil engineering field. The client he worked for assigned a younger, inexperienced engineer to oversee his work for the agency. In his case, he did not want to complain to the client and instead took the opportunity to mentor the younger engineer. When the younger engineer would give a directive, the PE would engage in friendly discussion about how he had approached and performed similar tasks in the past, why that approach was necessary, and the successful results.
In the end the younger engineer accepted the guidance and tutelage of the PE, discussing directives and looking for similar guidance. Of course, this approach depends on the personalities of the individuals involved, but in the end the younger engineer got positive feedback from his supervisor for successfully completing the assigned tasks. It allowed the younger engineer to gain valuable knowledge and experience. This could be called a symbiotic relationship between the two engineers. The younger, inexperienced engineer had the authority but lacked the experience and knowledge in the decision-making process. This allowed the experienced PE to educate the young engineer while continuing to establish and maintain a good client relationship and complete assigned tasks in an appropriate manner.
Another engineer offered the following thoughts: It might be that the company was attempting to push Phil out by putting a younger and inexperienced engineer over him in the hope that Phil would become disgusted with the situation and resign from the firm. He thought that the company was placing itself at increased risk by putting the younger engineer in a responsible charge position over Phil, suggesting that the company thought the risk was worth it to get Phil to leave.
The engineer suggested that this situation has been common lately, a form of ageism. The boss was probably violating state laws but did not care if he achieved the desired result: that Phil would be too upset to say anything or would feel too old to fight this behavior. Given the situation, Phil would not likely see any future pay increases and would have lessening responsibilities over time, turning work into drudgery. The engineer offering this opinion indicated that it was something he had dealt with and suggested that Phil should consider prayer, long talks with his spouse, and several nights of sleep to allow the subconscious to figure out the next step. He also suggested discussing the situation with an attorney who specialized in such cases.
Yet another engineer said it sounded like a building official citing code and rejecting a design because it wasn’t exactly how the code called it out, forgetting that the EOR has signed and sealed the documents, certifying that the design complied with the intent of the code, accurately reflected the work, and ensured public health, safety, and welfare. This engineer had worked for two Professional Engineers who tried to work well outside their areas of expertise. The first PE was managing public works contracts and local development adherence to plans and city codes, but he had zero construction experience. This PE would tell project managers and inspectors that they could not stop observed unsafe work because doing so could place increased liability on the city. The engineer countered that the opposite was true and would risk a person being injured or killed as well as personal fines by OSHA. According to the engineer, the relationship with the PE deteriorated as more unethical behavior was noted. The engineer eventually felt that he had no other option but to end the relationship.
The second PE was a small business owner who prided himself on ethical behavior but knew very little regarding construction and exhibited arrogant behavior in meetings. The firm’s previous experience was merely babysitting a government contractor while working for another government contractor. While the engineer had years of actual field experience in construction, the PE frequently would dictate how things were to be done regardless of industry practices or practical considerations, which damaged relationships with construction crews, suppliers, subcontractors, and clients. The engineer stated that in staff meetings and in private, he tried to steer things back to normal, but the damage eventually proved irreversible. The engineer finally reached a point where he realized it was time for a change and left the firm. As things continued to worsen for those remaining, many remaining long-term employees followed suit and left the firm. The engineer reported that, from his experience, situations like this are all too common, and his final advice was to never sign or seal documents if you do not agree with them.
The last engineer to comment on this topic provided the following: As a young engineer with a large multinational firm, he watched what Phil had described play out. One day a very senior administrator moved into one of the two-person engineering cubicles, bringing his secretary with him. It was not long before the secretary was gone and the extra desk was removed, and then his desk phone was removed. Still, this senior administrator showed up every work day, on time and in a suit, and read the newspaper. As the engineer inquired (i.e., snooped around), he discovered that the senior administrator was about 18 months from full retirement and the firm wanted him gone. The senior administrator persevered and made it to full retirement, not one day longer. As far as the engineer knew, the senior administrator retired and never spoke ill of the company. The engineer suggested that Phil might be close to retirement and that his company was probably trying to say it’s time to go. Maybe Phil should review where he was in his career and life and what goals could still be reasonably achieved. It might be necessary to play the company’s game a little longer if fulfilling his goals was worth it to Phil, without violating any moral or ethical obligations.
Potential Solutions
As you can tell from the various comments, for a Professional Engineer who is legally bound to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare above all other considerations, such circumstances can create a troubling dilemma. They can have a real impact on one’s career and livelihood and challenge their moral and ethical beliefs.
While your employer has every right to determine their internal chain of command for the benefit of the firm, this does not alter the responsibility of the Professional Engineer to the public. In most engineering firms, this is not an issue if all or the majority of ownership is engineers. However, some firms are owned by other individuals without a proper engineering background and managed simply as a business or profit center. In these cases, the ownership does not have the common moral and ethical obligation to the public by which a Professional Engineer is bound. This is not to imply that the firm lacks empathy for the public or a desire to do the right thing—it just is not an ingrained part of their thought process.
So, back to Phil, who is facing a difficult dilemma in an ongoing career. He has brought up the subject to management and been rejected. It could be, as suggested, that the firm wants to separate from Phil or Phil is using the wrong approach with management. While it is cliché to say, presentation is everything in how someone perceives your message. Phil will need to give the problem some deep thought, sleep on the issue, and discuss it with those he trusts. Phil must also avoid accepting any engineering direction that goes against his experience or the accepted practice of his peers. While Phil may work with the EI, who has been granted a title by the firm of Assistant RE (earned or not), no engineering should be accomplished that does not meet the standard of care. Phil also should certainly not allow his signature or seal to be associated with such work. As suggested by one of the engineers on the forum, Phil might also try to mentor the EI to guide the design to meet the standard of care while improving the future engineer’s knowledge and experience.
I am aware of a similar situation in which a partner in a firm, who was not an engineer, directed the altering of the EOR’s design. This partner was the project manager (PM) on a major hospital project and was used to doing things as the firm had always done. This PM was not aware of the current state of design and changing requirements to meet the expectation of the Joint Commission or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This failure to remain current with such standards put the hospital in a risky position in relation to receiving reimbursement and gaining accreditation of their facility. The engineer in responsible charge for this portion of the design was faced with a problem, as he could not sign and seal documents that varied from the standard of care and were not in accordance with the design as so directed by the engineer. In this case, the remedy chosen was a most viable one: retirement. The engineer advised the managing principal (an engineer who had sole control of the firm) that the situation was not acceptable and terminated the relationship. While this might seem like a drastic choice, it turned out to be in the engineer’s best interests.
How would you handle the situation posed by Phil? It can be a life-changing experience unless you can turn it around to benefit the firm, its employees, and the client, while still protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare and remaining true to your own moral and ethical beliefs.
About the Author
David D. Dexter, FNSPE, FASPE, CPD, CPI, LEED BD+C, PE, is a Registered Professional Engineer, Certified Plumbing Inspector, and Certified Plans Examiner with more than 40 years of experience in the installation and design of plumbing systems. He specializes in plumbing, fire protection, and HVAC design as well as forensics related to mechanical system failures. Dave serves as Chair of ASPE’s Main Design Standards Committee, Chair of the Bylaws Committee, Co-Chair of the College of Fellows Selection Committee, and Co-Chair of the Professional Engineer Working Group. He also was the 2008–2009 President of the Engineering Foundation of Ohio, 2010–2011 President of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers, and 2012–2014 Central Region Director for the National Society of Professional Engineers.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not the American Society of Plumbing Engineers.
