post

Assuming common objectives can be developed and assuming agreed- upon standards and measurement criteria can be established, the underly- ing question remains whether ethics education matters. Can ethics be taught and, if so, to what end? If it does not matter—if students derive no benefit from such courses apart from an easy grade or a break from more rigorous coursework—an argument can be made that ethics has no place in the curriculum. If ethics education does matter, the question arises as to whether ethics education can be improved through superior teaching methods or approaches.

In 1997, Donald C. Menzel published an article in Public Administra- tion Review with the provocative title, ‘‘Teaching Ethics and Values in Public Administration: Are We Making a Difference?’’ In that article, he concluded that ethics education was valuable in schools of public admin- istration, but instruction needed to be improved. ‘‘Is ethics instruction finding a niche in PA/A schools?’’ he asked rhetorically. ‘‘Unquestionably. Are we making a difference? Yes, so it appears. Are we making a large enough difference? Probably not.’’ In his view, the wide variation in tech- niques and approaches in ethics education made it difficult to assess the effect of ethics education or to compare one form of instruction with another. As Menzel concluded, ‘‘There is probably no one best way to ac- quire ethics. Still, there is much to learn about both the teaching and learning (or acquiring) of ethics and values in public administration.’’13

The scope and content of a comprehensive program on ethics educa- tion easily could be the subject of a stand-alone book or series of articles, as they have been in the past. Suffice it to say in this context that any number of methods and means for mastering and applying ethical con- cepts in public service exist, and some are more effective than others. However such education is acquired, it is important to stress that right conduct does not occur unless and until individuals understand the expectations for their behavior and can problem solve when faced with ethical choices. The model here presupposes that education is a crucial component of administrative ethics—an ‘‘input,’’ if you will—but it is only one facet of a multifaceted approach.

DECISION-MAKING FOR THE ETHICAL ADMINISTRATOR

If the development of an individual administrator’s values through his or her lifetime experiences and education can be seen as the inputs,

112 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 9 . P r a e g e r .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY AN: 1000619 ; J. Michael Martinez.; Public Administration Ethics for the 21st Century Account: ns017336.main.eds

decision-making might be labeled the ‘‘throughput’’ (and the action that results from the decision can be deemed the ‘‘output’’). Decision-making unquestionably involves an administrator’s values and character, but these factors are only part of the equation. A decision-making model of the ethi- cal administrator necessarily involves five related, essential stages. First, the larger context must be identified. Next, the role of an ethical adminis- trator within the context must be identified. Third, the content of the appropriate ethical standards must be defined. Fourth, the nature of the ethical conflict must be identified. Finally, a feasible course of action must be charted, and steps must be taken to resolve the conflict or at least deal with it if the conflict cannot be resolved. These steps are the components of deliberative process that must exist so that a public administrator can appropriately assess the ethical questions and chart a satisfactory means of moving from the recognition of an ethical problem to a decision on how to proceed. It is instructive to examine each of these stages in turn.

Stage One: The Larger Context

As discussed previously, in some ways, administrative ethics is compli- cated because of the public nature of an administrator’s duties. An indi- vidual seeking to chart an appropriate course of action generally need not worry about the larger societal implications of the decision, except in rare cases where the individual’s decision somehow affects the larger society. A public administrator, however, must be concerned with the larger con- text by virtue of his or her position within a democratic regime.

Even before an ethical issue arises, an administrator is well served by knowing the context in which he or she operates. In the private sector, an employee working inside a large corporation is well-advised to know the corporation’s place in the world, the industry, and its geographical area of operation. If nothing else, following a public company’s stock price can be an effective way of determining whether the employee can expect to be laid off or to receive a bonus based on the company’s performance. Although a public sector employee typically cannot find such direct and clear measures of organizational performance, he or she would be wise to understand the company’s place in the regime and the factors governing performance inside the organization.

As Figure 5.2 graphically illustrates, background experiences influence the administrator before he or she considers the larger context. Because

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 113

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

the administrator holds a position of public power and responsibility, he or she must know something about the organization and its context—the organizational mission and culture, laws and regulations affecting the organization, and the stakeholders and third parties that both influence the operation of the organization and, in turn, are influenced by it. The challenge is to locate and delve into credible sources of information.

Many organizations, public and private, have an employee handbook or similar list of expectations related to employee performance. Such a handbook or list is a valuable source of information about the organiza- tion. By reviewing the particular list of expectations, the thoroughness (or lack thereof) of the list and the statements regarding the way the organi- zation operates will provide explicit and implicit information about the organization.

Virtually every organization also has a Web site in the twenty-first cen- tury. Moreover, if an employee searches via Google for news and infor- mation on the organization, generally, a treasure trove of data will emerge within seconds. A few hours devoted to perusing these pages will be time well spent.

Notice the key phrase ‘‘credible sources of information.’’ The modern era has provided untold volumes of information at an individual’s finger- tips. A few key strokes will yield more data than most people can

The Administrator

Background Experiences

Organizational Mission and

Culture

Laws and Regs Affecting the Organization

Stakeholders and Third Parties

The Role of the Administrator in

Context (See Figure 5.3)

Figure 5.2 The Larger Context of Administrative Decision-Making.

114 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

probably sift through in the time available to them. The problem is that some of the data are not reliable. Blogs, rumor and innuendo, and mis- takes that occur when information is taken out of context can provide a misleading picture of an organization and its purpose. Accordingly, an administrator must ferret through the information to distinguish between high-quality data and Internet noise. Information supplied by the organi- zation, third-party, peer-reviewed studies, newspaper articles from repu- table publications, and information gleaned from online library sources are the most credible, although no single source can be said to be unimpeachable.

An employee over time will come to understand the context in which the organization operates. Aside from outside sources, it will be helpful to talk with more experienced workers and take stock of their advice. Morale is a reasonably reliable indicator of how well an organization functions, although it is by no means infallible. In many cases, however, employees working in an organization where leadership is lacking or ethical short- cuts are the rule rather than the exception will demonstrate their disdain in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The old adage that a fish rots from the head down is not without a glimmer of truth.

Stage Two: The Scope of a Public Administrator’s Duties: Role Morality

Aside from the broader context, to a large extent, a public administra- tor’s world is shaped by his or her place within a specific organization. Many factors influence the operation of an organization. Obviously, the formal procedural rules and statutory requirements determine to no small extent how the organization will conduct its daily business. An organization that is tightly organized and controlled by statutory require- ments leaves little room for an individual laboring inside the organization to maneuver beyond what the law or regulation requires. An individual must recognize when a legal requirement exists and discern the standard set by the legal rule so he or she can act appropriately within his or her role.

Even this seemingly straightforward statement of an administrator’s duty poses challenges. First, because legal rules contained in statutes and regulations may be incomplete, vague, ambiguous, contradictory, or inex- plicable, grasping the appropriate course of action from a positivist legal

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 115

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

source may be problematic. For an administrator who is not trained in the law and has neither the expertise nor the time to navigate through rough seas toward understanding, legal requirements can raise more questions than they solve.

More fundamentally, a statute or regulation may be obsolete or so obviously unjust as to present a moral dilemma that calls for an adminis- trator to act in a manner that precludes blind obedience. Although pre- sumably such instances are rare, they are not unique. For decades, American laws and regulations at the federal, state, and local level included provisions not only allowing, but requiring, legal segregation. Today, Americans overwhelmingly reject laws that promote de jure dis- crimination and segregation, but the demise of these unjust laws required long-term, ongoing commitments by opponents working to amend the laws and those persons who practiced civil disobedience at great personal sacrifice.14

Because administrators are the people on the front lines administering laws and regulations, they often have a firsthand view of how well or poorly implementation occurs. Instead of merely following the law because it is a requirement passed down from superiors, an ethical ad- ministrator has a continuing obligation to point out deficiencies so that systematic changes can be considered and perhaps adopted. This is not to say that an administrator may take issue with all laws and regulations or raise questions because implementation is inconvenient or personally dis- tasteful. A distinction exists between an individual who prefers a different policy or legal requirement and a policy or legal requirement that can be labeled as morally reprehensible. The sensible administrator will need to ask hard questions about whether an organization’s requirements are gen- erally defensible versus clearly unconscionable.15

As an example, an employee of a state voter registration office may dis- agree with a legal requirement that all prospective voters must present a government-issued identification card before voting because this prereq- uisite may deny a small group of poor and historically disenfranchised peoples the right to vote. Nonetheless, arguments can be made that requiring an identification card reduces the likelihood of voter fraud, cer- tainly a desirable public policy goal. In this situation, the employee may disagree with the policy, but he or she is obligated to act in accordance with the policy; it is defensible. In contrast, a policy that required people of color to present identification cards and exempted whites from the

116 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

same requirement would not be defensible. In this latter case, the em- ployee who objects to the policy is not simply disagreeing with a policy; he or she is raising a serious constitutional issue about the equal protec- tion of the laws, among other things.

Notice what happens during stage two of this decision-making process. The administrator moves from the general to the particular in his or her understanding of ethical duties. Instead of searching for general informa- tion on the larger context of the organization, as suggested in Figure 5.2, now the administrator seeks to understand how the larger context applies to his or her corner of the world. A street-level administrator may be so far down inside the hierarchy of an organization that few occasions arise when detailed knowledge of laws and regulations apply. As long as his or her peers are not openly engaged in theft or other forms of clear, incon- trovertibly egregious behavior, knowledge of the larger context may seem esoteric. Appreciating his or her role and the duties associated with that role are more concrete.

Equally as important as understanding legal requirements is the need to master an organization’s culture and the individual’s role inside that culture. Organizational culture affects virtually all aspects of the organiza- tion’s performance, including how groups within the organization inter- act. Combining the individual and the group can provide insight into how organizations operate. In the words of one influential organization theorist, Talcott Parsons, ‘‘like any social system, an organization is con- ceived as having a describable structure. This can be described and ana- lyzed from two points of view, both of which are essential to completeness. The first is the ‘cultural-institutional’ point of view which uses the values of the system and their institutionalization in different functional contexts as its point of departure. [T]he second is the ‘group’ or ‘role’ point of view which takes suborganizations and the roles of indi- viduals participating in the functioning of the organization as its point of departure.’’16

Although the focus in any discussion of ethics invariably must empha- size the importance of the individual, it is important to understand the role of the group and how it affects and is affected by an organization. A formal organization also contains informal organizations composed of groups that form naturally, regardless of the formal, hierarchical struc- ture. Informal organizations influence the perceptions and attitudes of group members and shape behavioral values and norms. As Chester

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 117

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Barnard once observed, informal groups are an integral part of an organi- zation; they fulfill functions that the formal organization cannot or will not fulfill. Today, some theorists refer to this issue as ‘‘group dynamics.’’17

Groups develop values that augment, and sometimes partially sup- plant, individual values and norms. If a person goes to work in an agency where everyone is expected to perform certain chores or behave in certain ways, an individual is pressured, subtly and not so subtly, to conform. A formal role may be spelled out on an organizational chart, but informal rules of behavior often determine how an individual will perform. In some settings, employees seek guidance and advice from senior members of the group, even if the senior member is a peer. An employee’s relation- ship with peers can determine how well the employee fits into the organi- zation and whether that employee, and other employees as well, enjoy positive experiences and good morale in the workplace.

Groupthink is so powerful and influential that even the most grounded and thoughtful person can succumb to a ‘‘mob mentality.’’ Surrounded by peers for much of the day week after week, the individual is immersed in the values, traditions, and customs of the organization and the group. Eventually, without realizing that a change has occurred, the individual conforms. It is an incremental, unseen process. In some cases—for exam- ple, when a dysfunctional organization perpetuates unethical conduct because of a failure of leadership at the top—the consequences of group- think can be insidious, a corrosive force that undermines right conduct. In other instances, the influence of the organization on the individual need not be seen as nefarious; rather, it is a natural evolution as an indi- vidual who existed apart from the group is brought into the fold and accepted as an integral member of the team.18

Understanding an administrator’s scope of duties highlights the diffi- culties inherent in moving away from individual notions of ethics toward a broader emphasis on institutions. It is not difficult to understand how ethical precepts apply to private individuals acting in a private capacity because accountability is straightforward. Except in rare cases when an individual was acting under duress, mental illness, or diminished capacity, he or she will be held accountable for his or her actions. In con- trast, an individual acting as a public employee in an official public capacity must consider a variety of factors apart from personal predilec- tions in making choices. The potential conflict between an individual’s

118 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

desires and his or her duties to the agency and to the public can raise many ethical problems, and the nature of such a conflict complicates administrative ethics.

Despite the complications involved in identifying the scope of an administrator’s duties, this task is an important stage in the decision- making process. Some theorists have suggested that the scope, or domain, is broad and extends beyond simply an individual’s span of control. As Kathryn G. Denhardt noted in The Ethics of Public Service, ‘‘The evidence can suggest no other conclusion: the domain of ethical responsibility for the public administrator is very broad and very encompassing. Adminis- trators are intimately involved in the policy-making process, the analyses they use in arriving at decisions have ethically relevant value biases, and organizational structures do not relieve individuals from responsibility for the actions, policies, and decisions in which they take part.’’19

Although Denhardt is correct that ‘‘organizational structures do not relieve individuals from responsibility,’’ it is nonetheless instructive to examine the specific context in which administrators make decisions and face ethical choices. The crucial component of personal responsibility is always present, but the nature and extent of the administrator’s role will determine the nature and extent of that personal responsibility. It is absurd to hold a low-level, non-policy-making employee responsible for policy decisions if he or she was only dimly aware of the situation and exercised little or no control over the policy. Even in instances when it is appropriate to assign some measure of responsibility to a lower-level employee, the assignment depends on degrees of responsibility.

Figure 5.3 shows a simplified view of the types of questions that arise when considering the administrator’s role within the context of the orga- nization. First, is the administrator a clerical or nonclerical employee? Although a clerical employee exercises some degree of authority, he or she generally is directed to perform tasks with little or no understanding of the big picture. Similarly, distinguishing between a supervisory and nonsupervisory position can determine, to some extent, the responsibility of a particular administrator. Presumably, a supervisor will exercise more control over the structure and content of some decisions inside of a public organization, especially where personnel and administrative matters con- cerning subordinates are involved.

In some organizations, an administrator exercises statutory authority; that is to say that the employee is authorized by law to undertake

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 119

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

certain duties. Although the distinction between law and ethics is not exact, as previously discussed, in many cases, the two concepts overlap and exist in tandem. The paramount virtue of a legal rule is its relative clarity, at least compared with an ethical precept, which often is vague and unclear. When law and ethics overlap, and a public administrator is charged with a specific duty by law, he or she must make a good faith attempt to comply with the law. Failure to do so, aside from the violation of a legal duty and its attendant consequences, amounts to an ethical violation, assuming the failure was deliberate and not the result of a mistake or a similar justifiable excuse. The ethical responsibilities of an administrator charged with a statutory duty can be judged with more precision than an administrator who has no specific statutory responsibilities.

Other questions that arise with respect to an administrator’s role are whether he or she is a policy-maker or a non-policy-maker and whether he or she exercises discretion. Recognizing, of course, that virtually every public employee, even those ensconced in the lower levels of an agency, are vested with some small measure of policy-making or discretionary author- ity, it is axiomatic that the more policy-making or discretionary authority an administrator has, the more responsibility he or she assumes. If respon- sibility rests on the concept of free will, the more free will an administrator

The Role of the Administrator in

Context

Clerical or Nonclerical

Supervisory or Nonsupervisory

Statutory or Nonstatutory

Policy-making or Non-policy-making

Discretionary or Nondiscretionary

Public or Nonpublic Contact

The Source of Ethical Standards

(See Figure 5.4)

Figure 5.3 The Administrator’s Role in an Organizational Context.

120 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

has, the more he or she will exercise responsibility for the content of a deci- sion made inside a public organization.

Last but certainly not least is the question of whether the administrator comes into contact with the public. In this context, public contact is not merely counting back change or interacting with a citizen for three minutes at the Department of Motor Vehicles, although it can include these interactions. Instead, the main concern is that the public often knows very little about how government is structured and operates. An administrator who interacts with the public in a friendly, fair, efficient manner will communicate a great deal to the citizen about the responsive- ness, of lack thereof, of a democratic regime. If this point sounds trite, that is because it sometimes is trite. Efforts to transform government into a more ‘‘customer-responsive’’ or ‘‘consumer-friendly’’ entity often focus on minor matters, such as requiring government employees to return tele- phone calls in a timely manner or insisting that they be polite. Being timely and polite may be important, but they are minor in the larger scheme of things. Rather, the essential issue is whether the administrator takes ownership of a problem and deals with the citizen in a way that resolves the issue or at least clearly and accurately communicates the rea- sons why the issue cannot be resolved. The more contact an administrator has with the public, the heavier the ethical responsibility, at least insofar as handling the interaction is concerned.

Stage Three: The Content of Acceptable Ethical Standards

It is one thing to suggest that individuals accept responsibility for behaving in an ethical manner without hiding behind the accepted values of their respective organizations; it is another matter to identify the con- tent of an ethical code. The devil is in the details. For every professional standard or system or analogous guidelines that can be adopted, discrep- ancies can be isolated. For every rule or guideline that is identified, excep- tions can be found. For every model code of ethical rules that can be established, situations arise where the code is ambiguous or does not apply. The realization that developing ethical content is problematic does not mean the endeavor is fruitless; it does mean the endeavor is ongoing and iterative.

The content of acceptable standards may come from several sources. A particular organization may have its own code of ethics or a handbook

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 121

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

that outlines its expectations for employee behavior and performance. In addition, professional associations such as the American Society for Pub- lic Administration (ASPA) have sponsored study committees on revamp- ing public service ethics, debated the appropriate components of an ethical system, and passed resolutions urging public administrators to adopt and comply with ethical standards. Formalized codes of ethics such as the ASPA Code of Ethics and Guidelines, the International City Man- agement Code of Ethics with Guidelines, the National Contract Manage- ment Association Code of Ethics, and the U.S. Code of Ethics of 1980 can provide templates for how a code can be written and administered.20

Professions, especially medicine and law, provide guidance on the con- struction and operation of codes of ethics, but precedents must not be stretched beyond their breaking point. The professions can be celebrated for having developed ‘‘black letter’’ ethical precepts, for which much credit is deserved, but the field of public administration, if it can even be so designated, differs from the professions. ‘‘Public administration’’ is a term with no fixed, precise meaning. To be a public administrator means that an individual acts in service of a public organization, to be sure, but beyond this broad statement little can be said with confidence. A local public administrator may be tasked with ensuring that streets are kept clean and sidewalks are maintained in good repair. At the other extreme, a federal public administrator might be in charge of American foreign policy in a troubled region of the world through the State Department. Individuals employed in both positions are public administrators, but their duties, budgets, and expectations are widely divergent. To develop a workable, enforceable code of ethics that applies to both with equal vigor is a Herculean task.21

Professionals, however, are united by their entry into a particular field of study and practice. Physicians must pass a licensing board and affirm the Hippocratic oath before they are admitted to the profession. Attor- neys must pass the bar exam and be certified as fit for the practice of law. Licensure presumably ensures that practitioners possess at least a mini- mal level of competence, although it remains a debatable point whether this presumption is valid. In any case, licensure serves a gatekeeping func- tion. No one, regardless of his or her prior education or work experience, can be a duly authorized physician or attorney in the United States with- out gaining a license. Licensure substantially reduces the difficulty in developing and enforcing an ethical code.

122 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

A physician or an attorney facing a professional dilemma is directed to consult an authoritative source for what constitutes ethics in that profes- sion. Although no code can address all likely scenarios, a well-drafted code of ethics can provide reasonable direction about appropriate stand- ards of conduct. Professional codes of ethics also can specify sanctions for noncompliance, an enormously helpful part of the professional code. If a code of ethics is to have teeth and be enforceable, sanctions are integral.22

Most codes of ethics apart from the professions have few, if any, sanc- tions. In a professional setting, if a practitioner violates the code, he or she potentially faces suspension or expulsion from the profession. This severe penalty ensures in all but the most egregious cases that practi- tioners will ponder their actions prior to engaging in conduct they know or should know is unethical. Without the possibility of sanctions, how- ever, the consequences of noncompliance are negligible. The possibility of opprobrium may serve as a deterrent, but such a deterrent is not as effec- tive as the loss of one’s license and livelihood.

A professional code of ethics may be suitable as content for ethical guidance, but theorists worry that a professional might adhere to the pro- fession over and above the larger responsibilities. As an example, an attor- ney asked to review another attorney’s work to determine whether malpractice occurred may be reluctant to find fault with a fellow member of the bar even if it would appear to someone outside the profession that a violation had occurred. In such a case, the reviewing attorney has placed the supposed well-being of the legal profession above the duty to expose malfeasance. Of course, one might argue that a larger duty to the public exists—to expose malpractice whenever and wherever it occurs—and when an attorney exposes a fellow member of the bar as unethical this chore, distasteful though it might be, roots out problems before they grow worse. Despite this observation, the fear is that some members of a pro- fession place their desire to protect the reputation of the profession above the desire to expose ethical lapses.23

Aside from a formal code of ethics, individuals also have developed their own internal ethical code based on their family and social ties, edu- cation, experience, and religious beliefs. People may be hard-pressed to state how or why they act in certain ways, but even if they do not con- sciously recognize their own internal checks on behavior, they have devel- oped a sense of right and wrong throughout the course of their lives. Individuals rely on their moral compass to make decisions and determine

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 123

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

whether that moral compass is at odds with the requirements of the larger organization. To some extent, an administrator must separate personal feelings from professional responsibility when and if a conflict exists.

Although a particular individual may feel uncomfortable divorcing his or her individual feelings from the role he or she plays as a public servant, society benefits from this division of duties. Social institutions within a democratic regime are designed so that individuals who interact with those institutions promote social values. If an individual working within an institutional setting decides to promote his or her personal values above the values of the institution, this circumvents the democratic pro- cesses that created those social values.

An individual has the option to oppose the death penalty on ethical grounds as long as he or she is acting outside the confines of an institu- tion. If that same individual holds a position within a public agency—for example, a state prosecutor’s office with responsibility for prosecuting death penalty cases—this role will not necessarily change the individual’s personal objections to the death penalty; however, it does require that the individual carry out the prosecutor’s mission of prosecuting death penalty cases. If the individual cannot reconcile his or her personal objections to the death penalty with the prosecutor’s public responsibility for prosecut- ing death penalty cases, the individual must leave the prosecutor’s office. The individual serves as a public servant because of the division of labor between private individuals and individuals acting as decision-makers within the regime. This public role requires that the individual consider his or her duty as a public servant above his or her individual feelings, except in rare instances. The rare instances involve egregious behavior within the organization, which leads to the next point, namely the need for a deliberative decision-making process for the ethical administrator.24

Where, then, does a person find the content of an ethical code? The answer is that no one overarching ethical code exists. Some individuals rely on their long-held personal beliefs, which were formed over time and are based on multiple sources. Others cite the Bible. Professionals may follow the dictates of their professions. Still others may cite the works of famous thinkers or a popular book, such as The Purpose-Driven Life, as a source of guidance.

Individuals frequently are inconsistent in their habits and beliefs. A person may subscribe to closely held beliefs that contradict other closely held beliefs. In some cases, the individual may recognize the contradiction

124 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

and choose to live with it based on the adage that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Other individuals may not recognize the contradiction. In any event, even if the content of ethical decisions can be isolated, the possibility of conflicts in reaching a particular determination is not necessarily diminished.25

It does not seem possible to identify a specific code of ethics that will apply to every public administrator. What is clear is that individual administrators will search for ethical guidance from a wide variety of sources. Figure 5.4 shows the typical source of ethical standards for public administrators. Moving down the chart from general sources to specific sources, some administrators will search for the guidance in resolving ethical questions by reading great works of philosophy or by searching for regime values, as discussed in Chapter 1. Others will rely on organiza- tional culture to understand how ethical dilemmas should be handled. An employee handbook or other written materials may provide assistance. Direction provided by supervisors is another source of guidance. A pro- fessional code of ethics or specific legal requirements found in statutes or regulations can help as well. In all likelihood, an administrator will con- sult multiple sources for direction.

Much of the literature on ethics cited in Chapters 1 and 2 of this book emphasizes the importance of clearly identifying the source and content

The Content of Ethical Standards

General philosophical principles; regime values

Organizational culture

Employee handbook; other agency materials

Clear direction from superiors

Code of ethics

Specific legal requirements

The Nature of Conflict

(See Figure 5.5)

Figure 5.4 The Source of Ethical Standards.

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 125

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

of ethical standards. A major reason that the five theoretical approaches to administrative ethics identified by Terry L. Cooper were developed was because different schools of thought harbored different opinions about the most appropriate method for addressing ethical conundrums. Each approach has its merits and its drawbacks.

The divide among and between the schools of thought will never be bridged, nor should it be. Each administrator must decide for himself or herself what source of guidance is appropriate. This realization means that different people will reach different conclusions, depending on the sources they rely on and the analysis they undertake to determine their ethical responsibility. So be it. The crucial outcome is that an administra- tor should be able to justify why he or she resolved the ethical dilemma in a certain way. Pointing to the decision-making process after the fact, he or she should be able to say, ‘‘I chose to do X because of these five fac- tors.’’ Choosing a pragmatic approach over a specific school of thought allows the administrator maximum freedom of choice, even if it occasion- ally results in inconsistencies among and between different decisions involving ethical choices.

Stage Four: The Nature of the Ethical Conflict

This pragmatic approach depends in no small measure on the nature of the conflict. An administrator confronting a potential ethical dilemma faces three key decision points. First, is the potential conflict merely a dif- ference of opinion? A superior may favor handling an issue in a manner that the subordinate disagrees with, but the fact that a difference of opin- ion exists does not mean that an ethical problem has occurred. If the supervisor’s preferred approach is not contrary to an ethical standard (see Figure 5.5), the subordinate should recognize that the disagreement does not raise an ethical issue and drop the matter.

If this advice to drop the matter seems ultimately unsatisfying, it is lit- tle wonder. A difference of opinion can, in fact, be an ethical issue in dis- guise. Each individual administrator must decide how far to pursue the matter. Let us say, for example, that a middle manager inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture objects to the rationale of his or her superiors to make crucial decisions behind close doors. A hallmark of the demo- cratic process is the transparency in decision-making, except in rare cases when a person’s right to privacy might be compromised or if national

126 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

security considerations are involved. The subordinate may learn that the superiors are making decisions far away from public scrutiny and decide that this practice, although distasteful to the administrator, is a difference of opinion about the proper method for conducting agency business. Fur- ther investigation might reveal, however, that the superiors, in fact, were violating agency policy, to say nothing of the law.

Does the administrator have an obligation to investigate the facts to learn more information and details about the decision-making process? Generally, the answer is no unless the administrator is an ombudsman or someone charged with specific responsibility for investigating potential malfeasance. Recall in Figure 5.3 that an administrator’s role determines, to some extent, his or her duties. If it is not the administrator’s responsi- bility to roam the hallways as a roving ethics investigator, he or she should not assume that role. If knowledge of the inappropriate behavior comes to the administrator through the normal course of business, the analysis changes, as will be discussed shortly. Until such time that the administrator knew or should have known of ethical lapses, however, he or she need not shoulder responsibility unnecessarily.

At the other end of the spectrum—namely, actions that are clearly unethical—the administrator’s task is much easier to identify, even if

Does an Ethical Conflict Exist?

“Ethically Questionable”

Difference of Opinion

Clearly Unethical

Research facts on the issue

Research content of ethical standards

If no resolution, blow the whistle in public

If no resolution, alert elected representatives

Alert superiors in the agency

Consult third-party experts

Not an ethical issue

Figure 5.5 The Nature of the Conflict.

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 127

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

actually following through requires an intestinal fortitude that few pos- sess. An action that is clearly and unequivocally unethical presumably is rare—for example, outright violation of a statute or regulation, willful dis- obedience to an agency policy or directions from a superior, or other unambiguous violations of a known standard of conduct. Typically, the first step in rectifying such abuse is to contact a superior inside the orga- nization and call attention to the abuse. If the abuse continues, it is in- cumbent upon the administrator to take the complaint to another source, perhaps even a legislator, or, in truly exceptional cases, to third parties outside the organization. These steps are not to be taken lightly. Blowing the whistle can hold negative consequences, especially if the administrator ultimately misconstrued the nature of the act or made public an issue that could have been rectified internally.

As for the middle category, actions labeled ‘‘ethically questionable,’’ this is where the greatest degree of conflict and uncertainty occurs. Differ- ences of opinion and clearly unethical activities are relatively easy to iden- tify. Ethically questionable actions are difficult precisely because the situation is not clear. In researching the facts and the content of ethical standards, the potential ethical lapse nonetheless may be partially obscured by the parties involved or simply because the activities naturally have taken place far from public scrutiny. Occasionally, an administrator can seek advice and guidance from third parties, but if the facts are in dis- pute or may never be known and understood completely, he or she must decide what action, if any, to take. The question of action or inaction in the face of ambiguity will be discussed in connection with Figure 5.6 momentarily.

Stage Five: Taking Action to Resolve an Ethical Conflict

We have come to the heart of the matter. The difficulty in identifying an administrator’s role within an organization pales in comparison with the difficulty in resolving the dilemma when legitimate role requirements clash. Competing missions, mandates, legal requirements, and organiza- tional cultures invariably give rise to ethical problems. This is not the public’s widely held misperception of lazy bureaucrats who are asleep at the switch or simply do not care when the U.S. Department of Defense purchases tools and toilet seats for hundreds of dollars. Instead, this is the question of how a well-meaning public administrator who genuinely

128 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

seeks to ‘‘do the right thing’’ acts in such a way that the public interest, however it is defined, is protected.26

No matter how conscientious and well-meaning an administrator is, if he or she is unwilling to act in the face of an ethical dilemma no decision- making process, regardless of its analytic rigor, will be useful. Thought without deed is pie-in-the-sky, an intellectual exercise that can be valua- ble, but one that ultimately fails to ensure right conduct in public administration.

Figure 5.6 is a continuation of Figure 5.5 with an added layer of detail. Recall that Figure 5.5 identified the nature of an ethical conflict and offered recommendations on the steps to take in three categories of con- flicts, namely when a difference of opinion exists, when ethically ques- tionable activities have occurred, and when clearly unethical actions have been undertaken. Figure 5.6 adds detail to the options facing an adminis- trator in each of these situations.

Moving down the figure, even when an administrator determines that an ethical issue does not exist and further action is unwarranted, it is advisable to add a written memorandum to one’s internal file. Perhaps this represents an abundance of caution, but one can envision questions

Not an ethical issue Write memo to file

Take no further action

Research facts on the issue Talk to appropriate parties

Review documents

Research content of ethical standards

Read statutes, regs, etc. Read code of ethics

Read agency documents

Alert superiors in the agency

Read general ethics material

Alert agency superiors

Alert legislators Blow whistle publicly

If authority acts, stop

If authority acts, stop

Consult third-party experts Informal, anonymous

Formal, on-the-record

Figure 5.6 Taking Action to Resolve an Ethical Conflict.

TOWARD A PROCESS THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 129

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

arising months, perhaps years later. A written memorandum to file allows an administrator to recall the events and his or her suspicions without trying to piece together an event years after the fact.

In instances where more facts are needed to determine whether further action is required, reviewing documents and speaking to parties, as appropriate, is prudent. An administrator faced with a decision point will be able to look to past examples and resolve the matter according to the way similar matters were resolved previously. This is what lawyers do when they resolve legal cases. They look at the reasoning in cases that are factually similar and analogize to the present case. Are the facts in the instant case close enough logically to the facts in the previous case to war- rant a similar outcome? If the answer is yes—and this is not always an easy conclusion to reach—they explain their actions as justifiable based on the previous decision.27

Simultaneously, researching the content of ethical standards through one or more of the sources identified in Figure 5.4 is an important method for combining the facts with advice on right conduct. In rare instances when past examples conflict or simply do not exist, an adminis- trator can seek guidance from a more experienced employee, informally or formally, or from the organization’s published guidelines and proce- dures. Although such processes probably will address more than 90 per- cent of the cases, almost invariably there will be situations where no previous rule, guideline, or procedure provides a clear resolution. The ad- ministrator must first recognize that this case is not covered by preexist- ing rules and standards. This means that he or she must understand the role of bureaucracy in a democratic society, the specific organization’s rules and standards, and/or professional standards developed by outside organizations and the reasoning behind each of these sources. Faced with an unusual situation that must be resolved, the administrator must be able to evaluate the situation and analogize to cases that may not be exactly on point but reflect the underlying values in place within the organization.

After the administrator recognizes the issue and decides to act in ac- cordance with the organization’s underlying values, he or she must have the fortitude to move forward even in the face of opposition or indiffer- ence from others. This may be as simple as alerting one or more superiors within the agency of the situation and the results of the administrator’s research and analysis. If the administrator’s superiors take action, even if

130 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ETHICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/6/2023 9:21 AM via POST UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use