Many good points to brood over. Indeed – the fairness and commitment to societal morals and ethics – broadly the disciplinary foundation must be protected and considered paramount – otherwise a social structure collapses. But, sometimes the constraints of practicality of a certain situation or of one's mental transient state – let people behave one way or the other. All must care for such states with empathy and compassion.
Bill Mc's: My experience has been that discerning ethical choices is much easier than the dilemma she describes -- telling bosses or clients, "No.".
Heidi has many good points and is so right: In addition to the other factors you mentioned, I think another factor in the mix is the mental load of knowingly contributing to something you know is unethical and illegal. Yes, by complying with the scheme you keep your job, but you then have to carry the guilt and also the worry that at any moment the scheme could be revealed. And that one should not sacrifice the long term goal for the sake of some short-term gains. How true!
And Mitche's: Regardless, the message for others might be to watch for signals (strong or weak) that raise ethical concerns.
* * *
I am tempted to highlight a popular game theory – somewhat parallel to but not similar to the Hoke's analysis and story. It's not similar – because as the analysis shows in the cited case – that there is no collusion, but pressure tactic put on a subordinate – one is dominant, the other is dominated. Many know this theory – but for the sake of knowledge I am putting it together.
Prisoner's Dilemma (first formalized and proposed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher of the RAND Corporation in 1950 – as one of the most popular game theories). In a certain situation – two persons colluded and committed a crime – and taken into custody. There are four scenarios how the situational outcomes of this case could unfold – depending on how each prisoner handles the dilemma – without knowing each other's moves, and each being dominant or independent of the other.
(1) Both remain silent, faithful to each other playing no real games and serve the full sentencing – both lose; (2) both confess and serve less time in jail for cooperation – again no real game-playing, both win; (3) the first one betrays and confesses and goes free with a sense of winning while the second one serves full-term – a zero-sum game; and (4) the table could turn around – such that the second one betrays and confesses and goes free with a sense of winning, while the first one serves full-term – again a zero-sum game.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a case of faithfulness or betraying a partnership – and is an example of simultaneous non-cooperative moves of a symmetric game – and also like the sealed-bid tendering competition. Note that the burden of proof of the confession lies on the administering authority. It's a lawyer, law-enforcement tactic of the judicial processes to elicit information/confession – and is like setting one against the other to bring a case to conclusion.
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD
Website Links and Profile
Original Message:
Sent: 08-19-2026 02:34 PM
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: Professional Dilemma and the Consequential Aftermath
Tara's essay highlights a really difficult situation. One wonders whether this was an isolated case in the firm or whether there were earlier signals of less-than-ethical intent. Regardless, the message for others might be to watch for signals (strong or weak) that raise ethical concerns. Ideally, that would be the time to start looking for other employment opportunities, to avoid being placed in a compromising position.
------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------