Attached are my assignments for this week. Please follow instructions all the way through and give the best work you can. If there are any questions or you cannot open links or pdf. please let me know

T he I n str u cto r's G uid e

T itle P age

C opyrig h t

P re fa ce t o t h e S ix th E ditio n

A ck n ow le d gm en ts

T he A uth or

C hapte r O ne: I n tr o du ctio n

What I s E th ic s?

Resp on sib ility a n d R ole

The R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a to r

A D esig n A ppro ach

Overv ie w o f t h e C on te n ts

Con clu sio n

C hapte r T w o: U ndersta n din g E th ic a l D ecis io n

M akin g

Eth ic a l P ro ble m s

Eth ic s a s a n A ctiv e P ro cess

Desc rip tiv e M odels o f E th ic a l D ecis io n M akin g: T he W orld

as I t I s

A P re sc rip tiv e D ecis io n -M akin g M odel: T he W orld a s W e Wou ld L ik e I t t o B e

Con clu sio n

Part O ne: E th ic s f o r I n div id ual

Adm in is tr a to rs

Chapte r T hre e: P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n i n M odern a n d

Postm odern S ocie ty : T he C on te x t o f A dm in is tr a tiv e

Eth ic s

Pro ble m s w ith M odern ity i n a P ostm odern W orld

Im plic a tio n s f o r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

Politic a l T heo ry a n d A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

Con clu sio n

Chapte r F ou r: A dm in is tr a tiv e R esp on sib ility : T he

Key t o A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

Obje ctiv e R esp on sib ility

Subje ctiv e R esp on sib ility

“W hat t o D o A bou t M rs. C arm ic h ael”

Con clu sio n

Chapte r F iv e: C on flic ts o f R esp on sib ility : T he E th ic a l

Dile m ma

Con flic ts o f A uth ority

Role C on flic ts

Con flic ts o f I n te re st

Main ta in in g t h e P ublic T ru st

Con clu sio n Part T w o: E th ic s i n t h e O rg an iz a tio n

Chapte r S ix : M ain ta in in g R esp on sib le C on du ct i n

Public O rg an iz a tio n s: T w o A ppro ach es

The S itu atio n al C on te x t

In te rn al a n d E xte rn al C on tr o ls

Con clu sio n

Chapte r S even : I n te g ra tin g E th ic s w ith

Org an iz a tio n al N orm s a n d S tr u ctu re s

Con flic ts A m on g I n te rn al a n d E xte rn al C on tr o ls

The C om pon en ts o f R esp on sib le C on du ct

“M uch A do A bou t S om eth in g” R evis ite d

Con clu sio n

Chapte r E ig h t: S afe g u ard in g E th ic a l A uto n om y i n

Org an iz a tio n s: D ea lin g w ith U neth ic a l S uperio rs a n d

Org an iz a tio n s

Resp on sib ility t o S uperio rs

Sou rc es o f O rg an iz a tio n al P re ssu re : T he T ea m P la yer E th ic

Org an iz a tio n al R em ed ie s

In div id u al R esp on sib ility

In div id u al E th ic a l A uto n om y i n O rg an iz a tio n s

Com pon en ts o f I n div id u al A uto n om y

Con clu sio n

Part T hree: T he D esig n A ppro ach Chapte r N in e: A pply in g t h e D esig n A ppro ach t o

Public A dm in is tr a tio n E th ic s

The D esig n A ppro ach t o P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n E th ic s

Gen era l A pplic a tio n

A S pecif ic A pplic a tio n

Con clu sio n

Chapte r 1 0: C on clu sio n : R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a tio n

The R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a to r

A M odel o f R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a tio n

Refe re n ces

In dex T he I n str u cto r's G uid e f o r t h e s ix th e d it io n o f

The R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a to r

i n clu des a s a m ple s y lla b us,

P ow erP oin t s lid es, a n d o th er r ela te d t e a ch in g t o ols . T he I n str u cto r's G uid e i s a vaila b le f r ee o n lin e. I f y ou

w ou ld l ik e t o d ow nlo ad a n d p rin t o u t a c o p y o f t h e g u id e, p le a se v is it :

www.w ile y .c o m /c o lle g e/c o op er Copyrig ht © 2 012 b y J o hn W ile y & S ons, I n c. A ll r ig hts r e se rv ed .

Publis h ed b y J o sse y -B ass

A W ile y I m prin t

One M ontg om ery S tr e et, S uite 1 200, S an F ra n cis c o , C A 9 4104-4 594

— www.j o sse y bass.c o m

N o p art o f t h is p ublic atio n m ay b e r e p ro duced , s to re d i n a r e tr ie v al s y ste m , o r

tr a n sm itte d i n a n y f o rm o r b y a n y m ean s, e le ctr o nic , m ech an ic al,

photo co pyin g, r e co rd in g, s c an nin g, o r o th erw is e , e x cep t a s p erm itte d u nder

Sectio n 1 07 o r 1 08 o f t h e 1 976 U nite d S ta te s C opyrig ht A ct, w ith out e ith er

th e p rio r w ritte n p erm is sio n o f t h e p ublis h er, o r a u th oriz atio n t h ro ugh

p ay m en t o f t h e a p pro pria te p er-c o py f e e t o t h e C opyrig ht C le ara n ce C en te r,

I n c., 2 22 R ose w ood D riv e, D an vers , M A 0 1923, 9 78-7 50-8 400, f a x 9 78-6 46-

8600, o r o n t h e W eb a t

www.c o pyrig ht.c o m

. R eq uests t o t h e p ublis h er f o r

p erm is sio n s h ould b e a d dre sse d t o t h e P erm is sio ns D ep artm en t, J o hn W ile y

& S ons, I n c., 1 11 R iv er S tr e et, H oboken , N J 0 7030, 2 01-7 48-6 011, f a x 2 01-

748-6 008, o r o nlin e a t

www.w ile y .c o m /g o/p erm is sio ns

.

Lim it o f L ia b ility /D is c la im er o f W arra n ty : W hile t h e p ublis h er a n d a u th or

hav e u se d t h eir b est e ffo rts i n p re p arin g t h is b ook, t h ey m ak e n o

r e p re se n ta tio ns o r w arra n tie s w ith r e sp ect t o t h e a ccu ra cy o r c o m ple te n ess o f

th e c o nte n ts o f t h is b ook a n d s p ecif ic ally d is c la im a n y i m plie d w arra n tie s o f

merc h an ta b ility o r f itn ess f o r a p artic u la r p urp ose . N o w arra n ty m ay b e

cre ate d o r e x te n ded b y s a le s r e p re se n ta tiv es o r w ritte n s a le s m ate ria ls . T he

a d vic e a n d s tr a te g ie s c o nta in ed h ere in m ay n ot b e s u ita b le f o r y our s itu atio n.

You s h ould c o nsu lt w ith a p ro fe ssio nal w here a p pro pria te . N eith er t h e

publis h er n or a u th or s h all b e l ia b le f o r a n y l o ss o f p ro fit o r a n y o th er

co m merc ia l d am ag es, i n clu din g b ut n ot l im ite d t o s p ecia l, i n cid en ta l,

c o nse q uen tia l, o r o th er d am ag es. R ead ers s h ould b e a w are t h at I n te rn et W eb

site s o ffe re d a s c ita tio ns a n d/o r s o urc es f o r f u rth er i n fo rm atio n m ay h av e

c h an ged o r d is a p peare d b etw een t h e t im e t h is w as w ritte n a n d w hen i t i s r e ad .

Jo sse y -B ass b ooks a n d p ro ducts a re a v aila b le t h ro ugh m ost b ooksto re s. T o

co nta ct J o sse y -B ass d ir e ctly c all o ur C usto m er C are D ep artm en t w ith in t h e

U.S . a t 8 00-9 56-7 739, o uts id e t h e U .S . a t 3 17-5 72-3 986, o r f a x 3 17-5 72-

4002. Wile y a ls o p ublis h es i ts b ooks i n a v arie ty o f e le ctr o nic f o rm ats a n d b y p rin t-

on-d em an d. S om e m ate ria l i n clu ded w ith s ta n dard p rin t v ers io ns o f t h is b ook

may n ot b e i n clu ded i n e -b ooks o r i n p rin t- o n-d em an d. I f t h e v ers io n o f t h is

book t h at y ou p urc h ase d r e fe re n ces m ed ia s u ch a s C D o r D VD t h at w as n ot

in clu ded i n y our p urc h ase , y ou m ay d ow nlo ad t h is m ate ria l a t

http ://b ooksu pport.w ile y .c o m . F or m ore i n fo rm atio n a b out W ile y p ro ducts ,

vis it

www.w ile y .c o m

.

Cata lo gin g-in -P ublic a tio n d ata o n f ile w it h t h e L ib ra ry o f C on gress.

IS B N 9 78-0 -4 70-8 7394-6 ( h ard back ); I S B N 9 78-1 -1 18-1 8052-5 ( e b k); I S B N

978-1 -1 18-1 8053-2 ( e b k); I S B N 9 78-1 -1 18-1 8054-9 ( e b k) Pre fa ce t o t h e S ix th E ditio n

B y th e tim e th is six th e d itio n is p ublis h ed ,

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

w ill h av e b een in p rin t fo r th ir ty y ears . W hen th e fir s t e d itio n a p peare d I

n ev er d re am ed in m y w ild est fa n ta sie s th at th is b ook w ould h av e s o lo ng a

l if e . In 1 982, th ere w as v ery little in te re st in a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s a m ong

e ith er s c h ola rs o r p ra ctitio ners o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n. T here w as o nly o ne

o th er b ook b y a s in gle a u th or a v aila b le o n a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s, J o hn R ohr's

E th ic s fo r B ure a ucra ts

, w hic h c am e o ut in 1 978 a n d f o cu se d o n th e “ re g im e

v alu es” fo und in th e U .S . co nstitu tio nal tr a d itio n as a fo undatio n fo r

a d m in is tr a tiv e eth ic s. T here w as als o a v olu m e o f essa y s, ed ite d b y Jo el

F le is h m an an d oth ers , title d

Public D utie s: The M ora l O blig atio ns of

G overn m en t O ffic ia ls

, a n d p ublis h ed in 1 981. T here w ere ju st a f e w c o urs e s

o n th is s u bje ct in a cad em ic p ro gra m s a n d o nly a s c atte rin g o f p an els a t th e

a n nual co nfe re n ces of th e A m eric an Socie ty fo r Public A dm in is tr a tio n

( A SPA ) an d th e N atio nal A sso cia tio n of S ch ools of P ublic A ffa ir s an d

A dm in is tr a tio n ( N ASPA A).

By n ow m an y m ore b ooks a n d s c h ola rly jo urn al a rtic le s h av e a p peare d in

p rin t, o ur m ajo r p ro fe ssio nal c o nfe re n ces r e g ula rly h av e a s ig nif ic an t c lu ste r

o f p an el s e ssio ns o n a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s, c o nfe re n ces s p ecif ic ally o n e th ic s

a re co nducte d fro m tim e to tim e, an d all th e N ASPA A-a ccre d ite d M PA

d eg re e p ro gra m s i n clu de a t r e atm en t o f t h e s u bje ct. T his s ix th e d itio n s e ek s t o

a ck now le d ge th e ch an ges in th e fie ld an d th e ad van ces in re se arc h w hile

r e m ain in g tr u e to th e b asic fra m ew ork o f th e fir s t e d itio n. T he c h ap te rs a n d

t h e r e fe re n ces h av e b een e x te n siv ely u pdate d to r e fle ct th e r e cen t r e se arc h in

t h e fie ld . A new se ctio n on desc rip tiv e eth ic al decis io n-m ak in g m odels ,

w hic h d ep ic t th e w ay p eo ple te n d to m ak e e th ic al d ecis io ns, h as b een a d ded .

T his is in te n ded to c o ntr a st w ith th e n orm ativ e p re sc rip tiv e m odel a d van ced

i n th is b ook, a m odel d ev elo ped p ro gre ssiv ely s in ce th e f ir s t e d itio n. T here is

a ls o n ew m ate ria l o n s u ch t o pic s a s w his tle -b lo w in g, t h e b ysta n der e ffe ct, a n d

t h e d esig n a p pro ach t o a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s.

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

w as w ritte n f o r s tu den ts a n d p ra ctitio ners o f

p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n w ho w an t to d ev elo p th eir e th ic al a s w ell a s te ch nic al

c o m pete n ce. It is fo r m en a n d w om en in p ublic s e rv ic e, o r p re p arin g fo r it, who s o m etim es w orry a b out th e rig ht th in g to d o, b ut w ho e ith er h av e n ot

ta k en th e tim e to re ad b ooks o n e th ic al th eo ry o r s u sp ect th at s u ch tr e atis e s

would n ot b e h elp fu l a t th e p ra ctic al le v el. I t is b ein g r e ad b y a d m in is tr a to rs

an d stu den ts o f p ublic ad m in is tr a tio n aro und th e w orld . F or ex am ple , th e

fo urth a n d fif th e d itio ns h av e b een tr a n sla te d in to C hin ese , a n d th e b ook is

now o ne o f th e re q uir e d co re te x ts fo r th e m ore th an o ne h undre d M PA

pro gra m s i n C hin a.

The e d ucatio n, tr a in in g, a n d d ay -to -d ay p ra ctic e o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs

te n d to b e d om in ate d b y th e p ra ctic al p ro ble m s o f g ettin g th e jo b d one.

Concern s a b out w hat s h ould b e d one a n d w hy it s h ould b e d one g et s w ep t

asid e by th e pre ssu re s of sc h ed ule an d w ork lo ad . M odern so cie ty is

pre o ccu pie d w ith actio n, to th e ex clu sio n of re fle ctio n ab out valu es an d

prin cip le s. T heo ry is re d uced to th eo rie s th at co ncern m ean s— “h ow to ”

cro w ds o ut “ to w ard w hat e n d?”

Eth ic al th eo ry , in partic u la r, te n ds to su ffe r under th e sw ay of th is

men ta lity . B ecau se e th ic s in volv es su bsta n tiv e re aso nin g a b out o blig atio ns,

co nse q uen ces, a n d u ltim ate e n ds, its im med ia te u tility fo r a p ro ducin g a n d

co nsu m in g s o cie ty is s u sp ect. P rin cip le s a n d v alu es,

goods

a n d

oughts

, s e em

pre tty w is p y stu ff co m pare d to co st- b en efit ra tio s, G NP, te n sile str e n gth ,

org an iz atio nal str u ctu re s, asse m bly lin es, budgets , dow nsiz in g, dead lin es,

outs o urc in g th ro ugh co ntr a cts , in te re st gro up lo bbyin g, an d politic al

pre ssu re s. The pay off fo r dealin g fo rm ally w ith eth ic s is uncle ar fo r

in div id ual a d m in is tr a to rs a n d f o r o rg an iz atio ns a s w ell.

The r e su lt i s a t e n den cy e ith er t o t o ta lly i g nore t h e s tu dy o f e th ic s o r t o d eal

with e th ic s s u perfic ia lly .

Alth ough it s e em s th at th e tim e d ev ote d to th e s tu dy o f e th ic s in g ra d uate

co urs e s in p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n is g ro w in g, th ere is s till n o c le ar c o nse n su s

th at e v ery M PA c u rric u lu m s h ould i n clu de a r e q uir e d , f re esta n din g c o urs e o n

th e su bje ct. N ASPA A h as re q uir e d o nly th at e th ic s b e tr e ate d in th e M PA

cu rric u lu m , a n d in m an y M PA p ro gra m s a ccre d ite d b y N ASPA A, e th ic s is

han dle d a s a s u bto pic w ith in o th er c o re a re as o f th e c u rric u lu m . T his m ean s

th at e th ic s g en era lly r e ceiv es f ra g m en ta ry a tte n tio n, w ith a s e ssio n h ere a n d a

module th ere in v ario us c o urs e s. T hus it o fte n la ck s th e k in d o f c o here n t a n d

in te g ra te d t r e atm en t t h ought n ecessa ry f o r t h e c o re t o pic s o f t h e f ie ld , s u ch a s

public f in an ce, p ublic p olic y , h um an r e so urc e m an ag em en t, a n d q uan tita tiv e meth ods. A dm in is tr a tiv e e th ic s is s till tr e ate d lik e a s te p ch ild o f th e f ie ld . I n

2009, N ASPA A ad opte d new , co m pete n cy -b ase d accre d ita tio n guid elin es

th at re fe r to “ p ublic s e rv ic e v alu es” ra th er th an e th ic s. It re m ain s to b e s e en

what e ffe cts t h is m ay h av e o n t h e c u rric u la r t r e atm en t o f e th ic s, i f a n y. I h av e

partic ip ate d w ith a g ro up fro m th e A SPA S ectio n o n E th ic s to e x plo re th e

mean in g o f e th ic al c o m pete n ce, a n d I a m c o ed itin g a v olu m e w ith D onald

Men zel o n a ch ie v in g e th ic al c o m pete n cy .

Am ong th ose b ey ond th e a cad em y, a t a n e arlie r s ta g e th ere s e em s to h av e

been a n u neasin ess w ith th e fo rm al s tu dy o f e th ic s, ro ote d in a n a ssu m ptio n

th at e th ic s is sim ply a m atte r o f re la tiv ity a n d su bje ctiv ity . In a p lu ra lis tic

so cie ty , w here n o o ne re lig io us o r c u ltu ra l tr a d itio n is d om in an t, e th ic s h as

been v ie w ed a s a p riv ate , in div id ual m atte r, n ot s u sc ep tib le to th e c an ons o f

ra tio nal in quir y . T o a d dre ss th e s tu dy o f e th ic s o pen ly in a n a cad em ic s e ttin g

was th ought to ru n th e ris k o f e ith er c re atin g u nre so lv ab le c o nflic ts a m ong

th ose w ho h old d if fe rin g e th ic al p ers p ectiv es o r u nfa ir ly p ro pag an diz in g fo r

one p artic u la r p oin t o f v ie w . H ow ev er, A m eric an s a p pear to h av e b eco m e

more c o m fo rta b le w ith t h e t o pic o f e th ic s i n p ublic l if e a n d w ith t h e e x is te n ce

of a cad em ic c o urs e s o n e th ic s a n d th e tr e atm en t o f e th ic s in c o urs e s o n o th er

to pic s.

So e v en th ough a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s a s a fie ld o f stu dy h as n ot b een a s

fu lly a ccep te d a n d s u pporte d a s I w ould h av e l ik ed , i t i s c le ar t h at t h e n um ber

of s c h ola rs a n d p ra ctitio ners w ho a re w ork in g o n re la te d to pic s, b oth in th e

acad em y a n d in g overn m en ts a t e v ery le v el, in b oth th e U nite d S ta te s a n d

aro und th e world , has in cre ase d en orm ously sin ce th e mid 1970s.

Furth erm ore , w e hav e m ad e sig nif ic an t pro gre ss to w ard esta b lis h in g th e

im porta n ce of ad m in is tr a tiv e eth ic s as a cen tr a l co ncern of public

ad m in is tr a tio n. Ack n ow le d gm en ts

T hir ty y ears afte r th e fir s t ed itio n o f

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

w as

p ublis h ed , m y in te lle ctu al h onesty a n d h um ility still re q uir e a d m ittin g th at

w ritin g a b ook i s n ot a t a sk f o r w hic h a n a u th or o ught t o t a k e s o le c re d it. T he

m ore I w rite a n d re fle ct, th e m ore I in te ra ct w ith s tu den ts in th e c la ssro om ,

a n d th e m ore I co nvers e w ith co lle ag ues aro und th e w orld , th e cle are r it

b eco m es th at sc h ola rs h ip is tr u ly a co lle ctiv e en te rp ris e . E ven b ooks th at

c arry th e n am e o f a s in gle a u th or a re s h ap ed in cre asin gly o ver tim e b y th ose

w ho r e ad t h em .

I am in deb te d to th e m an y u nderg ra d uate stu den ts w ho, fo r m ore th an

t w en ty years , hav e ta k en m y co urs e “C itiz en sh ip an d Public E th ic s,” a

r e q uir e d p art o f th e co re o f th e u nderg ra d uate p ro gra m in th e S ch ool o f

P olic y , P la n nin g, a n d D ev elo pm en t a t th e U niv ers ity o f S outh ern C alif o rn ia .

T heir b lu nt q uestio ns a n d s e rio us c h alle n ges h av e d eep en ed m y th in kin g a n d

f o rc ed m e to b e c le are r in e x pre ssin g m y v ie w s. T heir in te re st in th e s u bje ct

o f public eth ic s an d th e in te n sity of th eir str u ggle s w ith th eir ow n

p ro fe ssio nal o blig atio ns h av e s tim ula te d liv ely d eb ate s th at h av e c au se d m e

t o r e th in k m y o w n p ers p ectiv e. T he l a ck o f i n te re st i n e th ic s b y s o m e h as a ls o

l e d m e to f in d w ay s o f e n gag in g th ose w ho v ie w th e s u bje ct d if fe re n tly f ro m

m e.

I h av e als o le arn ed g re atly fro m te ach in g m y g ra d uate “P ublic E th ic s”

c o urs e e v ery s u m mer f o r th e la st f if te en y ears o r s o . T hat c la ss h as ty pic ally

i n clu ded se aso ned p ra ctitio ners , y ounger g ra d uate stu den ts ju st b eg in nin g

p ra ctic e, a n d a f e w d octo ra l s tu den ts d ev elo pin g th e b ack gro und to te ach a n

e th ic s c o urs e a n d d o re se arc h o n th e s u bje ct d urin g th eir a cad em ic c are ers .

T he m ajo r p ap er fo r th e c o urs e in volv es th e a n aly sis o f a re al c ase , e ith er

f ro m th eir ow n ex perie n ce fo r th ose with sig nif ic an t em plo ym en t

b ack gro unds o r fro m th e e x perie n ce o f s o m eo ne th ey in te rv ie w in d ep th fo r

t h ose w ho a re e arly in th eir c are ers . T hat c o urs e is a tr e at th at I a n tic ip ate

e ag erly e v ery sp rin g. In it I h av e b ro ad en ed th e sc o pe o f m y tr e atm en t o f

e th ic s to in clu de ad m in is tr a tiv e eth ic s, p olitic al eth ic s, an d p olic y eth ic s,

b ecau se t h e p eo ple w ho o ccu py r o le s r e la te d t o t h ose f ie ld s i n te ra ct w ith e ach

o th er in sig nif ic an t w ay s. H ow ev er, th e cen te r of gra v ity re sid es w ith ad m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s.

I e x pre ss m y d eep est a p pre cia tio n to th e w om en a n d m en a t a ll le v els o f

Am eric an public se rv ic e w ho hav e sh are d th eir str u ggle s, in sig hts , an d

cre ativ ity w ith m e. Their case s an d th e en su in g dis c u ssio ns in eth ic s

work sh ops I h av e c o nducte d s in ce 1 975 a re th e e m pir ic al b asis f o r th is b ook

an d a m ajo r so urc e o f a n y k now le d ge I m ay b e a b le to p ass a lo ng. I h av e

been d eep ly im pre sse d b y th eir in te n tio n to d o th e rig ht th in g in th e fa ce o f

fo rm id ab le im ped im en ts . I hold th eir co ntr ib utio ns to eth ic s in public

ad m in is tr a tio n in r e sp ectf u l tr u st a n d p ass th is k now le d ge a lo ng a s th eir g if t

to m e a n d t h e r e ad er.

I th an k m y c o lle ag ues a ro und th e w orld w ho a re te ach in g a n d e n gag in g in

re se arc h on ad m in is tr a tiv e eth ic s. O ur num bers hav e gro w n su bsta n tia lly

sin ce 1982 w hen

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

fir s t ap peare d . T hro ugh

se ssio ns a t th e a n nual c o nfe re n ces o f A SPA a n d a t o th er s m alle r m eetin gs in

th e U nite d S ta te s, C an ad a, H ong K ong, F ra n ce, C hin a, a n d A ustr a lia , I h av e

obse rv ed th at a g en uin e c o m munity o f s c h ola rs a n d p ra ctitio ners is e m erg in g

world w id e th at is co m mitte d to th e d ev elo pm en t o f p ublic ad m in is tr a tiv e

eth ic s.

My t h an ks a ls o g o t o t h e r e v ie w ers , w ho o nce a g ain c are fu lly e x am in ed t h e

pre v io us e d itio n o f th is b ook a n d g av e m e th eir c o nstr u ctiv e a d vic e, a n d to

Allis o n B ru nner a n d A lis o n H an key a t J o sse y -B ass, w hose e x celle n t e d ito ria l

guid an ce a n d p atie n ce h av e b een i n valu ab le .

I e x pre ss a g ain m y c o ntin uin g g ra titu de to m y d eare st a n d b est c o lle ag ue,

my w if e , M eg an , w hose in sp ir a tio n, in sig hts , w ritin g s k ill, k now le d ge o f th e

fie ld o f p ublic ad m in is tr a tio n, an d p ers o nal su pport h av e b een fre ely an d

warm ly g iv en s in ce th e fir s t e d itio n a n d a g ain a t e v ery s ta g e o f th is p ro je ct.

She h elp ed m e s h ap e

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

f ro m t h e v ery b eg in nin g

with h er a d vic e a n d s u ggestio ns a s I b eg an o utlin in g th e b ook in a m ounta in

cab in in S outh ern C alif o rn ia in th e la te 1 970s, a n d h er a ssis ta n ce a n d s u pport

co ntin ued t h ro ughout t h e w ritin g p ro cess.

I m ust a g ain a ls o a ck now le d ge t h e m ora l g uid e i n m y l if e , w ho h as b eco m e

more c o lle g ia l s in ce th e p re v io us e d itio n, m y d au ghte r, C hels e a. T hro ughout

her tw en ty -s ix y ears o f lif e , s h e h as c au se d m e to ta k e m y o w n e th ic s m ore

se rio usly . H er h onest a n d d ir e ct q uestio ns h av e c alle d m e u p s h ort a n d c au se d

me to re fle ct. H er “W hy?” q uestio ns an d h er o bse rv atio ns ab out th e g ap betw een w hat I s a y a n d w hat I d o h av e d eep en ed m y m ora l lif e . T his b ook

has m ad e its w ay th ro ugh fiv e p re v io us e d itio ns a s sh e h as g ro w n u p a n d

ta k en h er o w n p la ce i n t h e p ra ctic e o f i n te rn atio nal m ate rn al a n d c h ild h ealth .

Obse rv in g her m ora l dev elo pm en t fro m in fa n cy to young ad ulth ood has

illu m in ate d m y u nders ta n din g o f h ow w e h um an s a re m ost fu ndam en ta lly

valu in g c re atu re s. I h av e w atc h ed h er e x pre ssin g h er o w n v alu es a n d d eep

co m mitm en ts in h er w ork in p la ces lik e U gan da, S outh S udan , R w an da,

Ken ya, L ib eria , T an zan ia , S outh A fric a, A fg han is ta n , T haila n d, a n d I n dia a n d

been r e m in ded t h at I s till h av e m uch t o l e arn f ro m h er.

Fin ally , I e x pre ss m y d eep a p pre cia tio n t o B ry ce L ow ery , w hose c re ativ ity ,

hard w ork , re se arc h sk ills , ed ito ria l co m pete n ce, ex celle n t w ritin g, an d

en dle ss p atie n ce h av e b een a b so lu te ly e sse n tia l in g ettin g th is s ix th e d itio n to

th e pre ss. B ry ce is co m ple tin g his P hD dis se rta tio n an d has pre v io usly

work ed w ith m e a s a t e ach in g a ssis ta n t i n m y u nderg ra d uate “ C itiz en sh ip a n d

Public E th ic s” c la ss. H e is o n h is w ay to a d is tin guis h ed c are er a s a s c h ola r

an d t e ach er i n t h e f ie ld o f u rb an p la n nin g f o r t h e o uts ta n din g u niv ers ity l u ck y

en ough to h ir e h im . H e w ill le av e u s so m ed ay so on a ls o fu lly p re p are d to

te ach e th ic s a lo ng w ith h is m ajo r f ie ld .

All o f th ese p eo ple a n d m an y o th ers h av e h elp ed to b ro ad en , d eep en , a n d

sh arp en m y t h oughts . I d eep ly a p pre cia te t h eir g if ts t o m e a n d h ope t h at w hat

I h av e d one w ith t h em i n t h ese p ag es i s w orth y o f t h eir r e sp ect.

Los A ngele s, C alifo rn ia

Terry L . C ooper

Ju ne 2 011 The A uth or

T erry L . C ooper is th e M aria B . C ru tc h er P ro fe sso r in C itiz en sh ip an d

D em ocra tic V alu es (S ocia l E th ic s) a t th e U niv ers ity o f S outh ern C alif o rn ia

( U SC ). H is r e se arc h c en te rs o n c itiz en p artic ip atio n a n d p ublic e th ic s. H e w as

o ne of th e prin cip al in vestig ato rs in th e te n -y ear U SC N eig hborh ood

P artic ip atio n P ro je ct ( N PP), c o nductin g r e se arc h o n th e r o le o f n eig hborh ood

o rg an iz atio ns i n g overn an ce i n t h e C ity o f L os A ngele s t h ro ugh t h e s y ste m o f

n eig hborh ood c o uncils e sta b lis h ed i n 1 999. H e i s a ls o t h e d ir e cto r o f t h e U SC

C iv ic E ngag em en t I n itia tiv e, w hic h i s e x pan din g t h e w ork o f t h e N PP b ey ond

n eig hborh ood c o uncils a n d b ey ond L os A ngele s. H is c u rre n t w ork f o cu se s o n

t h e h om eo w ner a sso cia tio n m ovem en t i n C hin a, w hic h i s s e ek in g t o e sta b lis h

p ro perty rig hts fo r th ose w ho b uy c o ndom in iu m s fro m d ev elo pers a n d th en

f in d t h at t h ey r e ally o w n v ery l ittle .

Cooper is th e a u th or o f

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r: A n A ppro ach to

E th ic s f o r t h e A dm in is tr a tiv e R ole

( 5 th e d ., 2 006), a n d

An E th ic o f C itiz e n sh ip

f o r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

(1 991). H e is th e c o ed ito r o f

Exem pla ry P ublic

A dm in is tr a to rs: C hara cte r a nd L ea dersh ip in G overn m en t

(1 992), a n d th e

e d ito r o f

Handbook o f A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

(2 nd ed ., 2 001). H is artic le s

h av e a p peare d in

Public A dm in is tr a tio n R evie w

,

Adm in is tr a tio n a nd S ocie ty

,

I n te rn atio nal R evie w of A dm in is tr a tiv e Scie n ces

,

In te rn atio nal Jo urn al of

P ublic Adm in is tr a tio n

,

Adm in is tr a tiv e Theo ry and Pra xis

,

In te rn atio nal

J o urn al of O rg aniz a tio n Theo ry and Beh avio r

,

Public Budgetin g and

F in ance

,

Am eric a n R evie w o f P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

, a n d

The B ure a ucra t

. H e

i s a p ast m em ber o f th e e d ito ria l b oard s o f

Public A dm in is tr a tio n R evie w

a n d

A dm in is tr a tiv e T heo ry a nd P ra xis

a n d c u rre n tly s e rv es o n th e e d ito ria l b oard

o f t h e

Am eric a n R evie w o f P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

. C ooper i s a ls o t h e e d ito r o f

t h e “ E xem pla r P ro file ” s e rie s i n t h e j o urn al

Public I n te g rity

.

Cooper h as p re v io usly se rv ed as ch air o f th e S ectio n o n E th ic s o f th e

A m eric an Socie ty fo r Public A dm in is tr a tio n. H e has co nducte d eth ic s

t r a in in g fo r m an y pro fe ssio nal gro ups at dif fe re n t le v els of govern m en t

a ro und t h e U nite d S ta te s a n d i n s e v era l o th er c o untr ie s. Chapte r O ne

In tr o du ctio n

T he R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

is o ne a tte m pt to re sp ond to th e n eed fo r a

s y ste m atic tr e atm en t o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s th at is g ro unded in b oth

t h e re alitie s of pra ctic e an d th e re q uir e m en ts of so und sc h ola rs h ip . It is

i m porta n t to id en tif y th e partic u la r co ntr ib utio n in te n ded here . The

c o ncep tu al fo cu s o f th e b ook is th e ro le o f th e p ublic a d m in is tr a to r in a n

o rg an iz atio nal s e ttin g; th e c en tr a l in te g ra tin g e th ic al c o ncep t u se d in d ealin g

w ith th at ro le is re sp onsib ility . T he cen tr a l eth ic al pro cess ad opte d fo r

a d dre ssin g e th ic al p ro ble m s a sso cia te d w ith a d m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility is a

c o m pre h en siv e d esig n a p pro ach .

What I s E th ic s?

E th ic s is d efin ed in v ario us w ay s, so m e m ore te ch nic al an d p re cis e th an

o th ers . T he u su al b rie f t e x tb ook o r d ic tio nary d efin itio ns d efin e

eth ic s

a s “ th e

a tte m pt to sta te a n d e v alu ate p rin cip le s b y w hic h e th ic al p ro ble m s m ay b e

s o lv ed ” (J o nes, S onta g , B eck er, an d F ogelin , 1 969, p . 1 ), “th e n orm ativ e

s ta n dard s o f c o nduct d eriv ed fro m th e p hilo so phic al a n d re lig io us tr a d itio ns

o f so cie ty ” (M ean s, 1 970, p . 5 2), o r “ th e ta sk o f c are fu l re fle ctio n se v era l

s te p s r e m oved f ro m th e a ctu al c o nduct o f m en ” c o ncern in g “ th e a ssu m ptio ns

a n d p re su ppositio ns o f th e m ora l lif e ” (G usta fs o n, 1 965, p . 1 13). P re sto n

( 1 996) b eco m es a b it m ore s p ecif ic b y s u ggestin g th at “ eth ic s is c o ncern ed

a b out w hat is rig ht, fa ir , ju st, o r g ood; a b out w hat w e o ught to d o, n ot ju st

a b out w hat is th e c ase o r w hat is m ost a ccep ta b le o r e x ped ie n t” (p . 1 6). M .

W . M artin (1 995) d efin es e th ic s a s m ora l p hilo so phy a n d stip ula te s th at it

i n clu des f o ur m ain g oals o r in te re sts : c la rif ic atio n o f m ora l c o ncep ts ; c ritic al

e v alu atio n o f m ora l c la im s fo cu se d o n “ te stin g th eir tr u th , ju stif ic atio n, a n d

a d eq uacy ” ( p p. 7 –8); c o nstr u ctin g a n in clu siv e p ers p ectiv e b y e lu cid atin g th e

i n te rc o nnectio ns am ong m ora l id eas an d valu es; an d pro vid in g m ora l guid an ce t h ro ugh i m pro vin g p ra ctic al j u dgm en t.

Gib so n W in te r (1 966) d efin es e th ic s m ore c o m pre h en siv ely b y d esc rib in g

th e fu nctio ns it s e rv es in th e s o cia l w orld . A s a n a ctiv e e n te rp ris e , h e s a y s,

“E th ic s s e ek s to c la rif y th e lo gic a n d a d eq uacy o f th e v alu es th at s h ap e th e

world ; it a sse sse s th e m ora l p ossib ilitie s w hic h a re p ro je cte d a n d b etr a y ed in

th e s o cia l g iv e-a n d-ta k e” ( p . 2 18). A nyone e n gag ed i n e th ic al r e fle ctio n t a k es

on th e ta sk o f a n aly zin g a n d e v alu atin g th e p rin cip le s e m bodie d in v ario us

alte rn ativ es fo r c o nduct a n d s o cia l o rd er. E th ic s is , a cco rd in g to W in te r, “ a

sc ie n ce o f h um an i n te n tio nality ” ( p . 2 19).

For o ur p urp ose s in th is b ook, e th ic s m ay b e u nders to od a s th e stu dy o f

mora l co nduct an d m ora l sta tu s.

Eth ic s

an d

mora lity

are ofte n use d

in te rc h an geab ly , b ut h ere I w ill d is tin guis h th em . M ora lity assu m es so m e

accep te d m odes o f b eh av io r th at a re g iv en b y a re lig io us tr a d itio n, a c u ltu re

(in clu din g an org an iz atio nal cu ltu re ), a so cia l cla ss, a co m munity , or a

fa m ily . I t i n volv es e x pecte d c o urs e s o f c o nduct t h at a re r o ote d i n b oth f o rm al

ru le s a n d in fo rm al n orm s. M ora lity is e x pre sse d th ro ugh su ch p re cep ts a s

“d ecen t y oung p eo ple d o n ot e n gag e in p re m arita l s e x ,” “ fa m ily c o m es f ir s t,”

“o ne s h ould n ot c o nsp ic u ously d is p la y o ne's w ealth ,” “ g uests in o ne's h om e

must a lw ay s b e tr e ate d w ith re sp ect,” “ n ev er d riv e u nder th e in flu en ce,” “ a

day 's p ay r e q uir e s a d ay 's w ork ,” “ fo llo w t h e o rd ers o f t h ose a b ove y ou i n t h e

org an iz atio n,” an d sim ila r ex pecta tio ns. S om etim es th ese ex pecta tio ns are

writte n o ut in c o des o f c o nduct o r r u le s, b ut a t o th er tim es th ey a re a ssu m ed

an d ta k en fo r g ra n te d . T ypic ally th ey are asse rte d b y a tr a d itio n, cu ltu re ,

re lig io n, c o m munity , o rg an iz atio n, o r f a m ily a s s im ply w hat i s r ig ht.

Eth ic s, th en , is o ne s te p r e m oved f ro m a ctio n. I t in volv es th e e x am in atio n

an d an aly sis o f th e lo gic , v alu es, b elie fs , an d p rin cip le s th at are u se d to

ju stif y m ora lity in its v ario us f o rm s. I t c o nsid ers w hat is m ean t b y p rin cip le s

su ch a s ju stic e, v era city , o r th e p ublic in te re st; th eir im plic atio ns f o r c o nduct

in p artic u la r situ atio ns; an d h ow o ne m ig ht arg ue fo r o ne p rin cip le o ver

an oth er a s d ete rm in ativ e i n a p artic u la r d ecis io n. E th ic s t a k es w hat i s g iv en o r

pre sc rib ed a n d a sk s w hat i s m ean t a n d w hy. S o e th ic s a s r e la te d t o c o nduct i s

critic al r e fle ctio n o n m ora lity to w ard g ro undin g m ora l c o nduct in s y ste m atic

re fle ctio n a n d r e aso nin g. E th ic al r e fle ctio n a ls o in volv es a n a ffe ctiv e e le m en t

becau se it ofte n ev okes em otiv e re sp onse s of co m fo rt or dis c o m fo rt,

re so lu tio n o r q uan dary , a n d a ffir m atio n o r a n ta g onis m . Eth ic s als o deals w ith th e m ora l sta tu s of en titie s su ch as fa m ilie s,

org an iz atio ns, c o m munitie s, a n d s o cie tie s. H ere e th ic al re aso nin g is fo cu se d

on how th e ch ara cte ris tic s asso cia te d w ith th e good fa m ily , th e good

org an iz atio n, o r th e g ood s o cie ty a re g ro unded in c erta in p rin cip le s, v alu es,

belie fs , a n d lo gic al a rg um en t. E th ic s w eig hs th e a d eq uacy o f th ese a ttr ib ute s

an d a n aly zes h ow t h ey a re j u stif ie d .

Eth ic s m ay b e d ealt w ith d esc rip tiv ely o r n orm ativ ely . D esc rip tiv ely , e th ic s

atte m pts to re v eal u nderly in g a ssu m ptio ns a n d h ow th ey a re c o nnecte d to

co nduct. N orm ativ ely , eth ic s atte m pts to co nstr u ct via b le an d defe n sib le

arg um en ts fo r p artic u la r c o urs e s o f c o nduct a s b ein g b ette r th an o th ers in

sp ecif ic s itu atio ns. T his b ook e n gag es m ain ly i n a d esc rip tiv e a p pro ach t o t h e

eth ic al s itu atio n o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a n d p ro vid es s o m e a n aly tic al to ols ,

in clu din g a d ecis io n m odel fo r a rriv in g a t n orm ativ e ju dgm en ts . It d oes n ot

desc rib e a p artic u la r p ublic s e rv ic e e th ic , a n e n deav or I h av e u nderta k en in

an oth er b ook,

An E th ic o f C itiz e n sh ip fo r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

(1 991), n or

does it s p ecif ic ally d efin e a d esc rip tiv e d ecis io n m odel. D esc rip tiv e m odels

dev elo ped b y o th ers w ill b e re v ie w ed b rie fly in C hap te r T w o a s a m ean s o f

pro vid in g b ack gro und f o r t h e n orm ativ e m odel p re se n te d h ere .

Eth ic s m ay be vie w ed fro m eith er or both of tw o m ajo r orie n ta tio ns:

deo nto lo gic a l

a n d

te le o lo gic a l

. D eo nto lo gic al a p pro ach es to e th ic s fo cu s o n

one's d uty to c erta in e th ic al p rin cip le s, s u ch a s ju stic e, f re ed om , o r v era city ,

with out re g ard fo r th e c o nse q uen ces o f o ne's a ctio ns. T ele o lo gic al e th ic s, in

co ntr a st, in volv es a c o ncern fo r th e e n ds o r c o nse q uen ces o f o ne's c o nduct.

This is th e positio n m ost nota b ly asso cia te d w ith utilita ria n is m an d its

calc u lu s o f th e g re ate st g ood f o r th e g re ate st n um ber. T his b ook a ssu m es th at

most o f u s u nderta k e d ecis io ns u sin g b oth o f th ese p ers p ectiv es m ost o f th e

tim e. T hat is , w e c o nsid er p rin cip le s th at a re im porta n t to u s in a c o ncre te

situ atio n a n d th en a sk o urs e lv es w hat th e c o nse q uen ces o f a ctin g o n th ose

prin cip le s a re lik ely to b e. T he d ecis io n-m ak in g m odel p re se n te d in th e n ex t

ch ap te r c o m bin es d eo nto lo gic al a n d t e le o lo gic al o rie n ta tio ns.

Doin g e th ic s, th en , in volv es th in kin g m ore s y ste m atic ally a b out th e v alu es

an d p rin cip le s th at a re e m bed ded in o ur c h oic es th an w e d o w hen w e m ak e

ch oic es o n p ra ctic al o r p olitic al g ro unds a lo ne. A s w e r e fle ct o n t h ese i m plic it

valu es, w e a sk o urs e lv es h ow th ey a re c o nsis te n t w ith o ur d utie s a n d to w ard

what e n ds a n d c o nse q uen ces th ey le ad . K eep in g in m in d th e o blig atio ns a n d goals o f th e r o le s w e o ccu py, w e s e ek to r a n k-o rd er th em f o r e ach p artic u la r

eth ic al d ecis io n w e c o nfro nt i n t h e c o urs e o f c arry in g o ut a s p ecif ic r o le .

The re la tio nsh ip b etw een la w a n d e th ic s o fte n c o m es u p in th e d is c u ssio n

of s p ecif ic c ase s. M y a n sw er is th at la w s p ecif ie s th e m ora l m in im um . It is

th e m in im um le v el o f c o nduct th at w e a s a s o cie ty a g re e to im pose o n a ll o f

us th ro ugh th e th re at o f f o rc e a n d s a n ctio ns. E th ic al c o nsid era tio ns a re o fte n

in volv ed in d elib era tio ns ab out p ro pose d le g is la tio n, b ut o nce cry sta lliz ed

in to la w , th e c o nduct p re sc rib ed is a ssu m ed to b e b ack ed u p b y th e c o erc iv e

pow er o f g overn m en t. H ow ev er, fro m a n e th ic is t's p oin t o f v ie w , la w m ust

alw ay s s ta n d u nder th e ju dgm en t o f e th ic s. S om etim es la w s m ay b e d eem ed

unju st a n d th ere fo re u neth ic al. T hose w ho b elie v e so m ay c h alle n ge th ose

la w s in th e c o urts a s in co nsis te n t w ith th e h um an rig hts g uara n te ed b y th e

U.S . C onstitu tio n, o r t h ey m ay e n gag e i n c iv il d is o bed ie n ce, e v en t o t h e p oin t

of b ein g a rre ste d a n d g oin g t o j a il.

Both k in ds o f c h alle n ges o ccu rre d d urin g th e c iv il r ig hts m ovem en t o f th e

1960s a n d 1 970s. T he N atio nal A sso cia tio n f o r th e A dvan cem en t o f C olo re d

Peo ple ( N AACP) e n gag ed in litig atio n a g ain st u nju st s e g re g atio n la w s in th e

Am eric an S outh . M artin L uth er K in g Jr. an d m an y o th ers em plo yed civ il

dis o bed ie n ce b y s ittin g in a t s e g re g ate d fa cilitie s, re fu sin g to s it in th e b ack

se ats o n b use s, an d d em onstr a tin g ag ain st se g re g ate d sc h ools ev en w hen

ord ere d by le g al au th oritie s not to do so . Som etim es la w s need to be

ch alle n ged o n eth ic al g ro unds. In th e lo ng tr a d itio n o f civ il d is o bed ie n ce

ex em plif ie d b y G an dhi a n d K in g, th e k ey p ro vis o is th at o ne m ust b e w illin g

to accep t th e co nse q uen ces of one's actio ns in ord er to dem onstr a te

co m mitm en t to e th ic al p rin cip le s o ver w hat a re c o nsid ere d u nju st la w s. T hat

is , o ne m ust b e w illin g to s u ffe r f in es a n d im pris o nm en t in o rd er to e v oke a

re sp onse fro m th e la rg er so cie ty to brin g ab out ch an ge in th e la w s in

questio n.

Resp on sib ilit y a n d R ole

The t e rm s

ro le

a n d

re sp onsib ility

a re p ecu lia rly m odern in c o nnota tio n. B oth

su ggest a w orld vie w in w hic h th e p ow er o f tr a d itio n is b ro ken a n d h um an

bein gs are le ft to co nstr u ct a w orld o f th eir o w n m ak in g. R ole s m ust b e

dev is e d a n d re sp onsib ility d efin ed a s w ay s o f re esta b lis h in g o blig atio ns in our m odern , p lu ra lis tic , t e ch nolo gic al s o cie ty . T ech nolo gy i s a p plie d n ot o nly

to p ro ductio n b ut a ls o t o s o cie ty i ts e lf .

Win te r (1 966) o bse rv ed : “R esp onsib ility is a re la tiv ely n ew te rm in th e

eth ic al v ocab ula ry , ap pearin g in th e n in ete en th cen tu ry w ith a so m ew hat

am big uous m ean in g. T he t e rm e v alu ate s a ctio n a n d a ttr ib ute s i t t o a n a g en t; i t

does s o in lie u o f c o sm ic o r n atu ra l s tr u ctu re s o f o blig atio n. T he h is to ric al

aw are n ess of th e nin ete en th cen tu ry , th e sc ie n tif ic an d te ch nolo gic al

re v olu tio ns, a n d th e c o lla p se o f m eta p hysic al s y ste m s h ad u nderm in ed f ix ed

notio ns o f o blig atio ns. T he te rm ‘ re sp onsib ility ’ w as a w ay o f f illin g th is g ap

by d efin in g th e s c o pe o f a cco unta b ility a n d o blig atio n in c o nte x ts o f la w a n d

co m mon c u ltu re ” ( p p. 2 54–255).

Sim ila rly , R ic h ard M cK eo n's s tu dy ( 1 957) o f th e e m erg en ce o f th e te rm in

Weste rn th ought re v eals th at

re sp onsib ility

fir s t ap peare d in E nglis h an d

Fre n ch in 1 787. It w as u se d in itia lly in re fe re n ce to th e p olitic al in stitu tio ns

aris in g o ut o f th e A m eric an a n d F re n ch re v olu tio ns, b ut its u se c o ntin ued

th ro ugh th e n in ete en th c en tu ry . W hen “ co nstitu tio nal g overn m en t w as v astly

ex te n ded , in s c o pe o f o pera tio n a n d in s p re ad a m ong n atio ns, a s a re su lt o f

co nta cts of cu ltu re s an d peo ple s” (p . 23), th e co ncep t of re sp onsib ility

becam e in cre asin gly s ig nif ic an t a s a w ay o f d efin in g a c o m mon s e t o f v alu es

am ong p eo ple o f d iv erg en t c u ltu re s a n d t r a d itio ns.

The co ncep t of ro le th en beco m es a co nven ie n t way to pack ag e

ex pecta tio ns a n d o blig atio ns a sso cia te d w ith th e m odern w orld . A s w e c ease

to v ie w s o cia l f u nctio ns a s r e ceiv ed in ta ct f ro m th e p ast a n d s e e th em in ste ad

as m an ip ula te d a n d c re ate d a n ew , w e t a k e u pon o urs e lv es b ounded o blig atio n

in th e fo rm o f v ario us ro le s. P eo ple ex erc is e re sp onsib ility an d are h eld

re sp onsib le i n s o cie ty w hen t h ey a ccep t a n d c arry o ut a n a rra y o f m ore o r l e ss

well- d efin ed ro le s: em plo yee, pare n t, citiz en , gro up m em ber. T he m ost

pro ble m atic r o le s a re th ose n ot c le arly d efin ed , u su ally b ecau se th ere is little

ag re em en t a b out th e b oundarie s o f r e sp onsib ility a sso cia te d w ith th em . W hat

does it m ean to b e a r e sp onsib le p are n t in th e f ir s t d ecad e o f th e tw en ty -fir s t

cen tu ry ? O r a r e sp onsib le s p ouse , r e sp onsib le c itiz en , r e sp onsib le p olitic ia n ,

or r e sp onsib le p ublic a d m in is tr a to r?

The pro ble m is th at alth ough public ad m in is tr a to rs are re sp onsib le fo r

certa in d utie s (th ose th at co nstitu te th e p ro fe ssio nal ro le ), th ey so m etim es

belie v e th ey are oblig ate d to act oth erw is e . This occu rs becau se ad m in is tr a to rs , a lo ng w ith e v ery one e ls e i n m odern s o cie ty , m ain ta in a n a rra y

of ro le s re la te d to fa m ily , c o m munity , a n d so cie ty , e ach c arry in g a se t o f

oblig atio ns an d v este d w ith certa in p ers o nal in te re sts . T he q uite co m mon

re su lt is co nflic t am ong ro le s as th ese co m petin g fo rc es p ush an d p ull in

opposite d ir e ctio ns. T he effe cts o f th ese co nflic ts are co m pounded b y th e

ra n ge o f d is c re tio n a d m in is tr a to rs m ust e x erc is e . T he in te n t o f le g is la tio n is

fre q uen tly s ta te d in b ro ad la n guag e, le av in g th e s p ecif ic s to a d m in is tr a to rs .

Conse q uen tly , e th ic al s ta n dard s a n d s e n sitiv ity a re c ru cia l to th e r e sp onsib le

use o f t h is d is c re tio n.

The R esp on sib le A dm in is tr a to r

The re sp onsib le a d m in is tr a to r is o ne w ho is re sp onsib le in th e tw o s e n se s I

hav e dis c u sse d brie fly here (th is su bje ct is tr e ate d m ore th oro ughly in

Chap te r F our). R esp onsib le a d m in is tr a to rs m ust b e a b le to a cco unt fo r th eir

co nduct to re le v an t o th ers , s u ch a s s u perv is o rs , e le cte d o ffic ia ls , th e c o urts ,

an d th e c itiz en ry , w hic h m ean s b ein g a b le to e x pla in a n d ju stif y w hy s p ecif ic

actio ns th ey to ok r e su lte d in p artic u la r c o nse q uen ces. T hey m ust a ls o b e a b le

to a ct in w ay s th at a re c o nsis te n t w ith th eir in ner c o nvic tio ns a s p ro fe ssio nal

guard ia n s of th e public good. T hat is , bein g a re sp onsib le ad m in is tr a to r

in clu des hav in g both obje ctiv e acco unta b ility fo r co nduct an d su bje ctiv e

co ngru en ce w ith o ne's p ro fe ssio nal v alu es. E th ic s is th e m ost fu ndam en ta l

way in w hic h one sa tis fie s both kin ds of re sp onsib ility . Resp onsib le

ad m in is tr a to rs m ust b e e th ic ally s o phis tic ate d e n ough to re aso n w ith o th ers

ab out th e w ay s in w hic h th eir c o nduct se rv es th e p ublic in te re st a n d h av e

su ffic ie n t cla rity ab out th eir ow n pro fe ssio nal eth ic al co m mitm en ts to

main ta in i n te g rity a n d a s e n se o f s e lf -e ste em .

What, th en , is th e dif fe re n ce betw een an eth ic al ad m in is tr a to r an d a

re sp onsib le ad m in is tr a to r? A p ublic ad m in is tr a to r w ho h as b een p ro perly

so cia liz ed m ay b e a b le to a ct in a cco rd an ce w ith th e c o m mon g ood s o m e o r

ev en m ost o f t h e t im e, t h us b ein g a n e th ic al a d m in is tr a to r s o m e o r m ost o f t h e

tim e, y et n ot b e a b le to g iv e sp ecif ic re aso ns fo r h is o r h er c o nduct w hen

questio ned o r c h alle n ged , a n d p erh ap s n ot e v en b e a b le to u nders ta n d in a

se lf -c o nsc io us w ay w hy h e o r s h e a cte d in a p artic u la r w ay . U nders ta n din g

one's m otiv atio ns a n d b ein g a b le to e x pla in a n d ju stif y th e a ctio ns th at flo w fro m th em a re th e e sse n tia l q ualitie s o f th e re sp onsib le a d m in is tr a to r. T his

book s e ek s to p ro vid e th e c o nce p ts , th eo rie s, a n d te ch niq ues fo r re sp onsib le

ad m in is tr a tio n.

A D esig n A ppro ach

All to o m an y tr e atm en ts o f p ro fe ssio nal e th ic s sto p w ith a c o ncep tu al a n d

th eo re tic al p hilo so phic al a n aly sis o f ty pic al e th ic al p ro ble m s. S om e le ad to a

desir e d s o lu tio n o r a p re sc rib ed s e t o f e th ic al n orm s, w here as o th ers e lu cid ate

th e p ro ble m , o ffe r s o m e a n aly sis o f v ario us a lte rn ativ es, a n d le av e th e r e ad er

with t h e i m plic atio n t h at a ll a re o f e q ual v alu e. I n t h is b ook a d esig n a p pro ach

is a d opte d a s th e c en tr a l o rg an iz in g e th ic al p ro cess. T his o rie n ta tio n a ssu m es

th at th ere is n o s in gle b est s o lu tio n to a s ig nif ic an t e th ic al p ro ble m b ut r a th er

num ero us p ossib le so lu tio ns, so m e o f e q ual v alu e a n d so m e o f g re ate r o r

le sse r w orth . T he ta sk is to d esig n a re sp onse to a p ro ble m at h an d th at

ad dre sse s th e im med ia te sh ort- te rm situ atio n b ut als o lo oks to th e w id er

org an iz atio nal, l e g al, a n d s o cia l c o nte x ts f o r t h e l o nger-te rm a n sw ers .

Pra ctic in g ad m in is tr a to rs can not liv e ex clu siv ely in th e re alm of

philo so phic al re fle ctio n b ut m ust c o nnect s u ch c o nsid era tio ns to a ctio n a n d

org an iz atio ns. A s C aro lin e W hitb eck (1 996) su ggests , “P eo ple co nfro nte d

with e th ic al p ro ble m s m ust d o m ore t h an s im ply m ak e j u dgm en ts . T hey m ust

fig ure o ut w hat t o d o” ( p . 9 ). F ar f ro m s im ply a ssu m in g t h at e th ic s i s a m atte r

of lo okin g f o r a n id eal r a tio nal s o lu tio n to a n im med ia te p ro ble m , W hitb eck

arg ues th at a p ers o n c o nfro ntin g a n e th ic al p ro ble m s h ould b e th in kin g lik e a

desig ner. “ D esig n p ro ble m s,” sh e p oin ts o ut, “ are p ro ble m s o f m ak in g (o r

re p air in g) th in gs a n d p ro cesse s to s a tis fy w an ts a n d n eed s” ( p . 1 0). A nd th is

“m ak in g” an d “re p air in g” alw ay s in volv es co nstr a in ts — in tim e, m oney ,

pow er, th e a b ility to p ers u ad e, a n d th e s tr e n gth to a b so rb c o nse q uen ces. F or

public a d m in is tr a to rs th e d esig n o f a v ia b le a n d a ccep ta b le so lu tio n to a n

eth ic al q uan dary a lw ay s ta k es p la ce in th e c o nte x t o f o rg an iz atio ns th at w ill

su pport s o m e k in ds o f c o nduct a n d im ped e o th ers . A w ork ab le r e so lu tio n o f

an e th ic al p ro ble m c an not i g nore t h at o rg an iz atio nal c o nte x t.

Follo w in g W hitb eck , th e a p pro ach d ev elo ped th ro ughout th is b ook is o ne

of c o nsid erin g th e f a cts o f a s itu atio n— its s o cia l a n d o rg an iz atio nal c o nte x t,

its c o nstr a in ts , o pportu nitie s, a n d im plic atio ns fo r a ll c o ncern ed — an d th en ad vocatin g th e desig n of co urs e s of actio n th at m ay in clu de ch an ges in

org an iz atio nal s tr u ctu re , c u ltu re , r u le s, p olic ie s, a n d p ro ced ure s. I t i s a ssu m ed

th at th ere are se v era l co nceiv ab le alte rn ativ e co urs e s to co nsid er befo re

se le ctin g, n ot a n id eal o r p erfe ct so lu tio n, b ut th e b est a m ong a n a rra y o f

possib ilitie s, s o m e o f w hic h m ay b e e q ually a ccep ta b le . T his d esig n a p pro ach

assu m es th at it is a lw ay s p ossib le to im pro ve o n a n y so lu tio n g iv en m ora l

im ag in atio n, in gen uity , a n d c re ativ ity a n d th at o ne m ust a lw ay s b rin g th ese

qualitie s to b ear o n im porta n t eth ic al q uan darie s. B ut ad m in is tr a to rs h av e

lim ite d tim e to e x erc is e th eir in ven tiv en ess a n d fin ally m ust a ct in th e s h ort

ru n w hile p la n nin g f o r t h e f u tu re .

Thus, a s th e c h ap te rs u nfo ld , th e m ean in g o f re sp onsib ility in th e p ublic

ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le will be dev elo ped by le ad in g th e re ad er th ro ugh

co nsid era tio ns o f t h e e le m en ts i n volv ed i n d esig nin g w hat t o d o i n t h e f a ce o f

eth ic al u ncerta in ty a n d c h alle n ge. H ere a re s o m e le sso ns th at W hitb eck h as

ad van ced f o r d esig nin g r e sp onse s t o m ora l p ro ble m s:

We sh ould b eg in w ith a c o nsid era tio n o f th e u ncerta in tie s in vo lv ed in

any eth ic a l pro ble m

. F or ex am ple , no one sh ould ev er assu m e th at

ap peara n ces are alw ay s tr u e. C onduct th at m ay se em to b e u neth ic al

may n ot b e w hen it is fu lly ex plo re d an d u nders to od. A ls o , h um an

beh av io r is n ot a lw ay s p re d ic ta b le . A p ers o n m ay d ecid e o n a c o urs e o f

actio n a n d t h en f in d o ut t h at t h e k ey a cto rs r e sp ond v ery d if fe re n tly f ro m

what had been ex pecte d . A s th e pro cess of ad dre ssin g a pro ble m

unfo ld s, th e natu re of th e pro ble m m ay ch an ge. O th er is su es an d

co nflic ts h ere to fo re u nknow n m ay b e d is c o vere d to b e in volv ed in th e

pro ble m .

The g en era tio n o f a lte rn ativ e s o lu tio ns t o a n e th ic a l p ro ble m i s s e p ara te

fr o m d efin in g th e p ro ble m a nd m ay n ecessita te g ath erin g a dditio nal

in fo rm atio n

. T his is re la te d to th e p re v io us le sso n. In o rd er to re d uce

uncerta in ty , it is o fte n n ecessa ry to f in d o ut m ore a b out w ho is in volv ed

in th e p ro ble m , h ow lo ng it h as e x is te d , th e c h ara cte rs o f th e k ey a cto rs ,

th e im plic atio ns o f v ario us o ptio ns f o r a ctio n f o r th e la rg er o rg an iz atio n

an d p eo ple w ith in it, a n d h ow k ey a cto rs o uts id e th e o rg an iz atio n m ay

re sp ond t o t h e p ro pose d c o urs e s o f a ctio n.

We a re a lw ays a ctin g u nder tim e p re ssu re

. B usy p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs

do n ot h av e th e lu xury o f c o nte m pla tin g a n e th ic al p ro ble m u ntil th ey are fu lly sa tis fie d th at all optio ns an d co ntin gen cie s hav e been

ex hau stiv ely c o nsid ere d . D ecis io ns h av e to b e m ad e a n d th in gs h av e to

get done, alw ay s under co nstr a in ts of sc h ed ule s an d dead lin es.

Som etim es th at m ean s p urs u in g se v era l a lte rn ativ es sim ulta n eo usly o r

dev elo pin g a c o ntin gen cy a p pro ach , w ith a d ecis io n tr e e in dic atin g w hat

will b e d one if v ario us th in gs d o n ot h ap pen a s in itia lly p la n ned . N ot

ta k in g th is a p pro ach m ay m ean th at th e o pportu nity to in te rv en e a n d

co rre ct m is c o nduct m ay b e lo st. P ostp onin g a ctio n m ay re su lt in a fa it

acco m pli. T he d am ag e m ay b e d one, a n d i r re v ers ib ly s o .

Eth ic a l p ro ble m s a re d yn am ic

. T hey ch an ge as w e b eg in to ad dre ss

th em . W hat w e m ay a t fir s t e n g ag e a s a n e th ic al p ro ble m m ay b eco m e

als o a le g al p ro ble m . O r w hile w e are b eg in nin g to w ork th ro ugh a

pla n ned c o urs e o f a ctio n to a d dre ss a n e th ic al p ro ble m , so m eo ne e ls e

may i n te rv en e a n d r e so lv e i t i n a n oth er w ay , w hic h m ay i n t u rn c re ate a n

en tir e ly n ew p ro ble m .

These l e sso ns a re r a th er a b str a ct a t t h is p oin t, b ut r e ad ers s h ould t r y t o k eep

th em in m in d as th e ch ap te rs u nfo ld . (C hap te r N in e d ev elo ps th is d esig n

ap pro ach i n s u m mary f a sh io n b y a p ply in g i t t o a c ase .)

Overv ie w o f t h e C on te n ts

The f ir s t a n d m ost b asic t a sk o f t h is b ook i s t o i llu m in ate t h e e th ic al d ecis io n-

mak in g pro cess. Chap te r Tw o beg in s with so m e basic co ncep ts fo r

unders ta n din g th e le v els of delib era tio n at w hic h eth ic al pro ble m s are

ad dre sse d . T his is fo llo w ed b y a m odel fo r a n aly zin g a n d re so lv in g th ese

pro ble m s. T he m odel is p artly lin ear, in volv in g a se q uen ce o f ste p s, an d

partly nonlin ear, re q uir in g a se arc h fo r th e in te g ra tio n of se v era l key

ele m en ts , in clu din g m ora l r u le s, e th ic al p rin cip le s, s e lf -im ag e, a n d th e n orm s

of t h e p olitic al c o m munity . I t a ls o c o m bin es r e aso nin g, e m otio ns, a n d b elie fs .

The m odel p re se n te d h ere is n ot s im ply r a tio nalis t a n d f o cu se d o n p rin cip le s

but a ls o in clu des, a s e sse n tia l, th e a ffe ctiv e d im en sio ns o f e th ic al d ecis io n

mak in g a n d c o nduct. T he lo gic e sp ouse d is n ot a lin ear s y llo gis tic c alc u lu s

but s o m eth in g m ore lik e th e lo gic o f a esth etic s o r th e lo gic o f r h eto ric . S om e

re ad ers se em to h av e m is se d th is e sse n tia l th ru st in e arlie r e d itio ns o f th e

book (B ru ce, 1992; C ooper, 1992a; C ooper, 1996; H arm on, 1995). T his ch ap te r c o nclu des w ith a s u m mary o f th e d esig n a p pro ach th at is d ev elo ped

th ro ugh t h e r e m ain in g c h ap te rs .

Chap te r Thre e dev elo ps th e so cia l co nte x t w ith in w hic h th e public

ad m in is tr a to r m ust work an d dis c u sse s th e pro ble m of defin in g an d

main ta in in g th e ad m in is tr a to r's ro le in th e div ers e an d re la tiv is tic

en vir o nm en t o f m odern s o cie ty . W ith out t h e g uid an ce o f a c o here n t t r a d itio n,

th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le in m odern s o cie tie s is ju st o ne m ore s e t o f o blig atio ns

an d in te re sts th at m ust b e m an ag ed a m id a n a rra y o f o th er c o m petin g ro le s.

One sig nif ic an t o utc o m e o f th is so cia l c o nte x t is th e in esc ap ab ly p olitic al

natu re o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n t o day .

Chap te r F our a d dre sse s th e d ual n atu re o f a d m in is tr a tiv e re sp onsib ility in

modern s o cie ty : a d m in is tr a to rs h av e b oth

obje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility

(in w hic h

one is held acco unta b le by su perio rs , th e public , an d le g is la tio n) an d

su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility

(in w hic h one fe els an d belie v es onese lf to be

re sp onsib le ). C onflic t b etw een th ese tw o f o rm s o f r e sp onsib ility s e em s to b e

th e m ost c o m mon f o rm i n w hic h e th ic al d ile m mas e m erg e.

Chap te r F iv e f u rth er d ev elo ps t h e c o nflic t b etw een s u bje ctiv e a n d o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility . C onflic ts o f a u th ority , r o le , a n d in te re st a re r e v ie w ed . I t is n ot

th at th ese th re e f o rm s o f c o nflic tin g r e sp onsib ility r e q uir e d is tin ctly d if fe re n t

fo rm s o f a n aly sis t o b e r e so lv ed . R ath er, u nders ta n din g t h e d if fe re n t w ay s w e

ex perie n ce c o nflic ts h elp s u s c la rif y t h e k ey a cto rs a n d r e la tio nsh ip s t h at m ust

be e x am in ed a n d d ealt w ith i f w e a re t o a ch ie v e r e so lu tio n.

Chap te r Six pre se n ts tw o gen era l ap pro ach es to m ain ta in in g, fro m a

man ag em en t pers p ectiv e, re sp onsib le co nduct in public org an iz atio ns

— in te rn al co ntr o ls

an d

exte rn al co ntr o ls

. Exte rn al co ntr o ls in clu de

in str u m en ts im pose d o n th e in div id ual f ro m o uts id e, s u ch a s c o des o f e th ic s

an d e th ic s le g is la tio n; in te rn al c o ntr o ls in volv e th e p ro fe ssio nal v alu es a n d

sta n dard s th at public se rv an ts hav e in te rn aliz ed th ro ugh th e so cia liz atio n

pro cess, b oth p ers o nal a n d p ro fe ssio nal.

Contin uin g th e m an ag em en t p ers p ectiv e fro m C hap te r S ix , C hap te r S ev en

fo cu se s o n th e im porta n ce o f esta b lis h in g co ngru en ce am ong th e v ario us

in te rn al a n d e x te rn al c o ntr o ls . T w o e x am ple s illu str a te w hat h ap pen s w hen

th is is n ot d one. F our c o m ponen ts o f r e sp onsib le c o nduct a re th en d is c u sse d :

in div id ual attr ib ute s, org an iz atio nal str u ctu re , org an iz atio nal cu ltu re , an d

so cie ta l e x pecta tio ns. Chap te r E ig ht s h if ts th e p ers p ectiv e to a n in div id ual w ho is a tte m ptin g to

act e th ic ally in th e f a ce o f m an ag em en t th at h as b eco m e c o rru pt o r lo st s ig ht

of its m an date d m is sio n in th e public in te re st. T he pro ble m is one of

co nflic tin g lo yaltie s— to s u perio rs o n th e o ne h an d a n d to th e p ublic o n th e

oth er. W his tle -b lo w in g is r e co gniz ed a s o ne r e sp onse to th is k in d o f c o nflic t.

Sourc es of org an iz atio nal pre ssu re on in div id ual em plo yees are outlin ed ,

org an iz atio nal re m ed ie s are dis c u sse d , an d th e ultim ate necessity fo r

in div id ual re sp onsib ility is a sse rte d . T he c h ap te r c lo se s w ith a tr e atm en t o f

th e c o m ponen ts r e q uir e d f o r i n div id ual e th ic al a u to nom y.

It is im porta n t to n ote a t th e o uts e t th at e th ic al a u to nom y is n ot ta n ta m ount

to eth ic al in div id ualis m b ut m ust b e se en in th e co nte x t o f th e p re v io us

ch ap te rs a n d th e c o nclu din g m odel. I n div id ual e th ic al a u to nom y is n ecessa ry

to so m e d eg re e to p ro vid e fo r th e ex erc is e o f co nsc ie n ce in re sis ta n ce to

co rru pt a u th ority , b ut t h is e x erc is e o f c o nsc ie n ce w ill a lw ay s o ccu r f o r p ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs in org an iz atio nal, in stitu tio nal, an d so cie ta l co nte x ts . T he

ad m in is tr a to r is n ot in h is o r h er jo b s im ply fo r s e lf -fu lf illm en t b ut to s e rv e

th e citiz en ry b y en han cin g th e p ublic g ood. T he p ublic ad m in is tr a to r is a

fid ucia ry o f th e citiz en s, h old in g th eir co m mon g ood in tr u st. T hus it is

assu m ed h ere th at w om en a n d m en e n te rin g p ublic s e rv ic e m ust b e p re p are d

to f in d f u lf illm en t i n t h is p urs u it.

In C hap te r N in e, I ela b ora te th e desig n ap pro ach an d its re le v an ce to

sig nif ic an t e th ic al p ro ble m s. I re sta te th e a p pro ach in te rm s a p pro pria te fo r

th e p ublic a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le , u sin g c ase s a s e x am ple s o f h ow th e a p pro ach

would b e a p plie d . I c o nclu de th e c h ap te r b y a p ply in g th e d esig n a p pro ach to

a c o ncre te c ase a b out c o ntr a ctin g f o r g overn m en t s e rv ic es.

Chap te r Ten , th e fin al ch ap te r, su m mariz es th e arg um en t dev elo ped

th ro ughout th e pre v io us ch ap te rs an d pre se n ts a m odel of re sp onsib le

ad m in is tr a tio n th at b rin gs to geth er th e co m ponen ts o f re sp onsib le co nduct

fro m C hap te r S ev en a n d t h e c o m ponen ts o f i n div id ual e th ic al a u to nom y f ro m

Chap te r E ig ht. Illu str a tiv e m ate ria l h as b een a d ded to th is c h ap te r to c la rif y

th e p ra ctic al i m plic atio ns o f t h e m odel.

The c ase s in th e b ook a re b ase d o n r e al o ccu rre n ces a n d f ic tio naliz ed o nly

slig htly t o p ro te ct t h e p riv acy o f t h ose w ho p ro vid ed t h em . I n a f e w i n sta n ces

th ey a re c o m posite s o f s e v era l a ctu al c ase s. T hey a re in te n ded p rim arily a s

illu str a tio ns but sh ould als o stim ula te re ad ers ' th in kin g ab out th e eth ic al pro ble m s th ey portr a y . For both th ese re aso ns th e situ atio ns are le ft

unre so lv ed . To in dic ate an outc o m e w ould dim in is h th e ex perie n ce of

dile m ma th ey a re c alc u la te d to e v oke; it w ould a ls o s h ort- c ir c u it th e r e ad er's

ow n r e fle ctio ns. F or th e s a m e r e aso n, th e c ase n arra tiv es a re a b it lo nger a n d

more d eta ile d th an u su al. A gain , th e u ltim ate p urp ose o f

The R esp onsib le

Adm in is tr a to r

is to illu m in ate th e e th ic al s itu atio n o f th e p ublic a d m in is tr a to r

an d c u ltiv ate im ag in ativ e r e fle ctio n a b out it— not to p re sc rib e a p artic u la r s e t

of p ublic se rv ic e v alu es. T his is n ot to su ggest th at a ll a lte rn ativ es a re o f

eq ual v alu e b ut th at th e fo cu s o f th is b ook is n ot o n p re sc rib in g p artic u la r

co urs e s o f a ctio n.

Con clu sio n

This book is la rg ely desc rip tiv e an d an aly tic al; it is only se co ndarily

pre sc rip tiv e, a n d e v en th en o nly in a p artic u la r s e n se . It p re sc rib es a d esig n

ap pro ach to p ublic a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s th at in clu des te ch niq ues in div id ual

ad m in is tr a to rs c an u se in a n aly zin g e th ic al d ile m mas th ey c o nfro nt, a n d a

co m bin atio n of org an iz atio nal an d m an ag em en t co m ponen ts fo r fo ste rin g

re sp onsib le a d m in is tr a tio n.

I d o n ot a tte m pt to d ev elo p a s u bsta n tiv e e th ic f o r p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs in

th is b ook. T hat is a n ecessa ry a n d im porta n t u nderta k in g, b ut it is d ealt w ith

in a n oth er o f m y b ooks,

An E th ic o f C itiz e n sh ip fo r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

(1 991). T here I dev elo p th e arg um en t th at a norm ativ e eth ic fo r public

ad m in is tr a tio n is to b e fo und in th e e th ic al tr a d itio n o f c itiz en sh ip a s it h as

ev olv ed t h ro ughout U .S . h is to ry . T his tr a d itio n h as a t i ts c o re t h e id eas o f t h e

co m mon g ood, th e im porta n ce o f d em ocra tic p artic ip atio n b y th e c itiz en ry ,

an d th e ultim ate so vere ig nty of th e peo ple . T he public ad m in is tr a to r is

vie w ed th ere a s ta k in g h is o r h er e th ic al n orm s f ro m th ose o f c itiz en sh ip in a

dem ocra tic so cie ty . T he a d m in is tr a to r is a fid ucia ry p ro fe ssio nal c itiz en in

so m e s e n se . F or th e p urp ose s o f th is b ook, s o m e s u ch p ublic s e rv ic e e th ic is

assu m ed . Chapte r T w o

Understa n din g E th ic a l D ecis io n M akin g

J a m es A . M ic h en er's n ovel

Chesa pea ke

(1 978) p ortr a y s th e h is to ry o f tw o

f a m ilie s w ho s e ttle d n ear e ach o th er o n th e s h ore s o f C hesa p eak e B ay d urin g

t h e A m eric an co lo nia l era . A s Q uak ers , th e P ax m ore s te n ded to esp ouse

v alu es in b oth re lig io n a n d p olitic s q uite d if fe re n t fro m th ose o f th e S te ed s,

d ev out R om an C ath olic s. H ow ev er, in s p ite o f th eir d iv erg en t d octr in es a n d

f re q uen t c o nflic ts , t h e t w o f a m ilie s m an ag ed t o l iv e a s n eig hbors , w ith a k in d

o f g ru dgin g r e sp ect a n d a w illin gness t o w ork t h in gs o ut.

In th e c lo sin g p ag es is a s c en e in volv in g th e f a m ily p atr ia rc h s o f th e m id -

1 970s, P use y P ax m ore a n d O wen S te ed . T he t w o m en a re s ittin g o n t h e p orc h

o f t h e P ax m ore h ouse , l o okin g o ut o ver C hesa p eak e B ay a n d r e fle ctin g o n t h e

e v en ts o f W ate rg ate . P use y h ad b een a h ig h-le v el a p poin te e in th e N ix on

W hite H ouse , a n d O wen w as o ne o f th e o il c o m pan y e x ecu tiv es w ho h ad

c o vertly , a n d ille g ally , r a is e d m oney f o r C REEP, th e C om mitte e to R e-e le ct

t h e Pre sid en t. B oth m en 's care ers had been se rio usly dam ag ed by th e

s c an dals , a n d b oth h av e re tu rn ed h om e to re tir e a n d to th in k. D urin g th is

c o nvers a tio n, a n i n sig htf u l a n d p ith y e x ch an ge o ccu rs :

Ste ed

: H ow d o y ou e x pla in t h e c o rru ptio n, t h e n ear-tr e aso n?

Paxm ore

: M en w ith out c h ara cte r s lip fro m o ne p ositio n to th e n ex t. A nd

nev er c o m pre h en d t h e a w fu l d ow nw ard c o urs e t h ey 'r e o n.

Ste ed

: C ould n't N ix on h av e s to pped i t?

Paxm ore

: W oodro w W ils o n c o uld h av e. O r T ed dy R oose v elt. A nd d oes

th ee know why? Becau se th ey had accu m ula te d th ro ugh years of

ap pre n tic esh ip a th eo ry o f g overn m en t. A th eo ry o f d em ocra cy , if th ee

will. A nd t h ey w ould h av e d ete cte d t h e r o t t h e m in ute i t s ta rte d .

Ste ed

: W hy d id n't t h e C alif o rn ia n s?

Paxm ore

: F or a s im ple re aso n. T hey w ere d efic ie n t in e d ucatio n. T hey 'd

gone to th ose c h ro m e-a n d-m ir ro r s c h ools w here p ro ced ure s a re ta u ght, n ot prin cip le s. I d oubt if a n y o ne o f th em h ad e v er c o nte m pla te d a r e al m ora l

pro ble m , i n t h e a b str a ct w here c h ara cte r i s f o rm ed [ p . 1 049].

This bit of dia lo gue su ggests th e underly in g assu m ptio n of th is book:

eth ic a l p ublic a dm in is tr a tio n r e q uir e s a t h eo re tic a l p ersp ectiv e o n t h e r o le o f

th e public adm in is tr a to r

. M ore o ver, th is th eo re tic al pers p ectiv e m ust be

dev elo ped b y p ra ctic in g a d m in is tr a to rs t h ro ugh a c o m bin atio n o f p ro fe ssio nal

ex perie n ce, c o nte m pla tio n, s tu dy, a n d d elib era tio n w ith c o lle ag ues, w heth er

in a s tr u ctu re d c o urs e o r t h ro ugh s e lf -m otiv ate d i n quir y .

The th eo rie s of oth ers , in clu din g sc h ola rs fro m vario us dis c ip lin es an d

his to ric al perio ds, are esse n tia l in gre d ie n ts in a pro fe ssio nal eth ic , but a

fu ndam en ta l a ssu m ptio n o f t h is b ook i s t h at k now in g t h e t h oughts o f o th ers i s

only th e b eg in nin g. A dm in is tr a to rs m ust a ls o d ev elo p s k ill in th in kin g a b out

eth ic al p ro ble m s, to w ard th e e n d o f c re atin g a w ork in g p ro fe ssio nal e th ic o f

th eir o w n. W ith out c u ltiv atin g th is a b ility to th eo riz e a n d g en era liz e fro m

ex perie n ce, n o p ublic a d m in is tr a to r c an t r a n sc en d t h e b oundarie s o f p artic u la r

ev en ts to c o m pre h en d a n d a sse ss th em . W ith out th e illu m in atio n b orn o f th e

marria g e o f a b str a ct th ought a n d p ra ctic al e x perie n ce, it is im possib le to s e e

where w e a re g oin g. C hoic e is c o nstr a in ed a n d f re ed om is u ltim ate ly s tu nte d

by th e u nfo re se en c o nse q uen ces o f o ur a ctio ns. W ith out th e m ora l c o m pass

cre ate d b y r e g ula r d elib era tio n w ith o th ers a b out r e al e th ic al is su es, w heth er

fe llo w p ra ctitio ners , e le cte d o ffic ia ls , o r c itiz en s, o ur e th ic s m ay b e n arro w

an d s e lf -s e rv in g.

This c h ap te r p re se n ts a se q uen ce o f ste p s y ou m ig ht e m plo y in th in kin g

ab out e th ic al is su es y ou c o nfro nt. T he g oal is n ot o nly to d ev elo p s k ills in

re so lv in g p artic u la r situ atio ns b ut als o to cu ltiv ate a h ab it o f u sin g su ch

in sta n ces a s o pportu nitie s to d ev elo p a n d re fin e a w ork in g

th eo ry

o f e th ic al

co nduct. C ase m ate ria l (b ase d o n a ctu al s itu atio ns b ut p artia lly fic tio naliz ed

to p ro te ct th e p ers o ns in volv ed ) is in tr o duced h ere a n d th ro ugho ut th e r e st o f

th e b ook to illu str a te th e tr e atm en t o f c o ncre te a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro ble m s. T o

stim ula te y our t h in kin g, t h e c ase s a re g en era lly l e ft u nre so lv ed .

Eth ic a l P ro b le m s

Im ag in e th at y ou h av e b een re cen tly h ir e d a s th e m an ag er o f a m unic ip al

dep artm en t o f p ark s a n d r e cre atio n. S oon a fte r y ou a ssu m ed y our d utie s, y ou dis c o vere d th at th e pay ro ll cle rk w as fa ls if y in g th e pay ro ll acco unt by

co ntin uin g to c arry th e n am es o f la id -o ff e m plo yees. W hen th e c le rk p ic k ed

up th e p ay ro ll a t c ity h all, h e w ould p ull o ut th ose c h eck s, e n dors e a n d c ash

th em , a n d k eep t h e m oney .

Most a d m in is tr a to rs w ould h av e n o d if fic u lty r e co gniz in g th at th is c le rk is

not o nly in volv ed in u neth ic al c o nduct b ut is a ls o c le arly v io la tin g th e la w .

Both m ora l an d le g al sa n ctio ns ag ain st ste alin g are w ell esta b lis h ed an d

gen era lly accep te d . Y ou are im med ia te ly aw are th at th is beh av io r is

unaccep ta b le a n d m ust b e sto pped , a lth ough y ou w ould p ro bab ly p au se to

th in k c are fu lly a b out th e b est c o urs e o f a ctio n. Y our re sp onsib ility fo r th e

im ag e o f th e o rg an iz atio n m ay s u ggest fir in g th e c le rk q uie tly , in volv in g a s

fe w o th er p eo ple a s p ossib le . H ow ev er, y our re sp onsib ility fo r m ain ta in in g

th e p ublic tr u st m ay le ad y ou to c o nsid er fo rm al c h arg es a n d p ro se cu tio n.

Som etim es, as in th is case , th e eth ic al situ atio n is quite cle ar, but th e

dem an ds o f a d m in is tr a tiv e re sp onsib ility fo r re so lv in g it a re m uch le ss so .

More ofte n , how ev er, both th e eth ic al is su e an d its im plic atio ns fo r

ad m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility a re c o m ple x a n d a m big uous.

Consid er an oth er situ atio n. Y ou are th e dir e cto r of a unit in a fe d era l

re g ula to ry ag en cy th at is ch arg ed w ith m onito rin g th e use of pote n tia lly

harm fu l c o m merc ia l c h em ic als . L in da, a ju nio r p ro je ct m an ag er u nder y our

su perv is io n, is r e sp onsib le f o r s tu dyin g a b ro ad -s p ectr u m in se ctic id e u se d in

ag ric u ltu re b y s m all g ra in f a rm ers , la rg e tr u ck g ard en ers , a n d c o tto n f a rm ers ,

an d in th e liv esto ck in dustr y a s a n a n im al s p ra y . S he h as b een a ssig ned to

dete rm in e w heth er th is p ro duct sh ould b e re m oved fro m th e m ark et. A t a

party , L in da m et a m an nam ed G eo rg e, w ho sh e la te r le arn ed w as th e

Wash in gto n re p re se n ta tiv e fo r th e in se ctic id e m an ufa ctu re r. A fte r se v era l

date s w ith G eo rg e, s h e b ecam e r a th er f o nd o f h im a n d w an te d to p urs u e th e

re la tio nsh ip . H ow ev er, L in da re aliz ed th at th eir p ro fe ssio nal ro le s c re ate d a

pote n tia l c o nflic t o f in te re st fo r h er, a n d sh e d ecid ed to te ll y ou a b out th e

situ atio n. S he in te n ded to c o ntin ue s e ein g G eo rg e, s h e s a id ; s h e c o nsid ere d

hers e lf m atu re e n ough to m ain ta in a s e p ara tio n b etw een h er p ro fe ssio nal a n d

priv ate liv es. L in da in sis te d th at h er f e elin gs f o r G eo rg e w ould n ot in flu en ce

her ju dgm en t in a n y w ay ; in fa ct s h e a n d G eo rg e h ad n ev er e v en d is c u sse d

th e c h em ic al i n q uestio n.

In th is case th e eth ic al situ atio n is m uch le ss cle ar. H as L in da done an yth in g th at re p re se n ts a bre ach of pro fe ssio nal eth ic s? B ecau se of her

re la tio nsh ip w ith G eo rg e, it m ig ht w ell be dif fic u lt fo r her to m ain ta in

obje ctiv ity in d is c h arg in g h er d utie s. B ut p erh ap s it m ig ht n ot b e. P eo ple

dif fe r in th eir ab ility to m an ag e te n sio ns o f th is k in d. A nd w hat is y our

re sp onsib ility ? I s i t m ore i m porta n t t o a v oid e v en t h e a p peara n ce o f u neth ic al

co nduct w ith in your org an iz atio n or to su pport an em plo yee's rig ht to

fre ed om in her priv ate lif e ? S hould L in da be tr u ste d until her beh av io r

dem onstr a te s o th erw is e ? W hat a re y our a lte rn ativ es?

To in te n sif y th e quan dary a bit, im ag in e th e fo llo w in g situ atio n. Y our

sp ouse w ork s fo r a co ntr a cto r th at pro vid es su pport se rv ic es to your

org an iz atio n u nder c o ntr a ct. T he tw o o f y ou w ork in r o le s th at d o n ot r e q uir e

you to d eal w ith e ach o th er p ro fe ssio nally , n or is th ere a n y p ossib le c o nflic t

of in te re st, e ith er re al o r p erc eiv ed , u nder n orm al c ir c u m sta n ces. H ow ev er,

you le arn th ro ugh th e gra p ev in e th at th e co ntr a ct w ith your sp ouse 's

org an iz atio n m ay be te rm in ate d in th e near fu tu re . B ecau se th e sp ouse 's

org an iz atio n is s m all, th e lo ss o f th e c o ntr a ct is lik ely to r e su lt in b udget c u ts

an d co nse q uen tly his te rm in atio n. A lth ough you are a m an ag er in your

org an iz atio n, y ou h av e n o d ir e ct o r in dir e ct d ecis io n-m ak in g a u th ority o ver

th is c o ntr a ct, s o t h ere i s n o l e g al c o nflic t o f i n te re st. H ow ev er, y ou k now t h at

th e co ntr a cto r is u naw are o f th e p ossib le co ntr a ct te rm in atio n, an d if th at

in fo rm atio n w ere d iv ulg ed , it c o uld e ro de p erfo rm an ce. F or th at re aso n th is

in fo rm atio n i s c o nsid ere d s e n sitiv e a n d c o nfid en tia l w ith in y our o rg an iz atio n.

If y ou te ll y our s p ouse in o rd er to g iv e h im tim e to p la n f o r a p ossib le la y off,

he w ill no doubt fe el so m e oblig atio n to te ll his em plo yer an d fe llo w

em plo yees.

Als o , you are pain fu lly aw are of tw o oth er pro ble m s. F ir s t, your ow n

fin an cia l w ell- b ein g is tie d to th at o f y our s p ouse ; if h e is la id o ff w ith s h ort

notic e, b oth o f y ou w ill s u ffe r fin an cia lly . S eco nd, if y ou re m ain s ile n t a n d

th e c o ntr a ct is te rm in ate d , s o oner o r la te r y our s p ouse w ill f in d o ut th at y ou

knew w hat w as c o m in g a n d k ep t it fro m h im . T hat fa ilu re to b e h onest a n d

fo rth co m in g in a m arita l r e la tio nsh ip w ill lik ely h urt y our s p ouse d eep ly a n d

dam ag e t h e m arria g e.

In th is case fu ndam en ta l lo yaltie s an d atte n dan t oblig atio ns co m e in to

dir e ct c o nflic t. W here d o y our p rim ary o blig atio ns lie : w ith th e e m plo yer o r

with th e sp ouse ? C an y ou tr u st y our sp ouse n ot to te ll h is em plo yer an d co lle ag ues? S hould y ou e x pect th at o f h im ? C an y ou tr u st y our b oss e n ough

to d is c u ss t h is w ith h er a n d t r y t o w ork o ut s o m e k in d o f a cco m modatio n t h at

does n ot re q uir e y ou to sa crif ic e e ith er y our m arria g e o r y our jo b? S hould

you e x pect th at o f y our b oss? D oes a b oss b ear a n y e th ic al o blig atio n f o r th e

well- b ein g o f e m plo yees b ey ond t h e w ork pla ce?

Consid er y et a n oth er s itu atio n. A s o il b acte riu m c o m mon to w arm c lim ate s

can s o m etim es b e fo und in th e g ro undw ate r o f s u ch a re as. It s e ld om c au se s

dis e ase in h um an s, b ut w hen it d oes, th e in fe ctio n is s e v ere . T he b acte riu m

en te rs t h e b ody t h ro ugh a n o pen w ound a n d p ro duces i n fe ctio ns r e su ltin g i n a

morta lity r a te o f 7 5 p erc en t.

You a re a d ep artm en t m an ag er fo r a p ublic u tility d is tr ic t th at p ro duces

ele ctr ic ity th ro ugh s te am -d riv en tu rb in es. T he d ep artm en t h as c o nstr u cte d a

la k e fo r th is p urp ose , w hic h is a ls o o pen to th e p ublic fo r re cre atio nal u se .

Recen tly a m an w as in ju re d in a b oatin g a ccid en t th at s e v ere ly la cera te d h is

le g s. H e d ev elo ped g an gre n e a n d, a fte r a d ouble a m puta tio n, e v en tu ally d ie d .

A te ch nic ia n in your dep artm en t su sp ecte d th at th e m an m ig ht hav e

co ntr a cte d th e b acte ria l in fe ctio n, a n d h e d ecid ed to ru n te sts . H e re p orte d

th at th e b acte riu m is in deed in e v id en ce th ro ughout th e la k e, a n d a lth ough h e

can not b e c erta in w ith out a n a u to psy , h e b elie v es it w as th e c au se o f d eath .

Has th e d ep artm en t c o m mitte d a n u neth ic al a ct b y n ot m onito rin g th e q uality

of th e w ate r m ore c are fu lly ? D oes it h av e a m ora l o blig atio n to in fo rm th e

public h ealth a u th oritie s, th e v ic tim 's fa m ily , o r th e g en era l p ublic ? W hat is

your r e sp onsib ility to y our o rg an iz atio n in th e f a ce o f p ossib le litig atio n a n d

public o utc ry ? W hat is y our r e sp onsib ility to th ose w ho h av e b een u sin g th e

la k e f o r r e cre atio n a n d t h ose w ho m ay u se i t i n t h e f u tu re ?

Here y ou a re d ealin g n ot s im ply w ith th e q uestio nab le o r c le arly im mora l

actio ns o f a p artic u la r in div id ual b ut ra th er w ith a m atte r o f o rg an iz atio nal

polic y . H ow s h ould th e d ep artm en t d efin e its o blig atio ns to s o cie ty ? D oes it

ow e s o m eth in g to th e d ecease d m an 's f a m ily a n d to o th ers w ho m ay u se th e

la k e? S hould i t m ere ly t r y t o r id t h e l a k e o f t h e b acte riu m a n d l e av e i t o pen t o

use ?

Eth ic s a s a n A ctiv e P ro cess

As th ese case s dem onstr a te , eth ic al is su es aris e in m an y fo rm s fo r ad m in is tr a to rs , but th ey nearly alw ay s ra is e dif fic u lt questio ns of

ad m in is tr a tiv e re sp onsib ility . T he a n sw ers w e g iv e to th ese q uestio ns o ver

tim e a m ount t o a d e f a cto a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic . T he c en tr a l t h esis o f t h is b ook

is th at it is th ro ugh th is p ro cess o f d efin in g p ro fe ssio nal re sp onsib ility in

sp ecif ic , co ncre te ad m in is tr a tiv e situ atio ns th at an opera tio nal eth ic is

dev elo ped . E very a d m in is tr a to r h as s u ch a n e th ic b y v ir tu e o f h av in g m ad e

decis io ns a b out e th ic al i s su es, e v en w hen t h e d ecis io n i s t o i g nore a p ro ble m .

A decis io n to ta k e no actio n is in fa ct a decis io n ab out pers o nal

re sp onsib ility .

This o pera tio nal e th ic , h am mere d o ut i n a ctu al d ecis io n m ak in g, i s t h e b asic

co ncern h ere . P ut in to th e la n guag e o f e th ic s, th is w ork in g e th ic b eco m es th e

su bsta n ce o f o ne's p ro fe ssio nal c h ara cte r o ver tim e. It c re ate s a n in clin atio n

or p re d is p ositio n to b eh av e in c erta in w ay s, w hic h is o ne c o m mon w ay o f

unders ta n din g th e m ean in g of th e te rm

ch ara cte r

. M an y pro fe ssio nal

asso cia tio ns, b usin ess fir m s, a n d g overn m en ta l o rg an iz atio ns h av e a d opte d

co des o f e th ic s. T hey a m ount to o ffic ia l sta te m en ts o f a p pro pria te c o nduct

th at re fle ct n oble b ut o fte n g en era l a n d a b str a ct p rin cip le s. F orm al c o des o f

th is kin d do se rv e a use fu l fu nctio n, but w ith out th e su pport of oth er

te ch niq ues in volv in g d ay -to -d ay d ecis io n m ak in g, th ey te n d to b e in effe ctiv e

as a w ay o f a ch ie v in g d esir e d c o nduct. T hey d o n ot h av e a n im pact o n th e

opera tio nal e th ic o f p ro fe ssio nals f o r w hom th ey w ere w ritte n ; th ey n ev er g et

to th e le v el o f in te rn al e th ic al d ev elo pm en t w here c h ara cte r is fo rm ed a n d

in te g rity o f c o nduct d ev elo ped . S uch c o des o f e th ic s s e rv e a n eed ed f u nctio n

of c la rif y in g m in im um s ta n dard s o f c o nduct, m uch a s th e la w fu nctio ns fo r

th e l a rg er s o cie ty , b ut t h ey r e m ain e x te rn ally i m pose d c o ntr o ls .

As d is c u sse d i n t h e p re ced in g c h ap te r, t h e f o cu s o f t h is b ook i s e th ic s a s a n

activ e pro cess of desig n, an ongoin g pro cess th at occu rs when ev er

cir c u m sta n ces f o rc e u s t o d eal w ith c o nflic t, t e n sio n, u ncerta in ty , a n d r is k . A s

ad m in is tr a to rs d efin e th e b oundarie s an d co nte n t o f th eir re sp onsib ility in

re so lv in g sp ecif ic eth ic al d ile m mas b oth g re at an d sm all, th ey cre ate fo r

th em se lv es a n e th ic al id en tity a n d fo rm c h ara cte r tr a its . O fte n th is is d one

with out c o nsis te n t, i n te n tio nal, a n d s y ste m atic r e fle ctio n, b ut t h at n eed n ot b e

th e c ase . S kill i n a d dre ssin g e th ic al i s su es c an b e l e arn ed a n d c u ltiv ate d i f w e

re co gniz e th e im porta n ce o f d oin g s o . W e c an v ie w o ur tr e atm en t o f e th ic al

pro ble m s a s a n o ngoin g p ro cess o f d esig nin g th e b est c o urs e s o f a ctio n fo r sp ecif ic situ atio ns w e fa ce, w ith in th e c o nstr a in ts o f tim e a n d in fo rm atio n.

Our in itia l s te p m ust b e to e sta b lis h a f ra m ew ork f o r u nders ta n din g e th ic s in

dynam ic ra th er th an sta tic te rm s. T he fo llo w in g fra m ew ork fo r eth ic al

decis io n m ak in g i llu str a te s t h is d ynam ic p ro cess.

Lev els o f E th ic a l R efle ctio n

Hen ry D av id A ik en ( 1 962) c o nstr u cte d a f ra m ew ork f o r e x pla in in g th e f lu id

natu re o f e th ic al a rg um en t t h at w e c an a d opt f o r u nders ta n din g t h e p ro cess o f

ord erin g o ur v alu es an d m ak in g d ecis io ns ab out eth ic al d ile m mas. A ik en

assu m es th at in a b ro ad s e n se , e th ic s h as to d o w ith c o ncep ts s u ch a s

good

,

rig ht

, a n d

ought

, b ut in th e a re n a o f e v ery day lif e , c o nsid erin g th e p ra ctic al

mean in gs o f th ese a b str a ct c o ncep ts c au se s u s to d eal w ith th em a t d if fe re n t

le v els of se rio usn ess an d sy ste m atic re fle ctio n. O fte n w e sim ply ex pre ss

em otio n a b out w hat i s g ood o r w hat s o m eo ne o ught t o d o. L ess f re q uen tly w e

fa ce eth ic al questio ns th at fo rc e us to re fle ct lo ng an d hard ab out our

fu ndam en ta l w orld vie w — ev en t h e m ean in g o f l if e i ts e lf .

Fro m A ik en 's p ers p ectiv e it is p ossib le to id en tif y fo ur d is tin ct le v els a t

whic h w e d eal w ith e th ic al c o ncern s.

The E xpre ssiv e L evel

Man y tim es e v ery d ay w e fin d o urs e lv es s im ply v en tin g o ur fe elin gs a b out

so m eth in g. W hen y ou l e arn ed a b out t h e m is d eed s o f t h e p ay ro ll c le rk i n y our

dep artm en t, Lin da's in volv em en t with Geo rg e, th e possib le co ntr a ct

te rm in atio n, o r th e p re se n ce o f th e b acte riu m in th e la k e w ate r, y ou m ay w ell

hav e re sp onded fir s t a t th e e x pre ssiv e le v el: “ T hat s tu pid c le rk s h ould h av e

know n b ette r!” “ L in da, th is r e la tio nsh ip d is tu rb s m e d eep ly .” “ W hat d id I d o

to dese rv e bein g cau ght in th is bin d betw een m y sp ouse an d m y

org an iz atio n?” “ W e m ust h av e a b unch o f in co m pete n ts m an ag in g th e la k e

opera tio n!” These sp onta n eo us, unre fle ctiv e ex pre ssio ns of em otio n are

perh ap s th e m ost co m mon fo rm o f v alu e ju dgm en t. T hey n eith er in vite a

re p ly nor atte m pt to pers u ad e oth ers . T hey pro vid e neith er ev id en ce nor

deta ile d d esc rip tio ns o f a s ta te o f a ffa ir s . H ow ev er, d ep en din g o n w ho u tte rs

th em an d how in te n se ly , th ey m ay be fo llo w ed by a m ore ra tio nal an d

sy ste m atic t r e atm en t o f t h e p ro ble m . The M ora l R ule s L evel

The l e v el o f m ora l r u le s i s t h e f ir s t l e v el a t w hic h s e rio us q uestio ns a re r a is e d

an d se rio us an sw ers are giv en . W e ad dre ss th e pro ble m of ap pro pria te

co nduct a n d b eg in t o a sse ss a lte rn ativ es a n d c o nse q uen ces. W e c o nsid er t h ese

co urs e s o f a ctio n a n d th eir a n tic ip ate d o utc o m es in th e lig ht o f c erta in r u le s,

max im s, a n d p ro verb s t h at w e h old a s m ora l g uid es. F or e x am ple :

“A lw ay s b e a g ood t e am p la y er.”

“L oyalty t o y our c lie n ts c o m es f ir s t.”

“If y ou'r e n ot p art o f t h e s o lu tio n, y ou'r e p art o f t h e p ro ble m .”

“H onesty i s t h e b est p olic y .”

“T ru th w ill w in o ut.”

“M y c o untr y , r ig ht o r w ro ng.”

“N ev er f ig ht a b attle y ou c an 't w in .”

“T ak e c are o f n um ber o ne.”

“T he p ublic s h ould b e t r u ste d .”

“L ove y our n eig hbor a s y ours e lf .”

“D o u nto o th ers a s y ou w ould h av e t h em d o u nto y ou.”

“D on't a ir d ir ty l in en o uts id e t h e o rg an iz atio n.”

“It i s e asie r t o a sk f o rg iv en ess t h an t o a sk p erm is sio n.”

“It i s b ette r t o b e s a fe t h an s o rry .”

“G o a lo ng t o g et a lo ng.”

“If i t a in 't b ro ke, d on't f ix i t.”

Som e o f th e m ore c o lo rfu l m ora l r u le s e m erg e a ro und p artic u la r r o le s a n d

re fle ct th e in fo rm al m ora l c o de o f th ose ro le s a n d th e o rg an iz atio nal c u ltu re

in w hic h t h ey a re e n acte d . H ere a re a f e w f ro m t h e f ie ld o f l a w e n fo rc em en t:

“It i s b ette r t o b e t r ie d b y t w elv e t h an c arrie d b y s ix .”

“Y ou c an 't m ak e a n o m ele t w ith out b re ak in g a f e w e g gs.”

“W hat g oes a ro und c o m es a ro und.”

“D on't e m barra ss t h e b ure au .”

“D on't r a t o n a f e llo w o ffic er.”

These a re e x am ple s o f m ora l ru le s w e a cq uir e th ro ugh th e so cia liz atio n

pro cess fro m o ur fa m ilie s, re lig io us a ffilia tio ns, e d ucatio n, a n d p ro fe ssio nal

ex perie n ces. F or b ette r o r w ors e , t h ey p ro vid e r u le s o f t h um b f o r a p pra is in g a situ atio n a n d d ecid in g w hat o ught t o b e d one.

Consid er th e p ro ble m o f L in da a n d G eo rg e. A fte r y our in itia l e m otio nal

re actio n, y ou h av e to th in k a b out h ow to h an dle th is h ig hly s e n sitiv e s ta te o f

affa ir s . S om e a lte rn ativ es c o m e i m med ia te ly t o m in d:

Ord er L in da t o s to p s e ein g G eo rg e.

Tra n sfe r h er t o a n oth er t a sk .

Dis c u ss t h e m atte r w ith y our s u perv is o r.

Tru st L in da t o d o t h e j o b w ith out b ein g b ia se d b y t h e r e la tio nsh ip .

Then y ou c o nsid er t h e p ossib le c o nse q uen ces:

Lin da m ay r e sig n.

Pro gre ss o n i n vestig atin g t h e c h em ic al m ay b e d ela y ed .

The m ed ia m ay p ic k u p t h e s to ry .

A b ia se d d ecis io n m ay b e re ach ed ab out th e ch em ic al, w ith se rio us

co nse q uen ces f o r t h e p ublic .

You m ay b e b la m ed f o r ir re sp on sib le c o nduct if y our s u perio r d is c o vers

th e r e la tio nsh ip w ith out b ein g i n fo rm ed b y y ou.

As y ou e v alu ate th e a lte rn ativ es a n d th eir p ossib le c o nse q uen ces, v ario us

mora l ru le s a n d m ax im s c o m e to m in d a s re fe re n ce p oin ts fo r a rriv in g a t a

decis io n:

“Y ou s h ould b e fa ir w ith s u bord in ate s u nder y our s u perv is io n.” W ould

you h an dle th is situ atio n d if fe re n tly if it in volv ed a m ale m em ber o f

your s ta ff?

“A void ev en th e ap peara n ce o f ev il.” E ven if L in da p erfo rm s in an

obje ctiv e, p ro fe ssio nal m an ner, w ill th e c re d ib ility o f y our o rg an iz atio n

be e ro ded i f t h is s itu atio n i s p ic k ed u p b y t h e p re ss?

“H onesty is th e b est p olic y .” I f y ou ta k e a n y a ctio n th at L in da p erc eiv es

as p unis h m en t o r d is tr u st, a re y ou d is c o ura g in g h onest c o m munic atio n

fro m y our sta ff? S hould y ou te ll y our b oss, o r sh ould y ou m ain ta in

Lin da's co nfid en ce an d accep t re sp onsib ility fo r dealin g w ith th e

situ atio n y ours e lf ?

Most o f th e tim e th e p ro ble m is re so lv ed a t th is le v el. A s w e re v ie w th e

fa cts o f th e c ase , th e a lte rn ativ es f o r a ctio n, a n d th eir lik ely c o nse q uen ces o n

th e o ne h an d, a n d a sso cia te t h em w ith o ur s to ck o f r e le v an t m ora l r u le s o n t h e

oth er, th e f ie ld o f a lte rn ativ es b eg in s to n arro w a n d o ne o r tw o r u le s e m erg e as c ru cia l. W e m ove to w ard a d ecis io n, w ith th e p ra ctic al c o nse q uen ces a n d

th e m ora l j u stif ic atio n r e la te d i n s o m e w ay t h at i s a ccep ta b le t o u s.

Our d ecis io ns a re n ot n ecessa rily c o nsis te n t f ro m c ase to c ase . A t th e le v el

of m ora l ru le s, w hic h is w here m ost p ra ctic al a d m in is tr a tiv e d ecis io ns a re

mad e, r a tio nality a n d s y ste m atic r e fle ctio n a re in volv ed b ut o nly in a lim ite d ,

pie cem eal fa sh io n. M ost o f th e tim e w e are ad h oc p ro ble m so lv ers , n ot

co m pre h en siv e m ora l p hilo so phers . H ow ev er, o n o ccasio n w e a re d riv en to

th e n ex t le v el o f g en era lity a n d a b str a ctio n, u su ally b ecau se w e a re u nab le to

re ach a d ecis io n b y a p ply in g o ur a v aila b le r e p erto ir e o f p ra ctic al m ora l r u le s.

The E th ic a l A naly sis L evel

When th e a v aila b le m ora l ru le s p ro ve in effe ctiv e in a p artic u la r c ase , w hen

th ey c o nflic t w ith e ach o th er, o r w hen th e a ctio ns th ey s e em to p re sc rib e d o

not fe el rig ht, a fu ndam en ta l re co nsid era tio n of our m ora l co de m ay be

re q uir e d . I n th e n orm al r o utin e o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le , w e d o n ot u su ally

underta k e th is k in d o f b asic re a sse ssm en t. H ow ev er, s o m etim es a n is su e is

uniq ue, s o c o m ple x , o r s o p ro fo und in th e c o nse q uen ces o f its r e so lu tio n th at

we h av e n o c h oic e b ut to r e ex am in e th e e th ic al p rin cip le s th at a re im plic it in

our r o utin e n orm s f o r c o nduct.

A b rie f b ut a d eq uate d efin itio n o f

prin cip le

is “ a g en era l la w o r ru le th at

pro vid es a g uid e fo r a ctio n.” A n

eth ic a l p rin cip le

is a s ta te m en t c o ncern in g

th e c o nduct o r s ta te o f b ein g th at is r e q uir e d f o r th e f u lf illm en t o f a v alu e; it

ex plic itly lin ks a v alu e w ith a g en era l m ode o f a ctio n. F or e x am ple , ju stic e

may b e c o nsid ere d a s ig nif ic an t v alu e, b ut t h e t e rm i ts e lf d oes n ot t e ll u s w hat

ru le f o r c o nduct o r w hat s ta te o f s o cie ty w ould f o llo w if w e in clu ded ju stic e

in o ur v alu e s y ste m . W e w ould n eed a p rin cip le o f ju stic e to s h ow u s w hat

patte rn o f a ctio n w ould re fle ct ju stic e a s a v alu e. A c o m mon fo rm o f th e

ju stic e p rin cip le is “ T re at e q uals e q ually a n d u neq uals u neq ually .” W e m ig ht

in te rp re t th is p rin cip le as m ean in g th at if all ad ult citiz en s are p olitic ally

eq ual, th ey s h ould a ll h av e th e s a m e p olitic al rig hts a n d o blig atio ns. If o ne

has t h e v ote , a ll m ust h av e i t.

Or i f w e l o ok a t a n oth er v alu e, t r u th , w e m ig ht s ta rt w ith a g en era l p rin cip le

to i n dic ate i ts m ean in g f o r c o nduct a n d t h en d ev elo p m ore s p ecif ic s ta te m en ts

fo r p artic u la r c o nditio ns. G en era lly w e m ig ht s u pport th is p rin cip le : “ A lw ay s

te ll t h e t r u th .” B ut w hen f a ced w ith a p artic u la r s itu atio n, w e m ig ht r e v is e t h e prin cip le : “A lw ay s te ll th e tr u th unle ss in nocen t th ir d partie s w ould be

se rio usly h arm ed .”

Defin in g th e e th ic al d im en sio ns o f a p ro ble m m ay re q uir e te asin g o ut n ot

only th e v alu es th at a re in c o nflic t b ut a ls o th e u nartic u la te d p rin cip le s th at

in dic ate th e m utu ally ex clu siv e kin ds of co nduct th ose valu es dic ta te .

Oth erw is e v alu es can b e fa r to o v ag ue to h av e m uch m ean in g in eth ic al

an aly sis . T o s a y w e b elie v e in fre ed om o r lib erty c o nvey s m ean in g o f o nly

th e m ost g en era l s o rt. I f, h ow ev er, w e id en tif y a n d e la b ora te p rin cip le s a b out

lib erty , th e m ean in g b eco m es m ore s p ecif ic a n d e th ic ally u se fu l. W e m ig ht,

fo r ex am ple , in dic ate th at if w e v alu e lib erty , w e o ught n ot to in te rfe re ,

with out sp ecia l ju stif ic atio n, in th e c h ose n c o urs e o f a n y ra tio nal b ein g o r

im pose o n h im c o nditio ns th at w ill p re v en t h im fro m p urs u in g h is c h ose n

co urs e s o f a ctio n. A lth ough th is s ta te m en t d oes n ot p re sc rib e p re cis e ly w hat

sh ould be done in ev ery situ atio n, it does pro vid e so m e co nditio ns an d

qualif ic atio ns f o r t h e r a n ge o f c o nduct t h at f a lls u nder l ib erty .

There a re se v era l w ay s to tr a in p eo ple to c la rif y th is d is tin ctio n b etw een

valu es an d prin cip le s an d cu ltiv ate th e sk ill of th in kin g in a prin cip le d

fa sh io n. O ne w ay is to g iv e th e tr a in in g p artic ip an ts a lis t o f v alu es, o r h av e

th em m ak e u p th eir o w n, a n d th en a sk th em to d ev elo p th ese v alu es in to

sta te m en ts o f p rin cip le , v ary in g fro m b rie f a n d g en era l to h ig hly e la b ora te

an d sp ecif ic . A noth er is to sp en d tim e d ev elo pin g p rin cip le s a s p art o f th e

ex erc is e in d efin in g e th ic al is su es d is c u sse d la te r in th is c h ap te r. F ir s t, h av e

th e p artic ip an ts id en tif y th e c o nte n din g v alu es in a c ase ; th en a sk th em to

write s ta te m en ts o f p rin cip le fo r e ach v alu e. F in ally , w hen tim e a n d in te re st

perm it, re ad in gs o n sp ecif ic eth ic al p rin cip le s m ig ht b e assig ned , su ch as

Sis se la B ok (1 984) o n se cre cy an d tr u th fu ln ess o r Jo hn R aw ls (1 971) o n

ju stic e.

To g et a b ette r i d ea o f t h e u se o f p rin cip le a t t h e l e v el o f e th ic al a n aly sis , l e t

us re tu rn to th e e x am ple o f th e c o nta m in ate d la k e. If y ou, th e d ep artm en t

man ag er, dis c o ver th at eig ht oth er peo ple hav e dev elo ped sy m pto m s

su sp ic io usly s im ila r to th ose a sso cia te d w ith th e b acte riu m , th e p ro ble m w ill

hav e c h an ged sig nif ic an tly . N ow th e fa te o f h um an liv es m ay c le arly a n d

dir e ctly d ep en d o n w hat y ou d o; e x ped itio us a ctio n is r e q uir e d . B ecau se th e

co nse q uen ces fo r th e d ep artm en t w ill b e se rio us in deed , y ou g o to y our

su perv is o r w ith out d ela y . You a re m et w ith a n u nex pecte d ly c o ol a n d c au tio us re sp onse . H e lis te n s

an d a sk s a f e w q uestio ns b ut s e em s n ot to s h are y our s e n se o f u rg en cy . A fte r

a l e n gth y d is c u ssio n, d urin g w hic h y ou b eco m e i n cre asin gly a n gry , h e f in ally

in fo rm s y ou th at h e h as k now n a b out th e b acte riu m f o r s o m e tim e. W hen th e

la k e w as b uilt m ore th an tw o y ears a g o, th e b acte riu m w as d ete cte d th ro ugh

ro utin e w ate r a n aly se s. B ecau se th ere w as n o p ra ctic al w ay o f rid din g th e

wate r o f th is b acte riu m an d b ecau se th e u tility d is tr ic t h ad n eed ed p ublic

su pport f o r t h e p ro je ct, h e h ad d ecid ed t o k eep t h e e n tir e m atte r q uie t. H e h ad

been ad vis e d th at at ex is tin g le v els o f co nta m in atio n, th e ris k o f h um an

in fe ctio n w as l o w .

The a d m in is tr a to r o rd ers y ou to ta k e n o a ctio n a n d in ste ad to le av e th e

pro ble m e n tir e ly i n h is h an ds. H e t e lls y ou t h ere i s l ittle l ik elih ood t h at a n y o f

th e e ig ht p eo ple c o uld b e t r e ate d e ffe ctiv ely f o r t h e e x posu re a t t h is p oin t a n d

th at a n y a ctio n w ould je o pard iz e th e fu tu re o f th is fa cility a n d p re cip ita te

se rio us d am ag e to b oth th e d ep artm en t's p ublic im ag e a n d its f in an cia l w ell-

bein g.

What d o y ou d o? N one o f y ou r w ell- w orn p re cep ts a b out lo yalty to th e

org an iz atio n o r s o cia l r e sp onsib ility h elp h ere . Y ou a re n ot s a tis fie d to k eep

quie t a n d l e av e i t t o t h e b oss, b ut y ou h av e n o h ope o f c h an gin g h is m in d. H e

se em s f ir m ly c o m mitte d t o w aitin g t h e s itu atio n o ut, h opin g i t w ill b lo w o ver.

And if y ou g o to th e p ublic o r th e lo cal e le cte d o ffic ia ls w ith th e s to ry , y ou

will l o se y our j o b a n d p ro bab ly h av e g re at d if fic u lty f in din g a n oth er o ne.

Confro nte d w ith th is k in d o f d ile m ma, y ou b eg in to re fle ct o n th e th in gs

you v alu e m ost. Y ou a sk y ours e lf w hat y ou a re w illin g to r is k a n d w hat y ou

wan t t o p re se rv e a t a ll c o sts . M ore s p ecif ic ally , y ou t h in k a b out y our p ers o nal

in te g rity , p ro fe ssio nal re p uta tio n, fin an cia l se cu rity , th e w ell- b ein g o f y our

fa m ily , t h e i m porta n ce o f y our c are er, a n d t h e e x te n t o f y our o blig atio n t o t h e

org an iz atio n, i ts e m plo yees, a n d m an ag em en t. Y ou w onder w hat y ou o w e t h e

public ; y ou c o nsid er y our d uty t o t h e l o cal e le cte d o ffic ia ls . F urth erm ore , y ou

beg in t o im ag in e th e f u tu re c o nse q uen ces o f a llo w in g th is k in d o f m an ag eria l

co nduct to c o ntin ue. A s y ou e n gag e in th is in ven to ry a n d e v alu atio n o f y our

fu ndam en ta l p rin cip le s, a k in d o f r o ugh h ie ra rc h y b eg in s t o e m erg e.

This p artic u la r d ile m ma c au se s y ou to c la rif y a n d re o rd er y our p rio ritie s.

You re aliz e th at if y ou a re to c o ntin ue in y our p ositio n, y ou m ust m ain ta in

your o blig atio n to a c en tr a l p rin cip le — th e p ublic in te re st. Y ou to ok a n o ath to uphold th e public in te re st w hen you accep te d th e positio n. A ll oth er

co m mitm en ts a n d v alu es m ust b e v ie w ed i n r e la tio n t o t h at r e sp onsib ility t o a

basic p rin cip le . T he p ote n tia l n eg ativ e c o nse q uen ces fo r th e p eo ple o f th e

are a a re g re at, a n d t h eir r ig ht t o k now t h e r is k m ust b e u pheld . U ltim ate ly t h e

prin cip le o f d em ocra cy a n d t h e i n te g rity o f d em ocra tic g overn m en t a re a ls o a t

sta k e. If m an ag ers lik e your div is io n ch ie f are allo w ed to co ntin ue

with hold in g in fo rm atio n, s e lf -g overn m en t w ill b e s u bverte d ; p eo ple n eed to

know w hat is g oin g o n in p ublic a g en cie s if th ey a re to tr u ly p artic ip ate in

govern in g. I n fo rm atio n a b out m atte rs o f p ublic s a fe ty a n d w elf a re s h ould n ot

be w ith held f ro m t h e p eo ple a n d t h eir e le cte d r e p re se n ta tiv es. H ow ev er, w hen

you to ok your jo b, you als o accep te d an oth er prin cip le : lo yalty to th e

org an iz atio nal hie ra rc h y of your dep artm en t. T he ord erly co nduct of th e

public 's busin ess re q uir e s th at su bord in ate s w ork th ro ugh su perio rs if

acco unta b ility a n d e ffic ie n cy a re to b e m ain ta in ed . B ut th is lo yalty is n ot a n

en d in its e lf ; it e x is ts fo r th e u ltim ate b en efit o f th e c itiz en ry , fo r th e p ublic

in te re st.

Anoth er c o ncern is th e s e rv ic e p ro vid ed b y th e d ep artm en t. S tr o ng p ublic

re sis ta n ce to b uild in g a d am h ad b een o verc o m e b y p ro m is in g th at th e la k e

would b e a re cre atio nal fa cility . C lo sin g th e la k e in th e w ak e o f d is c lo su re s

ab out b acte ria l co nta m in atio n m ig ht w ell re su lt in d em an ds to can cel th e

dep artm en t's o pera tin g lic en se . I f th e g en era tin g p la n t w ere c lo se d s u dden ly ,

ele ctr ic al s e rv ic e w ould b e s e v ere ly c u rta ile d . W ith out e le ctr ic ity , in dustr ia l

fir m s w ould hav e to cu t back pro ductio n an d la y off w ork ers . H osp ita l

se rv ic es m ig ht b e je o pard iz ed . H ig h-ris e o ffic e b uild in gs a n d s c h ools m ig ht

be u nab le to f u nctio n. T he p ublic in te re st w ould b e s e rio usly a n d e x te n siv ely

dam ag ed .

If th e p ublic in te re st is y our fu ndam en ta l c o ntr o llin g p rin cip le , y ou m ust

weig h th e p ro bab le p ublic im pact fo r e ach a lte rn ativ e. U ltim ate ly th e h ealth

of t h e c itiz en ry m ust b e p ro te cte d , b ut y our s e n se o f d ue p ro cess r e q uir e s t h at

you act in a m easu re d an d p ru den t fa sh io n. Y ou d ecid e o n th e fo llo w in g

se q uen ce o f s te p s.

Fir s t, y ou w ill a p pro ach t h e g en era l m an ag er o f t h e d ep artm en t, y our b oss's

boss, t h us m ain ta in in g l o yalty t o t h ose a b ove y ou w ho a re r e sp onsib le f o r t h e

pro per opera tio n of th e org an iz atio n. This pro vid es fo r th e ord erly

man ag em en t o f t h e p ro ble m w ith out u nduly a la rm in g t h e p ublic . Then , if th e g en era l m an ag er d oes n ot a ct to r e m ed y th e s itu atio n, y ou w ill

ta k e y our in fo rm atio n to th e m ay or a n d c ity c o uncil. I n th is w ay y ou p re v en t

th e p olitic al p ro cess fro m b ein g c ir c u m ven te d w hen s e rio us p ublic c o ncern s

are a t s ta k e, e v en t h ough o rd erly p ro ced ure m ay b e s a crif ic ed .

Fin ally , if th e e le cte d o ffic ia ls f a il to ta k e a ctio n, y ou w ill in fo rm th e lo cal

med ia . O rd erly an d effic ie n t re so lu tio n o f th e p ro ble m w ill lik ely b e lo st

alto geth er, b ut th e u ltim ate rig ht o f a d em ocra tic citiz en ry to co ntr o l th e

govern m en ta l b odie s e sta b lis h ed f o r i ts b en efit w ill b e p re se rv ed .

If, how ev er, you are unab le to arriv e at an ord erin g of prin cip le s an d

alte rn ativ es t h at s a tis fie s y ou, i t m ay b e n ecessa ry t o m ove t o t h e n ex t l e v el.

The P oste th ic a l L evel

The co nsid era tio ns at th e fin al, poste th ic al le v el are ex em plif ie d by th e

questio n, W hy sh ould I b e m ora l? M ost ad m in is tr a to rs se ld om re ach th is

fu ndam en ta l philo so phic al le v el of re fle ctio n. O nly w hen push ed by a

partic u la rly p ers is te n t o r c y nic al a d vers a ry o r u nder th e sw ay o f a d eep ly

dis illu sio nin g e x perie n ce o r c o nfro ntin g a p ro fo und p ers o nal c ris is a re w e

lik ely to fu nctio n a t th is le v el. H ere th e str u ggle is to fin d so m e b asis fo r

valu in g th ose th in gs th at w ere id en tif ie d a t th e le v el o f e th ic al a n aly sis . W hy

is i n te g rity i m porta n t? O r t r u th ? O r s e cu rity ? O r l o yalty ? O r t h e w ell- b ein g o f

oth ers ? A t th is le v el w e b eg in to q uestio n o ur w orld vie w — our v ie w s o f

hum an n atu re , h ow w e k now a n yth in g to b e tr u e, a n d th e m ean in g o f lif e .

Reso lu tio n a t th is le v el is a ch ie v ed o nly w hen p ra ctic al in decis io n h as b een

re m oved . I t m ay r e q uir e d ev elo pin g o r c o nfir m in g a w orld vie w g ro unded in

philo so phic al or re lig io us pers p ectiv es. W hen w e hav e dis c o vere d an

ad eq uate m otiv e to a llo w o urs e lv es to “ p la y th e m ora l g am e,” th is le v el is

re so lv ed .

A D yn am ic P ro cess

This fo ur-tie re d fra m ew ork sh ould b e v ie w ed a s h ig hly d ynam ic . O nly in

books o r s c h ola rly p ap ers d o p eo ple m ove lo gic ally th ro ugh th ese d ecis io n-

mak in g s te p s. I n r e al l if e w e m ove b oth u p a n d d ow n t h ro ugh t h e l e v els a s w e

gra p ple w ith w hat is g ood o r w hat w e o ught to d o, an d w ork w ith in th e

co nstr a in ts o f tim e a n d c o nte x t. W e m ay f ir s t e n gag e a p ro ble m e x pre ssiv ely as w e re act sp onta n eo usly w ith o ur im med ia te fe elin gs, b ut th en w e m ay

move r a th er q uic k ly t o p ro ble m s o lv in g a t t h e l e v el o f m ora l r u le s. A s w e g et

new in fo rm atio n a n d th e situ atio n b eco m es m ore c o m ple x , w e m ay m ove

back to th e ex pre ssiv e le v el. Then , hav in g ven te d our ir rita tio n an d

fru str a tio n, w e m ay m ove b ack ag ain to th e se arc h fo r ap pro pria te m ora l

ru le s.

If th e is su e p ro ves u nsu sc ep tib le to a n y o f o ur p ra ctic al m ax im s a n d r u le s,

we m ay m ove b rie fly b ack to a n e x pre ssio n o f f e elin gs a n d th en to th e le v el

of e th ic al a n aly sis . A fte r a p ro cess o f e v alu atin g o ur b asic p rio ritie s, w e m ay

fin ally b e a b le to r e ach a n a ctio n d ecis io n b y a p ply in g r u le s th at n ow a p pear

to be co nsis te n t w ith our new ly esta b lis h ed prio ritie s. O r w e m ay fin d

ours e lv es in s u ch a p ro fo und q uan dary th at w e m ove to th e p oste th ic al le v el

an d p onder w hy w e a re s o c o ncern ed w ith m ora lity a n yw ay .

This m ovem en t a m ong t h e v ario us l e v els , a lth ough i t m ay b e i n te n tio nal, i s

usu ally n ot a m atte r o f c o nsc io us c h oic e. T he tr a n sitio ns o ccu r b ecau se w e

need to s o lv e a p ro ble m , n ot n ecessa rily b ecau se w e c o nsc io usly th in k a b out

whic h le v el is a p pro pria te . I n a c o ncre te s itu atio n, a s w e a tte m pt to in te g ra te

know n f a cts w ith u nknow n b ut p ossib le c o nse q uen ces o f a ctio n, f e elin gs, a n d

valu es, w e f in d o urs e lv es m ovin g th ro ugh th ese s ta g es w ith v ary in g d eg re es

of ra tio nal re fle ctio n a n d a b str a ctio n. In d ay -to -d ay a d m in is tr a tiv e d ecis io n

mak in g w e m an ag e th is p ro cess w ith out g iv in g it m uch re fle ctiv e th ought.

How ev er, a b asic a ssu m ptio n o f th is b ook is th at th e m ore w e c o nsc io usly

ad dre ss a n d s y ste m atic ally p ro cess t h e e th ic al d im en sio ns o f d ecis io n m ak in g

when w e c o nfro nt s ig nif ic an t is su es, th e m ore r e sp onsib le w e b eco m e in o ur

work a s a d m in is tr a to rs . I t is th en th at w e a re a b le to a cco unt f o r o ur c o nduct

to s u perio rs , th e p re ss, th e c o urts , a n d th e p ublic . T his d oes n ot a m ount to

fin ally a d vocatin g a sim ple lin ear ra tio nality b ut ra th er to b ein g se lf -a w are

an d c le ar a b out t h e b ase s f o r o ur a ctio ns.

Use s o f t h e F ra m ew ork

To d esig n e ffe ctiv e r e sp onse s to e th ic al p ro ble m s, it is im porta n t to b e a w are

not o nly o f w here w e a re in th is f ra m ew ork a t a n y g iv en m om en t, b ut a ls o o f

where o ur c o lle ag ues a re o pera tin g a s w e d is c u ss is su es w ith th em . O fte n

co nfu sio n i s g en era te d w ith in a s ta ff b ecau se s o m e a re v en tin g e m otio n w hile

oth ers a re a rtic u la tin g v ario us m ora l ru le s a n d still o th ers a re re fle ctin g o n basic p rin cip le s. S om etim es e v ery one is p re se n tin g m ora l r u le s, b ut th e r u le s

are in c o nflic t, a n d s o m eo ne n eed s to m ove to th e le v el o f e th ic al a n aly sis .

Fundam en ta l v alu es, p rin cip le s, g oals , a n d o bje ctiv es n eed t o b e c la rif ie d a n d

ord ere d , fo r b oth th e in div id uals a n d th e o rg an iz atio n, b efo re a n a ccep ta b le

ru le f o r a ctio n c an b e i d en tif ie d .

This fra m ew ork help s us fo cu s our atte n tio n on th e sta g es in eth ic al

decis io n m ak in g. It s u ggests th at if w e w an t to b eco m e m ore s y ste m atic in

han dlin g e th ic al is su es, w e n eed to e x am in e m ore c are fu lly w hat ta k es p la ce

at th e le v el w here ra tio nal re fle ctio n is m ost critic al: th e le v el o f eth ic al

an aly sis . T his is w here s k ill in d ecis io n m ak in g c an b e c u ltiv ate d . H ere w e

atte m pt to th in k a b out w hat w e s h ould d o; th ere is in te n tio nality a n d s o m e

deg re e o f s y ste m atic tr e atm en t o f th e p ro ble m . A t th e e x pre ssiv e le v el o nly

em otio n i s i n volv ed ; i t i s n ot t h at e m otio n i s b ad , b ut i t i s o nly o ne e le m en t o f

eth ic al d ecis io n m ak in g. A t th e le v el o f m ora l r u le s w e a re la rg ely r e fle ctin g

our s o cia liz atio n, w hic h c an a m ount t o a s e t o f b lin ders t h at l im its o ur c ritic al

th in kin g. A t th e p oste th ic al le v el th e co nsid era tio ns are to o ab str a ct, to o

pers o nal, a n d in m odern p lu ra lis tic s o cie tie s, to o v arie d to b e s u sc ep tib le to

an y g en era liz ed a p pro ach . P eo ple h old in g r a d ic ally d if fe re n t p hilo so phie s a n d

th eo lo gie s a re n ot lik ely to r e ach a g re em en t a t th is le v el, a lth ough th ey m ay

do s o a t t h e s e co nd a n d t h ir d l e v els . A ls o , p ublic a cco unta b ility i n t h is k in d o f

hete ro gen eo us so cie ty re q uir e s re aso ned ap plic atio n of eth ic al prin cip le s

ra th er th an m eta p hysic al a sse rtio ns. A s p ublic se rv an ts w e a re e x pecte d to

ex pla in a n d j u stif y o ur c o nduct o r t o b e p re p are d t o d o s o w hen r e q ueste d .

It is a t th e le v el o f e th ic al a n aly sis , th en , th at w e a re m ost lik ely to b e a b le

to a cco unt fo r o ur c o nduct p ublic ly in te rm s th at p olitic al o ffic ia ls a n d th e

citiz en ry c an e v alu ate . I f w e p ro ceed w ith r e aso ned ju stif ic atio n, lin kin g th e

co nse q uen ces o f o ur d ecis io ns w ith a tr a d itio n o f e th ic al p rin cip le s, th en o ur

co nduct is re v ie w ab le by m em bers of th e politic al co m munity an d our

delib era tio ns an d deed s are accessib le fo r public deb ate an d lo gic al

asse ssm en t. T he hig her w e m ove up th e la d der of public org an iz atio nal

le ad ers h ip , t h e m ore i m porta n t i t b eco m es f o r u s t o b e a b le t o a cco unt f o r o ur

actio ns in th is w ay . T here fo re th e re m ain der of th is book is dev ote d to

ap ply in g sy ste m atic re fle ctio n a t th e le v el o f e th ic al a n aly sis a s w e d esig n

so lu tio ns.

This o rie n ta tio n d oes n ot a ssu m e th at e th ic al d ecis io ns a re , c an , o r s h ould be p ure ly ra tio nal a n d p rin cip le d .

The R esp onsib le A dm in is tr a to r

d oes n ot

ad vocate an ex clu siv ely ra tio nalis t pers p ectiv e; hum an fe elin gs are an

esse n tia l part of our eth ic al lif e an d in se p ara b le fro m ch ara cte r. A s

neu ro sc ie n tis t A nto nio D am asio (2 010) su ggests , em otio nal fe elin gs are

prim ord ia l— co m ple x , sp onta n eo us m an if e sta tio ns of ex perie n ce th at are

cen tr a l to o ur v ery c o ncep tio ns o f se lf . F ir s t a n d fo re m ost, w e a re fe elin g,

em otio nal b ein gs, a n d th is in flu en ces b oth th e w ay s w e th in k a b out a n d th e

way s w e re so lv e e th ic al d ile m mas. H ow ev er, th e a p pro ach a d opte d h ere is

pre m is e d o n th e f a ct th at in o ur p ublic s e rv ic e r o le s, lo gic al, p rin cip le d , a n d

re la tiv ely c o m pre h en siv e ju stif ic atio ns fo r o ur a ctio ns a re e x pecte d b y th e

public a n d e le cte d o ffic ia ls .

Desc rip tiv e M od els o f E th ic a l D ecis io n

Mak in g: T he W orld a s I t I s

Befo re d elv in g in to th e f o cu s o f th is v olu m e, th e d ev elo pm en t o f a m odel f o r

arriv in g a t n orm ativ e j u dgm en ts , i t i s u se fu l t o c o nsid er d esc rip tiv e m odels o f

eth ic al decis io n m ak in g. D esc rip tiv e m odels are fo cu se d on how peo ple

ty pic ally m ak e e th ic al d ecis io ns o n th eir o w n in th e c o urs e o f th eir d aily

liv es. They pro vid e an im porta n t fo undatio n fo r th e dev elo pm en t of

pre sc rip tiv e m odels . T hese p re sc rib e h ow e th ic al d ecis io ns o ught t o b e m ad e,

both a s a f ra m ew ork f o r u nders ta n din g t h e c o gnitiv e a n d e m otio nal a sp ects o f

decis io n m ak in g an d as a m ean s of bette r ex pla in in g th e w ay s decis io n

mak in g is in flu en ced by en vir o nm en ta l fa cto rs , both org an iz atio nal an d

so cie ta l. N orm ativ e, or pre sc rip tiv e, m odels are put fo rw ard as w ay s of

im pro vin g o ur eth ic al d ecis io n m ak in g. P re sc rib in g h ow eth ic al d ecis io ns

ought to b e m ad e is th e m ain p urp ose o f th is c h ap te r, b ut w e f ir s t ta k e a lo ok

at h ow p eo ple te n d to m ak e th ese d ecis io ns w ith out r e fe re n ce to a n y f o rm al

model.

Writin g in 1 980, A nto nio B la si la m en te d th e la ck o f s ig nif ic an t e v id en ce

lin kin g c o gnitio n, e m otio n, a n d a ttitu de to m ora l b eh av io r, d ecla rin g th at “ at

pre se n t… it is not know n how gen era l str u ctu re s of m ora l re aso nin g an d

gen era l a ttitu des in te ra ct in th e p ro ductio n o f b eh av io r” (p . 1 0). H is re v ie w

an d asse ssm en t of stu die s of m ora l re aso nin g is critic al of peo ple 's unders ta n din g o f t h e c o gnitiv e a sp ects o f e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g a t t h at t im e.

Bla si n ote s th at o ne o f th e r e aso ns f o r th e la ck o f s c h ola rs h ip m ay b e th e f a ct

th at sc h ola rs w ere p re d is p ose d to v ie w m ora l b eh av io r a s e ith er ir ra tio nal,

fo unded in p ro cesse s th at are in tu itiv e, au to m atic , an d su bje ctiv e, o r as a

ra tio nal, w illin g a ct, p re d ic ate d o n r e aso ned a n aly sis o f th e p ro ble m a t h an d.

Atte m ptin g to r e co ncile th e r a tio nal a n d ir ra tio nal v ie w s o f m ora l r e aso nin g,

Bla si n ote s th at it is im possib le to s u ggest th e p rim acy o f o ne v ie w o ver th e

oth er. U ltim ate ly , “ th e re la tiv e im porta n ce o f th e m ora l ru le s… an d o f th e

situ atio ns… can not b e s ta tis tic ally s e p ara te d a n d q uan tita tiv ely w eig hte d ” ( p .

4). T his d ic h oto m y se rv ed to re str ic t effo rts aim ed at ad dre ssin g th e g ap

betw een t h e t w o v ie w s.

Bla si c o nclu des h is d is c u ssio n w ith a c h alle n ge b ase d o n h is f in din gs. “ T he

pro cesse s th at fill th e sp ace betw een a co ncre te m ora l ju dgm en t an d its

co rre sp ondin g a ctio n s h ould b e d ete rm in ed ” (1 980, p . 4 0). S in ce th at tim e,

re se arc h a n d s c h ola rs h ip h av e c o ntr ib ute d s ig nif ic an tly to o ur u nders ta n din g

of th e en vir o nm en ta l an d in div id ual in flu en ces of beh av io r an d decis io n

mak in g. B eh av io ra l re se arc h c o ntin ues to e x pan d o ur k now le d ge a b out th e

sp ace b etw een m ora l ju dgm en t an d m ora l actio n th at B la si re fe rre d to in

1980, sp ecif ic ally in a re as c o ncern ed w ith e m otio n, a ffe ct, a n d th e ro le o f

co nte x t. D en nis W ittm er's gen era l m odel, fir s t dev elo ped in 1993 an d

ex pan ded u pon in 2 005, p ro vid es a u se fu l fra m ew ork fo r illu str a tin g re cen t

dev elo pm en ts in our unders ta n din g of th e w ay in div id uals m ak e eth ic al

decis io ns. W ittm er (2 005) fo cu se s atte n tio n o n a “co gnitiv e p ro cess… th at

beg in s w ith aw are n ess, perc ep tio n, or se n sitiv ity to th e m ora l is su e…

pro ceed s th ro ugh ju dgm en t… en din g w ith th e a ctu al b eh av io r o f th e d ecis io n

mak er” (p . 5 4), b ut h e als o su ggests th at th is p ro cess is co ntin gen t o n a

varie ty o f i n div id ual a n d e n vir o nm en ta l i n flu en ces.

Wittm er's g en era l m odel re su lts fro m th e sy nth esis o f se v era l p re v io usly

dev elo ped m odels o f e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g, b ut tw o th em es c an b e se en

em erg in g fro m th e se t o f m odels . T he fir s t is th at e th ic al d ecis io n-m ak in g

pro cesse s are in here n tly co gnitiv e. T his v ie w is ex em plif ie d b y W ittm er's

re lia n ce o n Ja m es R est's fo ur c o m ponen t m odel (R est, 1 984, 1 986). R est's

model p ro vid es a b asis f o r u nders ta n din g t h e e th ic al d ecis io n-m ak in g p ro cess

fro m a psy ch olo gic al pers p ectiv e. R est posits th at th e decis io n pro cess

co nsis ts o f fo ur c o m ponen ts : in te rp re ta tio n o f th e s itu atio n, ju dgm en t o f th e situ atio n, s e le ctio n f ro m a lte rn ativ e c o urs e s o f a ctio n, a n d a ctio n. T he s e co nd

th em e is th at e th ic al d ecis io n-m ak in g p ro cesse s a re in flu en ced b y in div id ual

an d e n vir o nm en ta l c h ara cte ris tic s. W ittm er r e lie s o n L in da T re v in o's p ers o n-

situ atio n in te ra ctio nis t m odel (1 986) to su pport th e in clu sio n of both

in div id ual a n d e n vir o nm en ta l c h ara cte ris tic s in h is g en era l m odel o f e th ic al

decis io n m ak in g. D ra w in g o n t h ese t w o t h em es, W ittm er ( 2 005) s u ggests t h at

arriv in g at eth ic al d ecis io ns is co ntin gen t u pon th e in te ra ctio n o f b oth a

co gnitiv e p ro cess a n d i n div id ual a n d e n vir o nm en ta l i n flu en ces. T his m odel i s

th eo re tic ally ric h , b ut W ittm er s u ggests th at a t th e s a m e tim e it p ro vid es a

basis fo r “ u nders ta n din g th e c o m ponen ts o f e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g” a s a

mean s o f c re atin g “ p ro gra m s th at a re b ette r d esig ned to a d dre ss se p ara te ly

se n sitiv ity , r e aso nin g, o r s tr a te g ie s f o r c arry in g o ut e th ic al c h oic es” ( p . 6 4).

A P resc rip tiv e D ecis io n -M ak in g M od el: T he

World a s W e W ou ld L ik e I t t o B e

This b ook a rg ues th at d esc rip tio ns o f h ow p eo ple m ak e e th ic al d ecis io ns a re

not s u ffic ie n t f o r t h ose h old in g p ublic r o le s. R ath er, i t i s i m porta n t t o a d dre ss

how peo ple w ith th ose im porta n t fid ucia ry re sp onsib ilitie s sh ould m ak e

eth ic al decis io ns. In ad dre ssin g eth ic al is su es, w e w an t to m ove fro m

re co gniz in g a p ro ble m to d esig nin g a c o urs e o f a ctio n th at w ill re so lv e it.

This m ovem en t in volv es both desc rip tio n an d pre sc rip tio n. T hat is , w e

desc rib e to o urs e lv es, a n d so m etim es to o th ers , w hat w e b eli e v e to b e th e

obje ctiv e sta te o f a ffa ir s a n d th en a tte m pt to p re sc rib e w hat sp ecif ic ste p s

sh ould be ta k en to ch an ge th e situ atio n. B etw een th ese tw o actio ns, w e

perfo rm th e k in ds o f re fle ctio n in volv ed at th e le v els o f m ora l ru le s an d

eth ic al a n aly sis . I t is f a r m ore im porta n t f o r u s to c o m pre h en d th ese s te p s f o r

ours e lv es an d d ev elo p th e re q uir e d sk ills th an it is fo r u s sim ply to re ad

so m eo ne e ls e 's p re sc rip tio ns.

Books, artic le s, an d tr a in in g ap pro ach es th at atte m pt to pre sc rib e fo r

ad m in is tr a to rs m ay b e i n sp ir in g o r t h ought p ro vokin g, b ut t h ey a re u su ally s o

gen era l a s to p ro vid e little g uid an ce fo r sp ecif ic d ecis io ns. A lth ough th ey

offe r valu e orie n ta tio ns th at ad m in is tr a to rs m ay fin d ap pealin g, th e lin k

betw een a v alu e s y ste m a n d a c o ncre te s itu atio n is m is sin g. T his p ro ble m is ofte n re fe rre d to a s th e

pro ble m o f a pplic a tio n

. A n in div id ual m ay w an t to

ap ply a se t o f v alu es th at se em s co m patib le w ith h is o r h er v ie w o f th e

ad m in is tr a tiv e r o le , b ut t h e w ay t o m ove f ro m g en era l t o s p ecif ic p re sc rip tio n

is n ot c le ar.

The re fle ctiv e lin k betw een desc rip tio n an d pre sc rip tio n has se v era l

im porta n t s te p s, s h ow n in th e m odel in

Fig ure 2 .1

. T his m odel re p re se n ts a

fra m ew ork fo r arriv in g at a ju dgm en t an d th en d ecid in g w hat to d o. N o

model, th is o ne in clu ded , c an le ad y ou to th e o ne, b est p ossib le , “ co rre ct”

so lu tio n, but it can pro vid e a te m pla te fo r cre ativ ely desig nin g th e best

so lu tio ns f o r a g iv en in div id ual in a s p ecif ic s itu atio n w ith in th e u ncerta in tie s

an d tim e lim its o f re al a d m in is tr a tiv e lif e . A s in a n y o th er k in d o f d esig n

pro cess, th e c o urs e o f a ctio n s h ould ta k e a c o ntin gen cy a p pro ach , p ro vid in g

fo r th e p urs u it o f s e v era l a lte rn ativ es s im ulta n eo usly o r s e q uen tia lly u ntil th e

co nse q uen ces b eco m e c le are r. E th ic al p ro ble m s, l ik e t r a n sp orta tio n p ro ble m s,

arc h ite ctu ra l p ro ble m s, o r su rg ic al p ro ble m s, a re d ynam ic , so o ne m ust b e

pre p are d to a lte r c o urs e a s o ne le arn s f ro m a ctio ns ta k en a n d a s th e s itu atio n

ch an ges o ver t im e.

Fig u re 2 .1

T he P re sc rib ed E th ic al D ecis io n-M ak in g M odel. The D esc rip tiv e T ask When a pro ble m co m es to our atte n tio n, it is usu ally pre se n te d in a

fra g m en ta ry or dis to rte d fa sh io n, ofte n w ith ju dgm en ta l la n guag e an d

in fle ctio ns. I n th e c ase o f th e p ay ro ll c le rk d is c u sse d a t th e b eg in nin g o f th is

ch ap te r, y ou m ay l e arn a b out h is c o nduct f ro m a s e cre ta ry i n t h e o ffic e w hom

he h as tr e ate d ru dely . H av in g d is c o vere d se v era l su sp ic io us n am es o n th e

pay ro ll lis t, s h e e ag erly r e ta lia te s b y c o nclu din g th at h e is in volv ed in ille g al

activ itie s. The se cre ta ry 's re p ort to you may in clu de co nsid era b le

em bellis h m en t o f w hat s h e a ctu ally k now s t o b e t r u e, a lo ng w ith a d ero gato ry

ap pra is a l o f t h e p ay ro ll c le rk 's c h ara cte r.

Any ex perie n ced ad m in is tr a to r w ould k now th at su ch a re p ort d oes n ot

re p re se n t a n a d eq uate d esc rip tio n o f th e c le rk 's a ctiv itie s. T he n am es m ay

ap pear s u sp ic io us to th e s e cre ta ry b ecau se s h e d oes n ot k now th em , b ut th ere

may b e a re aso nab le e x pla n atio n. M ay be h e h as in deed b een se x is t in h is

dealin gs w ith h er b ut sc ru pulo usly h onest in h is h an dlin g o f th e p ay ro ll.

Sex is m is a p ro ble m to b e d ealt w ith , b ut it m ust n ot b e c o nfu se d w ith th e

pay ro ll i s su e. I t i s c le ar t h at y ou m ust g ath er m ore f a ctu al i n fo rm atio n a n d s if t

out u nfo unded ju dgm en ts b efo re y ou h av e a fu ll a n d o bje ctiv e d esc rip tio n.

With out t h is , y ou d are n ot p ro ceed t o a n y k in d o f p re sc rip tio n.

In th is e x am ple , it is o bvio us th at th e d esc rip tiv e ta sk is c ritic al, b ut th ere

are m an y s itu atio ns w here it is e q ually im porta n t b ut m uch le ss o bvio usly s o .

If th e r e p ort c o m es to u s n ot f ro m a s e cre ta ry b ut f ro m s o m eo ne a b ove u s in

th e o rg an iz atio nal h ie ra rc h y, w e are m uch m ore lik ely to accep t it as an

accu ra te d esc rip tio n o f e v en ts . H ow ard B eck er ( 1 973) r e fe rs to th is te n den cy

as th e

hie ra rc h y o f c re d ib ility

. H e s u ggests th at “ fro m th e p oin t o f v ie w o f a

well so cia liz ed p artic ip an t in th e sy ste m , a n y ta le to ld b y th ose a t th e to p

in tr in sic ally d ese rv es to b e r e g ard ed a s th e m ost c re d ib le a cco unt o bta in ab le

of t h e o rg an iz atio n's w ork in gs” ( p . 7 ).

Adm itte d ly , u nder th e p re ssu re o f lif e in m ost o rg an iz atio ns, w e se ld om

hav e th e tim e o r r e so urc es to c o nduct a f u ll in vestig atio n. H ow ev er, w e m ust

alw ay s a tte m pt t o a sc erta in a n d d esc rib e a s o bje ctiv ely a s p ossib le t h e f a cts o f

a s itu atio n. T his m ig ht in clu de id en tif y in g th e k ey a cto rs , th e v ie w poin ts o f

each o f t h em , t h e i s su es, t h e s e q uen ce o f e v en ts , a n d t h e r is k s.

Alth ough it is im possib le to a v oid v alu e-la d en la n guag e a lto geth er, it is

possib le to r e sis t u sin g w ord s a n d p hra se s th at b la ta n tly c re ate a c ast o f g ood

guys a n d b ad g uys. T his is a u se fu l s k ill to c u ltiv ate in d ealin g w ith e th ic al pro ble m s b ecau se it h elp s to p ush u s b ey ond th e e x pre ssiv e le v el. W heth er

we a re s tr u gglin g w ith a d ecis io n a lo ne o r d is c u ssin g it w ith s o m eo ne e ls e

(s u ch a s a s ta ff p ers o n o r a s u perv is o r), w e m ust f o rc e o urs e lv es to d esc rib e

th e s itu atio n i n t e rm s b ey ond o ur g ut r e actio n t o i t. I f w e a re t o d eal w ith r e al

peo ple in volv ed in re al e v en ts , w e m ust fir s t fa ce, to th e b est o f o ur a b ility ,

what h as a ctu ally h ap pen ed .

Defin in g t h e E th ic a l I ssu e

With th e n ecessa ry d eta ils b efo re u s, th e n ex t ste p is to d efin e th e e th ic al

is su e. A n e th ic al i s su e e x is ts w hen c o m petin g o r c o nflic tin g e th ic al p rin cip le s

or v alu es a re e m bed ded in a p ra ctic al p ro ble m . E xperie n ce w ith w ork sh ops

on eth ic s in dic ate s th at public ad m in is tr a to rs se em to hav e th e gre ate st

dif fic u lty w ith th is s e co nd s te p . I t is n ot th at th ey a re u nab le to r e co gniz e a n

eth ic ally pro ble m atic situ atio n; th eir se n sitiv ity to su ch matte rs is

en co ura g in gly k een . T hey k now w hen th ey a re c o nfro nte d w ith e x pecta tio ns,

dem an ds, opportu nitie s, an d co nflic tin g in te re sts th at hav e eth ic al

sig nif ic an ce. B ut m an y hav e dif fic u lty in artic u la tin g w hic h valu es an d

prin cip le s a re a t sta k e. T he te n den cy is to d efin e th e p ro ble m in p ra ctic al

ra th er t h an e th ic al t e rm s.

Consid er an ad m in is tr a to r who is ask ed by a su perio r to pro vid e

co nfid en tia l in fo rm atio n a b out a c o lle ag ue b ein g c o nsid ere d f o r p ro m otio n—

so m eo ne w ho is a clo se p ers o nal frie n d an d is n ot q ualif ie d fo r th e jo b.

Work sh op p artic ip an ts u su ally d efin e th e p ro ble m a s k eep in g th e b oss h ap py

but n ot h urtin g o r o ffe n din g th e frie n d. T his is a d efin itio n o f th e p ra ctic al

dile m ma, but beh in d th ese pra ctic al co nsid era tio ns are so m e co nflic tin g

valu es a n d p rin cip le s th at n eed to b e id en tif ie d . T here is a n e th ic al d ile m ma

to b e d efin ed b y r e fe re n ce to c erta in s p ecif ic c o nflic tin g o r c o m petin g e th ic al

prin cip le s.

“C onflic tin g lo yaltie s” w ould b e th e m ost g en era l s ta te m en t o f th e e th ic al

is su e in volv ed h ere . H ow ev er, w e c o uld g o f u rth er a n d c o nsid er o blig atio ns.

On th e o ne h an d a re th e o blig atio ns to a f rie n d to p re se rv e c o nfid en tia lity , to

be h onest, a n d to b e tr u stw orth y. O n th e o th er h an d is th e o blig atio n to a

su perio r to p ro vid e h onest a n d o bje ctiv e in fo rm atio n a b out c o w ork ers b ein g

co nsid ere d fo r g re ate r re sp onsib ility . F ulf illin g th is o blig atio n is in th e b est

in te re sts o f th e o rg an iz atio n. A ls o , a d m in is tr a to rs h av e a n o blig atio n to th e citiz en ry to u phold th e p ublic in te re st. T hus th e p ro ble m c o uld b e d efin ed a s

co nflic tin g l o yaltie s o r c o nflic tin g o blig atio ns, d ep en din g o n t h e d eta ils o f t h e

case a n d o ur o w n e th ic al p rio ritie s.

Unle ss w e c an f o cu s th e a n aly sis o n u nderly in g e th ic al is su es o f th is k in d,

we m ay re so lv e th e m atte r o n p ure ly p ra ctic al g ro unds. W e m ay m ak e a

decis io n w ith out e v er r e ally e n gag in g t h e i m porta n t v alu es a n d p rin cip le s t h at

are p ullin g u s i n d if fe re n t d ir e ctio ns. E th ic al a n aly sis s k ills , e th ic al a u to nom y,

an d u ltim ate ly o ur e th ic al id en tity a re d ev elo ped th ro ugh e n gag em en t o f th is

kin d. I t i s t h e p ro cess t h ro ugh w hic h c h ara cte r i s f o rm ed . W ith out t h is k in d o f

co m ple x ch ara cte r-fo rm in g en gag em en t, th e pra ctic al dem an ds an d

ex ig en cie s o f a s itu atio n a re lik ely to w hip u s a ro und in a m an ner d estr u ctiv e

of e th ic al j u dgm en t a n d a n tith etic al t o p ers o nal i n te g rity .

Becau se th is ste p of defin in g eth ic al is su es is so dif fic u lt, th ose w ho

co nduct tr a in in g se ssio ns o r c la ssro om in str u ctio n m ust sp en d c o nsid era b le

tim e w ork in g o n it in a v arie ty o f w ay s b efo re m ovin g o n to th e f u ll r a n ge o f

ste p s le ad in g to fin al re so lu tio n. S om e le ctu rin g to illu str a te th e d is tin ctio n

betw een th e pra ctic al an d eth ic al dim en sio ns of a pro ble m is pro bab ly

necessa ry a t t h e o uts e t.

The nex t ste p sh ould in volv e th e partic ip an ts , under th e in str u cto r's

le ad ers h ip , w ork in g t h ro ugh t h e d efin itio nal p ro ble m i n a c ase o r t w o. T hen i t

se em s h elp fu l to d iv id e th e p artic ip an ts in to g ro ups o f th re e o r fo ur, e ach

gro up w ith a d if fe re n t c ase s itu atio n, a n d to a sk th ese g ro ups to d efin e th e

eth ic al is su e in th e c ase o n th eir o w n. W hen th e g ro ups g ath er to geth er a n d

re p ort w hat th ey d ecid ed , all th e p artic ip an ts are th en ex pose d to se v era l

dif fe re n t d efin itio nal p ro ble m s.

Id en tif y in g A lt e rn ativ e C ou rse s o f A ctio n

With a n a d eq uate d efin itio n o f th e e th ic al is su e b efo re u s, w e a re re ad y to

move o n to id en tif y in g alte rn ativ e co urs e s o f actio n. A fte r d esc rib in g th e

situ atio n a s o bje ctiv ely a s p ossib le a n d d efin in g th e e th ic al is su e, th e m ost

dif fic u lt re q uir e m en t is re sis tin g th e in clin atio n to v ie w th e a lte rn ativ es in

dic h oto m ous te rm s, a s m ean in g th at y ou m ust d o e ith er th is o r th at. E ith er

you te ll L in da to sto p se ein g G eo rg e, or you tr u st her to han dle th e

re la tio nsh ip in a p ro fe ssio nal m an ner. E ith er y ou te ll y our s p ouse a b out th e

possib le c o ntr a ct te rm in atio n, o r y ou r e m ain s ile n t. T his e ith er-o r v ie w is th e most c o m mon tr a p in th e e th ic al p ro cess. R are ly d oes a n e th ic al is su e h av e

only t w o o r t h re e p ossib le s o lu tio ns, b ut t h ere a p pears t o b e a f o rc e w ith in u s,

as p erv asiv e a s g ra v ity , t h at i m ped es t h e s p in nin g o ut o f a lte rn ativ es.

Use w hate v er m eth ods o r te ch niq ues a re n ecessa ry to m ove b ey ond e ith er-

or th in kin g, becau se until at le ast th e m ost sig nif ic an t alte rn ativ es are

ack now le d ged , y ou r is k o verlo okin g th e b est s o lu tio n. A s im ple , tw o-c o lu m n

grid c an h elp d ecis io n-m ak in g g ro ups to b ro ad en th eir p ers p ectiv e. F ir s t, o n

th e le ft s id e, g ro up m em bers lis t a ll th e a lte rn ativ es th ey c an th in k o f. T hey

bra in sto rm th ese a lte rn ativ es fo r te n to fif te en m in ute s, w ith out e v alu atin g

an y o f th em ; if a n a lte rn ativ e is c o nceiv ab le , th ey a re r e q uir e d to lis t it. T his

may s o und lik e a s im ple p ro ced ure , b ut e x perie n ce w ith a la rg e n um ber o f

gro ups in dic ate s th at so m e p eo ple h av e an alm ost ir re sis tib le te n den cy to

re je ct a n a lte rn ativ e a s s o on a s it is u tte re d . S eco nd, o n th e rig ht s id e, th ey

write th e pro bab le co nse q uen ces of each alte rn ativ e, both positiv e an d

neg ativ e.

Pro je ctin g t h e P ro b ab le C on se q uen ces

Once th e ra n ge o f a lte rn ativ e so lu tio ns h as b een w id en ed , th e p ositiv e a n d

neg ativ e a n tic ip ate d c o nse q uen ces o f e ach p ossib le c o urs e o f a ctio n n eed to

be p ro je cte d . If y ou te ll L in da to sto p se ein g G eo rg e, w hat is th e lik ely

outc o m e? W hat if y ou tr a n sfe r h er to a n oth er p ositio n? A sk a n oth er m em ber

of th e s ta ff to w ork a lo ng w ith h er? T ig hte n y our s u perv is io n o f h er w ork ?

What c h ain o f e v en ts w ill lik ely u nfo ld , a n d to w ard w hat e n d? If y ou te ll

your s p ouse a b out t h e p ote n tia l c o ntr a ct t e rm in atio n, w hat i s h e l ik ely t o d o?

Pro je ctin g t h e c o nse q uen ces o f a lte rn ativ es i s a k ey d ynam ic i n o ur n atu ra l,

in fo rm al d ecis io n m ak in g. A s w e c o nsid er w hat w e s h ould d o, w e u su ally r u n

a m ovie in o ur m in ds. F or ea ch alte rn ativ e w e co nstr u ct a sc en ario w ith

acto rs , in te ra ctio ns, a n d c o nse q uen ces. H ere , w e a re a tte m ptin g to ra is e th is

in fo rm al p ro cess t o a m ore f o rm al, c o nsc io us, a n d s y ste m atic l e v el. W e b eg in

by in te n tio nally push in g out th e boundarie s of our ra n ge of co nsid ere d

alte rn ativ es, a n d th en a tte m ptin g to b e m ore im ag in ativ e in o ur c re atio n o f

th ese p ro je ctio ns i n to t h e f u tu re .

Jo hn D ew ey ( 1 922) d esc rib ed t h is p ro cess a s o ne o f “ d elib era tio n” i n w hic h

we e x perim en t w ith “ a d ra m atic re h ears a l,” in o ur im ag in atio n, o f “ v ario us

co m petin g possib le lin es of actio n” (p . 190; se e als o S ch utz , 1970). A re aso nab le c h oic e o f a c o urs e o f c o nduct r e q uir e s u s t o c o nsid er t h e f u ll r a n ge

of a lte rn ativ es r a th er th an o nly th e o ne o r tw o th at d om in ate o ur f e elin gs a n d

im ag in atio n.

The sk ill in volv ed h ere is m ora l im ag in atio n— th e ab ility to p ro duce a

movie in o ur m in ds w ith re alis tic c h ara cte rs , a b elie v ab le sc rip t, a n d c le ar

im ag ery . T he m ovie s w e c re ate te n d to b e m ore lik e slid e sh ow s o r je rk y,

bla ck -a n d-w hite , s ile n t m elo dra m as r a th er t h an e p ic p ro ductio ns i n c o lo r w ith

ste re o phonic s o und a n d c o m ple x p lo ts . T he m ore im ag in ativ e w e c an b e in

pro je ctin g t h e p ro bab le c o nse q uen ces o f e ach a lte rn ativ e, t h e m ore o ur e th ic al

decis io n m ak in g is e n han ced . T his k in d o f v iv id p ro je ctio n o f a lte rn ativ es

te sts th eir c o here n ce a n d p la u sib ility , a s w ell a s e v okin g th e f e elin gs w e c an

ex pect to a cco m pan y e ach o ne. It is a k ey c o nnectio n b etw een th e ra tio nal

an d t h e a ffe ctiv e d im en sio ns o f e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g.

Writin g sc en ario s fo r each alte rn ativ e m ay help you dev elo p m ora l

im ag in atio n. A lth ough n o a d m in is tr a to r h as th e tim e to d o th is w ith e v ery

is su e, it m ay b e a w orth w hile e x erc is e fo r p artic u la rly c o m ple x p ro ble m s.

Gro ups c an u se th e g rid d esc rib ed e arlie r. A fte r lis tin g p ossib le a lte rn ativ es

dow n th e le ft sid e a n d th e p ro bab le c o nse q uen ces fo r e ach a lo ng th e rig ht

sid e, th e g ro up ta lk s th ro ugh a s c en ario f o r e ach o ne, a tte m ptin g to r e fin e th e

pro je cte d c o nse q uen ces.

It s h ould b e e m phasiz ed a t th is p oin t th at c o nsid erin g th e c o nse q uen ces o f

each alte rn ativ e d oes n ot m ean th at th is co nsid era tio n is th e o nly o r th e

dete rm in in g fa cto r in a rriv in g a t a d ecis io n. E th ic is ts re fe r to

deo nto lo gic a l

(d uty -o rie n te d ) a n d

te le o lo gic a l

( c o nse q uen ce-o rie n te d ) a p pro ach es t o e th ic al

decis io ns. The fo rm er ap pro ach is fo cu se d on duty to certa in eth ic al

prin cip le s, s u ch a s h onesty o r ju stic e, in a q uest to d ete rm in e w hic h d uty is

prim ary . T he la tte r w eig hs th e co nse q uen ces o f a co urs e o f actio n, as in

utilita ria n is m w ith its c alc u lu s o f th e g re ate st g ood fo r th e g re ate st n um ber,

lo okin g fo r th e b est o utc o m es. T he m odel u nder d is c u ssio n h ere in clu des

both p ers p ectiv es, as it is n ev er p ossib le to co m ple te ly se p ara te th em in

pra ctic e. A d uty to re sp ect h um an d ig nity is in se p ara b le fro m th e h arm fu l

co nse q uen ces o f n ot d oin g s o .

Fin din g a F it

The re m ain der of th e pro cess is no lo nger lin ear in natu re . A ch ie v in g re so lu tio n in volv es a s e arc h f o r a f it a m ong th e f o ur e le m en ts in th e c ir c le in

Fig ure 2 .1

, a n d t h at s e arc h i s n ot s im ply a m atte r o f r e aso nin g f ro m o ne t h in g

to th e n ex t. T his b asis fo r s u ch a fit is m ore lik e th e lo gic o f a esth etic s; it

re q uir e s p ro portio n a n d b ala n ce a m ong t h e f o ur e le m en ts .

The fir s t c o nsid era tio n is th e m ora l ru le s th at c an b e a d duced to su pport

each a lte rn ativ e a n d t h e p ro je cte d c o nse q uen ces. I d en tif y in g t h ese m ora l r u le s

will te n d to h ap pen q uite n atu ra lly in a g ro up se ttin g as in div id uals are

allo w ed to o pt fo r a p artic u la r d ecis io n a lte rn ativ e a n d d efe n d it. H ow ev er,

an yone e n gag ed i n th is p ro cess a lo ne o r le ad in g a g ro up s e ssio n m ust b e s u re

th at a ll a lte rn ativ es a re a d dre sse d a n d n one d is m is se d t o o e asily o r q uic k ly .

The n ex t c o nsid era tio n is a r e h ears a l o f d efe n se s. T his is s o m etim es c alle d

th e

Six ty M in ute s te st

o r th e

New Y ork T im es te st

. H ere w e sy ste m atic ally

co nsid er each alte rn ativ e by ask in g ours e lv es, H ow w ould I defe n d th is

partic u la r o ptio n i f r e q uir e d t o d o s o b efo re a b ro ad a u die n ce? T his i s t h e t e st

of h ow w ell a p artic u la r a lte rn ativ e w ill fit w ith th e a ccep te d n orm s o f th e

wid er p ro fe ssio nal a n d p olitic al c o m munitie s o f w hic h w e a re a p art. O nce

ag ain , m ora l im ag in atio n is a c ritic al s k ill a s w e tr y to p ic tu re o urs e lv es, a s

viv id ly a s p ossib le , e x pla in in g to a s u perio r o r s u bord in ate s o r p ro fe ssio nal

peers o r th e p re ss o r a c o urt o f la w w hy e ach p ossib le c o urs e o f a ctio n w as

ch ose n . In g ro up s itu atio ns th is e x erc is e is m ost u se fu l a s th e fie ld n arro w s

to w ard o ne o r t w o a lte rn ativ es.

Harla n C le v ela n d ( 1 972) a d vocate s a n a p pro ach o f th is k in d b y s u ggestin g

th at a n a d m in is tr a to r a sk h im se lf o r h ers e lf th e f o llo w in g k ey q uestio n b efo re

gettin g c o m mitte d to a n y p artic u la r c o urs e o f c o nduct: “ If th is a ctio n is h eld

up to p ublic s c ru tin y, w ill I s till fe el th at it is w hat I s h ould h av e d one a n d

how I s h ould h av e d one it? ” ( p . 1 04). C le v ela n d in sis ts th at if th ose in volv ed

in w ell- k now n case s of co rru ptio n had se rio usly ask ed th em se lv es th is

questio n an d an sw ere d it h onestly , m ost o f th ese in sta n ces o f b etr a y al o f

public tr u st w ould nev er hav e hap pen ed . Part of th e pow er of ask in g

ours e lv es t h ese q uestio ns i s t h at t h ey h elp u s n ot o nly t o t h in k b ut a ls o t o f e el

our w ay t h ro ugh a n e th ic al p ro ble m .

In th is p ro cess o f re h ears in g d efe n se s, w hic h e th ic is ts s o m etim es c all

th e

te st o f p ublic ity

, w e m ay fin d it n ecessa ry to m ove fro m th e d is c o very a n d

ap plic atio n o f m ora l r u le s t o t h e t h ir d c o nsid era tio n: a n a tte m pt t o d is c ern t h e

im plic it e th ic al p rin cip le s a t s ta k e. T his o ccu rs w hen t h e a v aila b le m ora l r u le s are n ot s u ffic ie n tly s a tis fy in g to p erm it r e so lu tio n. O ne a lte rn ativ e m ay te n d

to m ax im iz e th e se cu rity o f th e in div id ual o r o rg an iz atio n, w here as o th ers

may pro m ote so cia l ju stic e or en han ce dem ocra cy . A s w e co nsid er th e

hie ra rc h y o f b asic p rin cip le s, w e ag ain re h ears e th e ju stif ic atio n fo r each

optio n: a sk in g, fo r e x am ple , H ow c o uld I ju stif y g iv in g h ig her p rio rity to

so cia l ju stic e th an o rg an iz atio nal s e cu rity in th is in sta n ce? A s w e e n gag e in

th is p ro cess o f a rra y in g a lte rn ativ es, d ra w in g o ut th e p ro bab le c o nse q uen ces

in th e m ost re alis tic te rm s, an d re h ears in g th e ap plic atio n of ru le s an d

prin cip le s, b oth a ra tio nal a n d a n e m otio nal se arc h fo r re so lu tio n is u nder

way . B ut w hat c o nstitu te s r e so lu tio n?

Reso lu tio n is re ach ed w hen w e d is c o ver an alte rn ativ e th at p ro vid es an

accep ta b le b ala n ce o f o ur d uty to p rin cip le a n d th e lik ely c o nse q uen ces a n d

sa tis fie s o ur n eed to h av e s o und r e aso ns f o r o ur c o nduct a n d o ur n eed to f e el

sa tis fie d w ith th e d ecis io n. B ecau se n eith er a p erfe ct b ala n ce o f d uty a n d

co nse q uen ces n or a su pre m ely ra tio nal alte rn ativ e th at p ro vid es co m ple te

em otio nal sa tis fa ctio n is ofte n av aila b le , re so lu tio n is ord in arily an

ap pro xim ate s ta te . W hat w e c an e x pect to a ch ie v e is th e b est b ala n ce o f d uty

an d c o nse q uen ces a n d th e b est c o m bin atio n o f r e aso ns a n d a ffe ctiv e c o m fo rt

under th e cir c u m sta n ces. It sh ould be em phasiz ed , how ev er, th at th e

assu m ptio n h ere is th at b oth th e c o m bin atio n o f r e aso ns a n d f e elin gs a n d th e

bala n ce o f d uty a n d c o nse q uen ces in volv ed in th is r e so lu tio n s h ould in clu de

th e o blig atio ns o f th e p ublic s e rv ic e r o le . T his d ecis io n-m ak in g p ro cess m ust

be in fo rm ed b y e d ucatio n, tr a in in g, a n d g uid ed so cia liz atio n in to a p ublic

se rv ic e e th ic if th e p ublic in te re st is to b e a p pro xim ate d . E th ic al d ecis io ns

must b e b uttr e sse d b y o ur p ublic s e rv ic e c h ara cte r— th e in clin atio n to d o th e

rig ht th in g as w e en gag e in decid in g w hat th at sh ould be. H ere w e are

desc rib in g a n d s y ste m atiz in g th e p ro cess th at n eed s to b e in fo rm ed b y s u ch

an e th ic r o ote d i n c h ara cte r.

Sortin g th ro ugh a n d s e le ctin g a d eq uate r e aso ns o ccu rs th ro ugh th e p ro cess

ju st d esc rib ed . A rriv in g a t a fe elin g o f s a tis fa ctio n w ith a d ecis io n h ap pen s

durin g t h e s a m e p ro cess b ut i n volv es a s e t o f d ynam ic s n ot y et d esc rib ed . I t i s

tim e to c o nsid er th e fo urth e le m en t in th e c ir c le : a n tic ip ato ry s e lf -a p pra is a l.

This is th e te st o f h ow w ell a c o urs e o f a ctio n f its w ith o ur o w n s e lf -im ag e.

As w e im ag in e o urs e lv es u nderta k in g v ario us co urs e s o f actio n, w e m ay

ex perie n ce se lf -d is a p pro val in co nnectio n with certa in alte rn ativ es. Acco rd in g to Ja n is a n d M an n (1 977), th ese a n tic ip atio ns c an a ro use g uilt,

re m ors e , an d se lf -re p ro ach . W hen w e se e ours e lv es, in our m in d's ey e,

carry in g o ut a d ecis io n th at is in co nsis te n t w ith o ur c o re v alu es, w e d o n ot

lik e th e s e lf w e e n vis io n. W hen w e p ro je ct o urs e lv es in to th e f u tu re a n d lo ok

back o n th e a ct a s th ough it h ad b een c o m ple te d , w e a re d is sa tis fie d w ith

ours e lv es. W e a n tic ip ate n ot f e elin g g ood th e m orn in g a fte r. W e e x perie n ce,

in a d van ce, a k in d o f e th ic al h an gover.

In th e sa m e w ay , oth er decis io n alte rn ativ es cre ate se lf -a p pro val. T he

movie in o ur m in ds p ortr a y s u s a ctin g in a w ay th at m ak es u s f e el p ro ud a n d

dra w s p ra is e , o r a t le ast a p pro val, f ro m p eo ple w hose o pin io ns w e v alu e. W e

are d ra w n to w ard th ese o ptio ns b y th e re in fo rc in g p ow er o f an tic ip ato ry

fe elin gs o f s a tis fa ctio n. A ctin g in w ay s th at e v oke th is a n tic ip ato ry a p pro val

is th e w ay w e d ev elo p p re d is p ositio ns to a ct s im ila rly in th e f u tu re , w hic h is

one w ay o f u nders ta n din g t h e e sse n ce o f c h ara cte r.

These an tic ip ato ry fe elin gs are u su ally n ot ap pra is e d sy ste m atic ally , b ut

th ey cre ate in clin atio ns eith er to re je ct alte rn ativ es th at se em in co ngru en t

with o ur v alu es o r th e n orm s o f sig nif ic an t re fe re n ce g ro ups o r to c h oose

co ngru en t o nes. T o t h e e x te n t t h at w e a re a b le t o r e la te t h is e m otio nal p ro cess

to th e ra tio nal p ro cess, w e g ain eth ic al au to nom y. T o th e ex te n t th at w e

cu ltiv ate a p atte rn o f c o nsis te n tly a ctin g in w ay s th at c o m bin e s o und r e aso ns

with affe ctiv e co nfid en ce, w e d ev elo p in te g rity . W e can in te n tio nally an d

sy ste m atic ally a sse ss d ecis io n a lte rn ativ es in te rm s o f th e s o undness o f o ur

re aso ns f o r s e le ctin g e ach o ne a n d t h e q uality o f t h e f e elin gs w e c an e x pect t o

hav e a b out c h oosin g it. W e m ay a ls o b e a b le to id en tif y th e s o urc es o f th ose

positiv e o r n eg ativ e fe elin gs. A re w e an tic ip atin g ap pro val o r d is a p pro val

fro m o ur c o lle ag ues in th e lo cal c h ap te r o f th e A m eric an S ocie ty fo r P ublic

Adm in is tr a tio n? F ro m th e b oss? O r a re lo ng-h eld p ers o nal v alu es in volv ed ?

How im porta n t is th e so urc e o f th ose fe elin gs? A re th ere o th er p ers o ns o r

gro ups w hose e v alu atio n o f t h e d ecis io n i s e q ually , o r m ore , i m porta n t?

Ben efit s o f U sin g t h e M od el

In b rie f, th ese a re th e s te p s in a fu lly s y ste m atic a n d s e lf -c o nsc io us e th ic al

decis io n-m ak in g pro cess. O bvio usly no pra ctic in g ad m in is tr a to r co uld be

ex pecte d to a p ply th is m odel to e v ery e th ic al is su e. H ow ev er, th e a ssu m ptio n

here is th at if th is m odel is use d w ith th e m ore sig nif ic an t pro ble m s, ad m in is tr a to rs w ill c u ltiv ate o ver tim e s o m eth in g lik e a n in tu itiv e d ecis io n-

mak in g sk ill, w hic h w ill se rv e th em w ell w hen th ere is n o tim e fo r su ch

ex plic it an d fo rm al ex erc is e s. D an ie l Is e n berg 's (1 984) re se arc h o n se n io r

man ag ers in dic ate s th at th e m ost e ffe ctiv e o nes s y ste m atic ally d ev elo p s u ch

in tu itiv e decis io n m odels th at m ak e possib le “th e sm ooth au to m atic

perfo rm an ce o f le arn ed b eh av io r s e q uen ces.” I s e n berg m ain ta in s th at th is “ is

not a rb itr a ry o r ir ra tio nal, b ut is b ase d o n y ears o f p ain sta k in g p ra ctic e a n d

han ds-o n e x perie n ce th at b uild s sk ills ” (p . 8 5). W hen th ese sk ills a re u se d

under th e p re ssu re o f lim ite d tim e fo r re fle ctio n, “w e co m pre ss y ears o f

ex perie n ce a n d le arn in g in to sp lit se co nds. T his c o m pre ssio n is o ne o f th e

base s o f w hat w e c all i n tu itio n, a s w ell a s t h e a rt o f m an ag em en t” ( p . 8 3).

By usin g th e m odel w e ach ie v e a gre ate r deg re e of eth ic al au to nom y

becau se w e b eco m e m ore a w are o f b oth o ur o w n v alu es a n d th e e x te rn al

oblig atio ns u nder w hic h w e a ct. E ven w hen w e d ev elo p in tu itiv e s k ill, it is

possib le t o r a is e t h e g ro unds f o r o ur c o nduct t o c o nsc io us c o nsid era tio n w hen

necessa ry . J a n is a n d M an n ( 1 977) o bse rv e th at a u th oritie s s o m etim es a tte m pt

to e lic it o bed ie n ce b y c re atin g th e illu sio n th at s u bord in ate s h av e n o c h oic e

but to fo llo w o rd ers . T he p ow er o f th is m an ip ula tio n o f th e p erc eiv ed ra n ge

of re al ch oic es is viv id ly portr a y ed in th e ex perim en ts on obed ie n ce to

au th ority co nducte d by S ta n le y M ilg ra m (1 974), w hic h are dis c u sse d at

gre ate r le n gth in C hap te r E ig ht. T hese s tu die s d em onstr a te d th at m ore th an

half o f a ra n dom s a m ple o f A m eric an c itiz en s w ere w illin g to c o m ply w ith

ord ers th at a p peare d to re su lt in s e rio us h arm to a n oth er p ers o n. O ne o f th e

critic al fa cto rs in th eir d ecis io n to fo llo w d is ta ste fu l in str u ctio ns w as th e

sc ie n tis t's re p eate d sta te m en t: “ Y ou h av e n o o th er c h oic e. T he e x perim en t

re q uir e s th at y ou c o ntin ue.” D efin in g th e s itu atio n in s u ch c o nstr a in ed te rm s

le av es a d ecis io n m ak er f e elin g h elp le ss b efo re a s in gle u naccep ta b le o ptio n;

co nsc io usn ess of alte rn ativ e ch oic es is fo re clo se d . Eth ic al au to nom y is

re d uced t o z ero , c h ara cte r i s e ro ded , a n d i n te g rity u nderm in ed .

Alth ough it is e asie r to c o nceiv e o f th is k in d o f e th ic al tu nnel v is io n in

case s w here w e are bein g m an ip ula te d by an au th ority , it occu rs m ore

perv asiv ely . W e d ev elo p b lin ders th at a llo w u s to s e e o nly o ne a lte rn ativ e o r

at m ost a very fe w . U ntil w e ta k e th e in itia tiv e to sy ste m atic ally an d

ag gre ssiv ely w id en th e r a n ge o f c o nceiv ab le o ptio ns a n d a sse ss h ow th ey f it

both r a tio nally a n d e m otio nally w ith o ur v alu e s y ste m , w e a re a t t h e m erc y o f th e m ost o bvio us c o urs e s o f a ctio n. D ev elo pin g m ora l im ag in atio n re q uir e s

dis c ip lin e a n d p ra ctic e a s d em an din g a s a n y o th er in te lle ctu al a n d c re ativ e

activ ity , b ut its re w ard s a re g re ate r m easu re s o f s e lf -a w are n ess, s e lf -c o ntr o l,

an d d ecis io n-m ak in g fle x ib ility . T hese a re e sse n tia l fo r th e s tr e n gth en in g o f

ch ara cte r th at in clin es us to act on our co nvic tio ns an d th e build in g of

in te g rity th at keep s us fro m w eav in g th ro ugh lif e lik e a dru nkard , fir s t

stu m blin g i n o ne d ir e ctio n a n d l a te r i n q uite a n oth er.

Im ple m en tin g a D ecis io n : T he D esig n A ppro ach

These p ro ble m s o f p re se rv in g eth ic al au to nom y su ggest th at arriv in g at a

decis io n u sin g th e m odel d is c u sse d p re v io usly is o nly o ne p art o f a la rg er

pro cess. T hat m ore in clu siv e p ro cess, w hic h I h av e c h ara cte riz ed a s a

desig n

appro ach

to ad m in is tr a tiv e eth ic s, w ill be dis c u sse d at gre ate r le n gth in

Chap te r N in e, b ut it m ay b e h elp fu l a t th is p oin t to in dic ate s o m e o f th e k ey

co nsid era tio ns i n m ovin g f o rw ard w ith a d ecis io n:

1.

It is im porta n t to u nders ta n d th e ch ara cte ris tic s o f th e o rg an iz atio nal

str u ctu re a n d c u ltu re th at m ay e n co ura g e o r im ped e a ctin g o n th e d ecis io n.

Is t h ere a n yth in g a b out t h e h ie ra rc h ic al s tr u ctu re a n d t h e p eo ple w ho o ccu py

key p ositio ns in it th at e ith er m ay m ak e it d if fic u lt f o r y ou to c arry o ut th e

ch ose n d ecis io n o r m ay p ro vid e s u pport f o r y our c o nduct? A re th ere n orm s

in t h e o rg an iz atio n's c u ltu re t h at m ay r e sis t y our i m ple m en tin g t h e d ecis io n,

perh ap s th ro ugh in fo rm al sa n ctio ns, o r a re th ere n orm s th at m ay su pport

your a ctio ns?

2.

W hat c h an ges w ould n eed to b e m ad e in th e o rg an iz atio nal s tr u ctu re a n d

cu ltu re to m ak e th em m ore s u pportiv e o f th e d ecis io n y ou h av e a rriv ed a t

usin g th e m odel? D oes th e s tr u ctu re n eed to b e m ad e fla tte r? A re d is se n t

ch an nels s u ch a s h otlin es o r in sp ecto rs g en era l n eed ed to p re v en t u neth ic al

pre ssu re fro m a b ove? D o s o m e o f th e in fo rm al p ra ctic es th at p ro te ct th ose

guilty o f m is c o nduct n eed t o b e a d dre sse d t h ro ugh t r a in in g o r o rg an iz atio nal

dev elo pm en t e ffo rts ?

3.

W hat k in ds o f m an ag em en t in te rv en tio n s tr a te g ie s w ould b e a p pro pria te

to e ffe ct th ese c h an ges? D oes c h an ge c all f o r a to p-to -b otto m m an ag em en t

au dit, a n o rg an iz atio nal d ev elo pm en t e x erc is e , a n ew tr a in in g p ro gra m , a

re v ie w o f t h e o rg an iz atio n's s tr u ctu re , a c o de o f e th ic s, o r e th ic s t r a in in g?

As w ill b e s e en in th e c h ap te rs th at f o llo w , e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g c an not be carrie d in to pra ctic e effe ctiv ely w ith out th is kin d of an aly sis of th e

org an iz atio nal c o nte x t.

Con clu sio n

I b eg an t h is c h ap te r b y e x am in in g s o m e t y pic al p ublic a d m in is tr a tiv e c ase s i n

whic h a n e th ic al d ile m ma c o uld b e d is c ern ed . I th en d efin ed e th ic s a s a n

activ e pro cess in volv in g th e ord erin g of our valu es w ith re sp ect to a

partic u la r d ecis io n. N ex t I c o nsid ere d th e fo ur le v els o f re fle ctio n a t w hic h

th is p ro cess o ccu rs . A d esc rip tiv e m odel o f e th ic al d ecis io n m ak in g w as th en

outlin ed as th e w ay p eo ple ty p ic ally m ak e eth ic al d ecis io ns. T he ch ap te r

co nclu ded w ith a r e v ie w o f a p re sc rip tiv e d ecis io n-m ak in g m odel t h at m ay b e

use d to s y ste m atic ally a n d s e lf -c o nsc io usly m ove f ro m th e d esc rip tio n o f a n

eth ic al p ro ble m to p re sc rib ed c o urs e s o f a ctio n a n d o rg an iz atio nal a n aly sis .

This is th e fir s t sta g e o f th e d esig n a p pro ach to a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s— th e

le v el o f i n div id ual d ecis io n m ak in g a n d c o nduct.

In th e n ex t c h ap te r, I s te p b ack f ro m p artic u la r e th ic al d ecis io ns to lo ok a t

th e so cia l a n d p olitic al se ttin g in w hic h p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs m ak e e th ic al

decis io ns. T his s e ttin g im pose s c erta in c o nditio ns th at s ig nif ic an tly s h ap e th e

natu re of th e pro ble m s th at public ad m in is tr a to rs en co unte r. T o desig n

effe ctiv e r e sp onse s t o e th ic al p ro ble m s, o ne m ust a lw ay s d o s o w ith r e fe re n ce

to t h e c o nte x t. Part O ne

Eth ic s f o r I n div id u al A dm in is tr a to rs Chapte r T hre e

Public A dm in is tr a tio n i n M odern a n d

Postm odern S ocie ty : T he C on te x t o f

Adm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

The C on te x t o f A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

T o b est e x am in e th e e th ic al d im en sio ns o f a d m in is tr a tio n, it is n ecessa ry to

u nders ta n d th e ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le as it re la te s to th e so cia l an d cu ltu ra l

c o nte x t in w hic h it f u nctio ns. T his p ers p ectiv e is c ru cia l f o r b oth a d eq uate ly

d esc rib in g e th ic al s itu atio ns a n d d ev elo pin g r e alis tic p re sc rip tio ns f o r d ealin g

w ith t h em . D esig nin g r e sp onse s t o e th ic al p ro ble m s r e q uir e s a d ap ta tio n t o t h e

c h ara cte ris tic s o f t h e s itu atio ns i n w hic h t h ey o ccu r.

The k ey c o ncep ts in a s o cio cu lt u ra l p ers p ectiv e o n th e a d m in is tr a tiv e ro le

a re m odern iz atio n a n d p ostm odern iz atio n. W e a re in a tim e o f tr a n sitio n in

w hic h t h e m odern h erita g e o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n i s i n cre asin gly i n c o nflic t

w ith a postm odern w orld . T he fo rm ativ e co ncep ts an d id eas of public

a d m in is tr a tio n hav e th eir ro ots in th e m odern iz in g w orld of th e la te

n in ete en th a n d e arly t w en tie th c en tu rie s, b ut t h e s o cie ty p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n

f u nctio ns i n i s i n cre asin gly p ostm odern .

M odern

is a g lo bal te rm fo r d esc rib in g th e s o cia l, c u ltu ra l, a n d e co nom ic

a ttr ib ute s asso cia te d w ith urb an in dustr ia l so cie ty . B erg er, B erg er, an d

K elln er (1 973) a rg ue th at th e k ey p hen om en a o f m odern ity a re b ure au cra cy

a n d te ch nolo gic al p ro ductio n. I n f a ct, th ey c o nte n d th at th ese a re th e c arrie rs

o f m odern co nsc io usn ess. A s w e beco m e in volv ed w ith bure au cra tic

o rg an iz atio n an d th e pro cess of te ch nolo gic al pro ductio n, a dis tin ctiv ely

m odern w ay o f t h in kin g a b out t h e w orld a n d o ur p la ce i n i t b eg in s t o e m erg e.

Postm odern

is a te rm in te n ded to c h ara cte riz e a w orld in w hic h th e f in ality

a n d ab so lu tis m of once fo undatio nal assu m ptio ns are bein g dis c re d ite d . Assu m ptio ns a b out s o m e k in d o f o bje ctiv ely r e al a n d u niv ers a l h um an n atu re ,

or n atu ra l la w , o r ab so lu te v alu es an d u ltim ate tr u th s, in clu din g th ose o f

sc ie n ce, n o lo nger h old s w ay o ver th e e n tir e s o cie ty . F ox a n d M ille r (1 996)

hav e c o ntr a ste d m odern a n d p ostm odern v ie w s o f th e w orld a s fo llo w s (p .

45):

In te g ra tio n v ers u s d is in te g ra tio n

Cen tr a liz atio n v ers u s d ecen tr a liz atio n

Cen tr ip eta l v ers u s c en tr if u gal

Tota liz atio n v ers u s f ra g m en ta tio n

Meta n arra tiv es v ers u s d is p ara te t e x ts

Meltin g p ot v ers u s s a la d

Com men su ra b le v ers u s i n co m men su ra b le

The i m puls e t o u nif y v ers u s h yperp lu ra lis m

Univ ers a lis m v ers u s r e la tiv is m

New to n v ers u s H eis e n berg

The m ost obvio us ex am ple of th ese dif fe re n ces is th e m odern id ea of

so cie ty b ein g a m eltin g p ot, in w hic h d if fe re n t p eo ple a n d c u ltu re s a ssim ila te

in to o ne, s im ila r s o cie ty . I n th e p ostm odern w orld th at p ot is a s a la d b ow l, in

whic h th e v ario us e le m en ts m ain ta in th eir d is tin ct in te g rity a n d c o m ple m en t

each o th er. S im ila rly , a lth ough Is a ac N ew to n is c o nsid ere d o ne o f th e m ost

in flu en tia l s c ie n tis ts , th e a b ility o f h is la w s o f m otio n a n d g ra v ity to p re d ic t

sc ie n tif ic occu rre n ces was la te r ch alle n ged by sc ie n tis ts lik e W ern er

Heis e n berg a n d h is u ncerta in ty p rin cip le . T he s ig nif ic an ce o f th e p ostm odern

way of th in kin g is th at th e notio ns of gen eric , fix ed w ay s of liv in g,

str u ctu rin g p ublic i n stitu tio ns, a d m in is te rin g p ublic a g en cie s, a n d e sta b lis h in g

pro fe ssio nal eth ic al n orm s n o lo nger h av e an u ltim ate b asis o n w hic h to

sta n d.

Accep tin g t h ese a ttr ib ute s a s d om in an t i n o ur s o cie ty c an l e av e u s i n a s ta te

of re la tiv ity , re d uced to n orm le ssn ess, a n d w ith a c o nclu sio n th at a n yth in g

goes, b ecau se n o o ne h as a b asis f o r a c la im t o m ora l r e ctitu de a n d o blig atio n.

Gen era lly c o nsis te n t w ith F ox a n d M ille r ( 1 996), th e p ositio n a d opte d h ere is

th at p ostm odern s o cie ty d oes n ot le av e u s w ith out m ean in g o r n orm s b ut th at

we c o nstr u ct o ur v alu es, b elie fs , a n d e th ic al n orm s so cia lly , a s w e in te ra ct

with e ach o th er o ver t im e. There m ay n ot b e a u niv ers a lly a ccep te d s e t o f v alu es a n d n orm s “ lo w ere d

dow n f ro m h eav en o n a s tr in g.” N ev erth ele ss, t o geth er w e c ra ft f o r o urs e lv es,

th ro ugh d is c o urs e a n d d elib era tio n, c o nven tio ns s u ch a s v alu es, b elie fs , a n d

eth ic al n orm s to g iv e m ean in g a n d o rd er to o ur liv es. C olle ctiv e d ecis io n

mak in g in th e g overn an ce p ro cess, in clu din g p ublic ad m in is tr a tio n, w ork s

best in a postm odern so cie ty when it em erg es out of an in clu siv e

co nvers a tio n a b out h ow to c re ate o rd er a n d m ean in g in o ur liv es to geth er.

Hen ce, dem ocra tic govern an ce pro vid es m ech an is m s an d are n as fo r th is

so cia l pro cess. G utm an n (1 995) calls th is delib era tiv e pro cess

ete rn al

vig ila nce

an d arg ues th at delib era tio n is th e dem ocra tic se lf -c o nstr a in t

th ro ugh w hic h w e w ard off ty ra n ny an d pro te ct th e basic lib ertie s of

dem ocra cy . ( S ee D en nard , 1 997, a n d o th er a rtic le s in th e s a m e s p ecia l is su e

of

Am eric a n B eh avio ra l S cie n tis t

c o ncern in g th e im plic atio ns o f p ostm odern

th ought f o r p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n.)

Our c o lle ctiv e a g re em en ts a rriv ed a t th ro ugh d em ocra tic g overn an ce m ay

not h av e a n y u niv ers a l o r u ltim ate f o undatio ns in th e n atu re o f th e u niv ers e ,

but th ey s e rv e a s s u rro gate o r a d h oc f o undatio ns f o r u s, c h an gin g f ro m tim e

to tim e to fit o ur c h an gin g s o cia l a g re em en ts . In d em ocra tic s o cie ty , w here

th e c o nnectio n b etw een o ne's in div id ual a ctio ns a n d th e v alu es o f s o cie ty is

co nsta n tly ev olv in g, so m e valu es pers is t where as oth ers go th ro ugh

tr a n sfo rm ativ e a d ap ta tio n to a cco unt fo r c h an gin g p ublic se n tim en t. In th is

re g ard , public ad m in is tr a to rs sh ould atte m pt to bette r unders ta n d th e

in te rs u bje ctiv ity a m ong th e v ario us s h are d v alu es, a ssu m ptio ns, a n d b elie fs

when c arry in g o ut t h eir r o le s.

Natu ra lly , s u ch a v ie w s u ggests th at o ur w orld is s o cia lly c o nstr u cte d , b uilt

upon la y ers of m ean in g w e assig n to th e peo ple , pla ces, an d th in gs w e

en co unte r. F ro m s u ch a p ers p ectiv e, b ro ad -b ase d a g re em en t p ro vid es a le v el

of r e lia b ility f o r m ak in g d ecis io ns, p artic u la rly in a d iv ers e s o cie ty . B ro ad ly

ag re ed -o n norm s an d valu es pro vid e fo undatio nal re fe re n ce poin ts an d

co nven tio ns f o r p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs i n volv ed i n t h e p ro cess o f s a fe g uard in g

th e p ublic g ood. S om etim es th ese a re e x plic it a g re em en ts , b ut m ore o fte n

th ey co nsis t of sh are d assu m ptio ns th at hav e ev olv ed th ro ugh so cia l

in te ra ctio n o ver tim e. F or e x am ple , c o nstitu tio ns, g overn m en ta l in stitu tio ns,

an d la w s p ro vid e a re co rd o f o ur co lle ctiv e so cia l ev olu tio n th ro ugh th e

fo rm al ag re em en ts , docu m en ts , an d co nven tio ns th at re fle ct our sh are d norm s, v alu es, a n d a ssu m ptio ns.

Agre em en t o n th ese p ublic a sp ects o f lif e m ust b e a cco m plis h ed th ro ugh

bro ad p artic ip atio n in th e g overn an ce d eb ate if th e in stitu tio ns c re ate d a re to

hav e le g itim acy th ro ugh in te rs u bje ctiv e re lia b ility . Sim ply im posin g

au th ority d oes n ot w ork in th is k in d o f w orld . A re as o f o ur liv es n ot liv ed

in te rd ep en den tly , o fte n c alle d

priv a te ,

a re le ft in w hic h v ario us su bgro ups

can f a sh io n d iv ers e p ers p ectiv es a n d w ay s o f l if e .

Pro b le m s w it h M od ern it y i n a P ostm od ern

World

Rem nan ts o f m odern ity s till e x is t in to day 's p ostm odern w orld , a n d th e c la sh

betw een th ese tw o w orld vie w s c an c re ate c o nflic t. T he m odern w orld vie w is

ch ara cte riz ed b y t h e f o llo w in g t r a its r e le v an t t o a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s.

The A tte m pt t o A pply S cie n tif ic P rin cip le s t o M uch

of L if e

The th ought o f th e la te n in ete en th a n d e arly tw en tie th c en tu rie s w as h eav ily

in flu en ced b y a b elie f th at s c ie n ce c o uld b e in tr o duced in to m ore a n d m ore

are as o f h um an l if e ( N els o n, 1 982). T his l e d q uite n atu ra lly t o a n e m phasis o n

in str u m en ta l ra tio nality . It w as th ought th at sc ie n ce co uld pro vid e bette r

meth ods f o r e v ery th in g, f ro m c o nductin g o ur p ers o nal a ffa ir s to m an ag in g a

fa m ily to ru nnin g a fa cto ry to p ro vid in g p ublic g oods an d se rv ic es. T he

te n den cy w as to lo ok to s c ie n ce fo r o ne b est w ay o f d oin g th in gs th at w as

co nsis te n t w ith g en eric s c ie n tif ic p rin cip le s. T hus w e b eg an t o t h in k a b out t h e

need t o o rd er a n d s ta n dard iz e s o cie ty a s w ell a s o ur o w n l iv es.

Under th e s w ay o f th is s c ie n tif ic a p pro ach to lif e , e ffic ie n cy o f in te ra ctio n

an d p ro ductio n b eco m es a c o ncern , a lo ng w ith p re d ic ta b ility o f th e b eh av io r

of o th ers . I n m odern s o cie ty , tr a d itio n n o lo nger p ro vid es s ta b ility , o rd er, a n d

co nsis te n cy o f c o nduct; t h ese t h in gs h av e t o b e t h ought a b out a n d w ork ed o ut

th ro ugh o rg an iz atio ns, ru le s, la w s, an d p ublic p olic ie s b ase d o n sc ie n tif ic

prin cip le s. Scie n ce pro vid es th e unif y in g fo undatio nal assu m ptio ns fo r

modern s o cie ty , to re p la ce th ose o f tr a d itio n ro ote d in h is to ry , c u sto m , a n d re lig io n, w hic h h av e b eco m e r e la tiv iz ed .

How ev er, to th e ex te n t th at p ostm odern th ought h as b eg un to d is p la ce

modern ity , f o undatio nal a ssu m ptio ns, in clu din g th ose b ase d o n s c ie n ce, lo se

th eir p ow er to d efin e u ltim ate r e ality . S cie n ce is in cre asin gly s e en a s a n oth er

so cia l c o nstr u ct th at s h ap es o ur p erc ep tio ns o f th e w orld b ut w ith n o g re ate r

au th ority th an o th er s u ch p ers p ectiv es. T he u se o f s c ie n tif ic p rin cip le s a s th e

so le b asis f o r d esig nin g a n d a d m in is te rin g p ublic o rg an iz atio ns is d is c re d ite d

(J u n a n d R iv era , 1 997).

Mult ip lic it y a n d D if fe ren tia tio n o f R ole s

Socia l re la tio nsh ip s a n d p ers o nal id en tity b eco m e m ore c o m ple x in m odern

so cie ty . P eo ple n o lo nger id en tif y th em se lv es w ith o ne ro le o r e v en a fe w .

Our liv es b eco m e a n in tr ic ate n etw ork o f in te rre la te d ro le s, a n d w e m ove

th ro ugh th ese ro le s w ith out th in kin g v ery ex plic itly ab out th e ch an ges in

beh av io r th ey r e q uir e . D urin g th e c o urs e o f o ne d ay , w e m ay a ssu m e a b ro ad

arra y of ro le s— pare n t, sp ouse , neig hbor, ad m in is tr a to r, ch urc h m em ber,

in vesto r, c itiz en , ro w in g p artn er— each w ith its o w n b eh av io ra l p atte rn a n d

se t o f o blig atio ns. R obert J a y L if to n ( 1 993) h as d esc rib ed th e w ay w e m ove

am ong ro le s, u sin g th e id ea o f th e

pro te a n s e lf

. P ro te u s w as a g od in G re ek

myth olo gy w ho h ad t h e p ow er t o c h an ge h is s h ap e a t w ill— to

morp h

h im se lf

fro m a h um an a p peara n ce to th at o f a b ir d o r a s n ak e o r a lio n o r ru nnin g

wate r o r a n yth in g e ls e i m ag in ab le . I n t h is w ay h e c o uld e lu de a n yone s e ek in g

to cap tu re him . T he pro te an m eta p hor w as als o use d in early A m eric an

vau dev ille th eate r, w hic h in volv ed tr a v elin g v arie ty s h ow s. T he

pro te a n a ct

was o ne o f th e sta n dard fa v orite s in th e v au dev illia n re p erto ir e , p ut o n b y

quic k -c h an ge a rtis ts . P ro te an a cto rs w ould m ove ra p id ly o n a n d o ff sta g e,

co stu m ed v ery d if fe re n tly f ro m m om en t t o m om en t. A k nig ht i n a rm or w ould

su dden ly b e tr a n sfo rm ed in to a V ic to ria n la d y, fo llo w ed b y a c o w boy, a n d

th en a b ib lic al fig ure , a n d o n a n d o n, to th e a m azem en t a n d d elig ht o f th e

au die n ce. T he dis tin guis h ed so cio lo gis t E rv in g G offm an (1 973) sim ila rly

em plo yed a d ra m atu rg ic al a p pro ach to u nders ta n din g th e w ay s in div id uals in

modern s o cie ty p re se n t th em se lv es a s d if fe re n t a cto rs a s th ey m ove f ro m o ne

se ttin g an d ro le to th e n ex t. C erta in ly , in th e p ostm odern w orld w ith its

co m ple x ity a n d m ultip le r o le s, w e c an a ll b e v ie w ed a s p ro te an a t a n y g iv en

tim e. Salm an R ush die ( 1 997) h as d esc rib ed th e e x tr e m ity o f th is p hen om en on a s

fo llo w s:

In th e m odern ag e, w e hav e co m e to unders ta n d our ow n se lv es as

co m posite s, o fte n c o ntr a d ic to ry , e v en in te rn ally in co m patib le . W e h av e

unders to od th at e ach o f u s is m an y d if fe re n t p eo ple . O ur y ounger s e lv es

dif fe r f ro m o ur o ld er s e lv es; w e c an b e b old i n t h e c o m pan y o f o ur l o vers

an d tim oro us befo re our em plo yers , prin cip le d w hen w e in str u ct our

ch ild re n a n d c o rru pt w hen o ffe re d s o m e s e cre t t e m pta tio n; w e a re s e rio us

an d friv olo us, lo ud a n d q uie t, a g gre ssiv e a n d e asily a b ash ed . T he 1 9th

cen tu ry c o ncep t o f th e in te g ra te d s e lf h as b een re p la ced b y th is jo stlin g

cro w d o f “ I” s. A nd y et, u nle ss w e a re d am ag ed , o r d era n ged , w e u su ally

hav e a r e la tiv ely c le ar s e n se o f w ho w e a re . I a g re e w ith m y m an y s e lv es

to c all a ll o f t h em “ m e” [ p . 3 6].

In th is R ush dia n w orld , th e m odern id ea o f a u nita ry , in te g ra te d s e lf b eg in s

to tr a n sm ute in to th e n otio n th at o ne s e q uen tia lly ta k es o n th e v ario us ro le s

th at c o lle ctiv ely o ne id en tif ie s a s o nese lf . P ostm odern v ie w s in te n sif y th is

pro ble m o f ro le s, fo r w ith out a n y d efin itiv e fo undatio nal a ssu m ptio ns a b out

hum an e x is te n ce a n d th e w orld a ro und u s, w e h av e n o a u th orita tiv e p la ce to

tu rn f o r d ete rm in in g w hic h r o le s o ught to h av e p rio rity . W e a re le ft in a s ta te

of c o nsta n t p erp le x ity a b out h ow to a llo cate o ur a tte n tio n, tim e, a n d e ffo rt

am ong th e a rra y o f c o m petin g r o le s. H ow d o I w eig h m y f a m ily o blig atio ns

ag ain st th ose o f th e o rg an iz atio n in w hic h I a m e m plo yed ? W hic h c o m es

fir s t: m y p ro fe ssio nal o blig atio ns o r t h ose o f m y o rg an iz atio n? W hat h ap pen s

when m y re lig io us v ie w s c o m e in to c o nflic t w ith d utie s a ssig ned a t w ork ?

How d o I so rt o ut th e p rio rity o f th e o blig atio ns asso cia te d w ith b ein g a

citiz en in a d em ocra tic so cie ty an d th ose asso cia te d w ith b ein g a p ublic

ad m in is tr a to r?

Fro m S ep ara tio n t o C o-M in glin g W ork a n d P riv ate

Lif e

In m odern s o cie ty , w ork n o lo nger b le n ds e asily in to o ur p riv ate liv es a s w as

tr u e o f tr a d itio nal so cie ty . It is se p ara te d in tim e an d sp ace fro m h om e,

fa m ily , a n d n eig hborh ood. I n t r a d itio nal s o cie ty t h e f a rm er o r h erd sm an l iv ed

at h is p la ce o f w ork a n d m ad e n o p re cis e t e m pora l d is tin ctio ns b etw een w ork an d nonw ork . The sa m e w as ty pic al fo r physic ia n s, artis ts , la w yers ,

sh opkeep ers , a n d c ra fts p eo ple . H ow ev er, in m odern s o cie ty , w ork is d one in

a p artic u la r p la ce a n d d urin g d efin ed h ours . D ev ia tio ns fro m th is n orm a re

vie w ed a s in tr u sio ns o f w ork in to o ur p riv ate lif e , o r v ic e v ers a . T his s p atia l

an d c h ro nolo gic al s e p ara tio n h as b een c o nduciv e to th e d ev elo pm en t o f a n

eth ic al id en tity f o r th e e m plo ym en t r o le th at m ay b e q uite d if fe re n t f ro m th e

eth ic al i d en titie s a sso cia te d w ith o th er r o le s. A lth ough t h at m ay t h re ate n o ne's

in te g rity a s a w hole p ers o n, i t m ay a ls o m ak e i t e asie r t o u phold a p ublic e th ic

with out u ndue i n flu en ce b y t h e n orm s o f m ore p ers o nal a n d p riv ate r o le s.

The str ic t se p ara tio n o f w ork a n d p riv ate re alm s b eg in s to b lu r a g ain in

postm odern so cie ty . A s org an iz atio ns decen tr a liz e an d m ove aw ay fro m

unif o rm w ork r e g im en s, a s d ealin g w ith i n fo rm atio n b eco m es m ore a n d m ore

th e m ean s o f c o nductin g w ork , a n d a s te ch nolo gy e n han ces c o m munic atio n,

in cre asin g n um bers o f p eo ple w ork at le ast p art o f th e tim e at h om e o r

an oth er p la ce o th er th an a c en tr a l o ffic e. B ein g in a s p ecif ic p la ce to d o o ne's

work b eco m es le ss a n d le ss im porta n t. C om pute rs , s c an ners , fa x m ach in es,

pag ers , c ellu la r p hones, a n d s m art p hones m ak e s p ace l e ss r e le v an t t h an t im e.

Som e e m plo yees w ork o ut o f c ars , a ir p la n es, h ote ls , te m pora ry o ffic es, a n d

hom es, a n d g o to th e p la ce o f th e o rg an iz atio n o nly in fre q uen tly . T he 2 009

Geo rg e C lo oney m ovie

Up i n t h e A ir

d ep ic ts a n e x tr e m e f o rm o f th is r o otle ss

sty le o f w ork .

These ch an ges m ay te n d to m ak e eth ic al id en titie s asso cia te d w ith

em plo ym en t ro le s le ss d is tin ct an d als o su sc ep tib le to in flu en ce b y o th er

ro le s. O blig atio ns f o r p ublic e th ic al n orm s s u ch a s th e p ublic in te re st m ay b e

in flu en ced b y th e in te re sts o f p riv ate ro le s. O r th e lo ss o f th e g eo gra p hic al

co ntin uity a n d re g ula r s u sta in ed re la tio nsh ip s o fte n fo und in th e w ork pla ce

may se rio usly atte n uate th e se n se o f co nnecte d ness th ro ugh w hic h eth ic al

sta n dard s a re r e in fo rc ed a n d m ain ta in ed .

Sch ultz (2 004) h as n ote d th is b lu rrin g o f b oundarie s in th e p ostm odern

world a n d its e ffe cts o n p ro fe ssio nal e th ic s. H e a rg ues th at “ in a p ostm odern

so cie ty m ark ed b y a b lu rrin g o f t h e l in e b etw een p ublic a n d p riv ate a s w ell a s

by th e g re ate r in te g ra tio n o f th e th re e e co nom ic s e cto rs , th e e th ic al r u le s th at

ap ply t o d if fe re n t f a cets o f l if e a n d w ork a re b ein g c h alle n ged , n ecessita tin g a

re th in kin g of m ora l boundarie s an d th e ru le s govern in g pro fe ssio nal

beh av io r” ( p . 2 81). H e s u ggests t h at w e m ay n eed t o r e co ncep tu aliz e e th ic s t o acco m modate th e m ove a w ay f ro m th e “ eth ic al c o m partm en ta liz atio n” o f th e

modern w orld .

Rela tiv is m

Neith er r o le s n or v alu es a re v ie w ed a s a b so lu te in m odern s o cie ty . R ole s a re

acq uir e d an d giv en up, an d th ey vary in im porta n ce fro m tim e to tim e.

Conse q uen tly th ey a re o fte n m ain ta in ed w ith c o nsid era b le r o le d is ta n ce. T hat

is to s a y , th ey a re n ot a llo w ed to c o m pre h en d o ur id en tity . R ole s a re r e la tiv e

to p artic u la r tim es a n d p la ces; th ey a re n ot in here n t in o ur m ost e sse n tia l

se lv es.

Sim ila rly , v alu es w ith in s o cie ty e x hib it e n orm ous d iv ers ity . S om e p eo ple

belie v e o ne th in g a n d s o m e a n oth er. W e a re n ot s h ock ed to d is c o ver th is f a ct

in m odern so cie ty ; in ste ad w e te n d to ack now le d ge an d em phasiz e th e

re la tiv ity o f v alu es.

Postm odern is m fu rth ers th e ero sio n of fo undatio nal assu m ptio ns as th e

univ ers a l an d u ltim ate sta tu s o f th e co re b elie fs o f m odern is m , ro ote d in

sc ie n ce, is als o calle d in to q uestio n. T he re la tiv ity o f v alu es th re ate n s to

underm in e an y belie f in oblig atio n an d duty . T hus th e in te n tio nal so cia l

co nstr u ctio n of public eth ic al norm s beco m es ev en m ore cru cia l. In th e

ab se n ce o f u niv ers a lly accep te d m ora l ab so lu te s, w ork in g o ut ag re em en ts

th ro ugh d is c o urs e , b oth i n p ers o n a n d e le ctr o nic ally , c o ncern in g t h e n orm s o f

our in te rd ep en den t p ublic lif e is e sse n tia l fo r e sta b lis h in g a b asis fo r s o cia l

sta b ility . In o th er w ord s, a lth ough w e m ay b e a b le to a g re e o n fu ndam en ta l

dem ocra tic v alu es, w e in te rs e ct in o ur c o lle ctiv e o r p ublic liv es a n d w e m ay

need to d elib era te a n d s o cia lly c o nstr u ct a s e t o f n orm s to a cco m modate th is

in te rs e ctio n.

Plu ra liz a tio n o f S ocie ty

The sig nif ic an t dynam ic beh in d all fo ur of th ese ch ara cte ris tic s is th e

plu ra liz atio n o f m odern s o cie ty . A s p eo ple f ro m d iv ers e c u ltu re s h av e m oved

with g re at ra p id ity in to u rb an c o m merc ia l a n d in dustr ia l c en te rs d urin g th e

past tw o hundre d years , th ey hav e fo und it necessa ry to co nfro nt one

an oth er's dif fe re n ces. The hom ogen eity of tr a d itio nal so cie ty , w ith its

unif y in g a n d s ta b iliz in g c u ltu ra l b onds, h as b een b ro ken . V ery little c an b e assu m ed o r ta k en fo r g ra n te d . N ew fo rm s o f o rg an iz atio n h av e d ev elo ped ,

an d new w ay s of co pin g w ith a bro ad sp ectr u m of lif e sty le s, die ts ,

pre fe re n ces, p olitic al p hilo so phie s, re lig io us v ie w s, a n d m odes o f e x ch an ge

hav e e v olv ed . T his “ p lu ra liz atio n o f lif e w orld s” h as le d to th e s e g m en ta tio n

of in div id ual liv es a s p eo ple h av e a tte m pte d to r e la te th em se lv es to “ se v ere ly

dis c re p an t w orld s o f m ean in g a n d e x perie n ce” ( B erg er, B erg er, a n d K elln er,

1973, p . 6 4).

The e arly sta g es o f th is p lu ra liz in g p ro cess a re v iv id ly illu str a te d in th e

music al

Fid dle r o n th e R oof

. In a little R ussia n v illa g e n am ed A nate v ka, a n

orth odox Je w is h co m munity liv es out a pre d ic ta b le an d sta b le ex is te n ce

th ro ugh its hig hly in te g ra te d w eb of tr a d itio n, w hic h en co m passe s daily

ro utin es as w ell as m ajo r ev en ts su ch as b ir th , m arria g e, an d d eath . T he

le ad in g fig ure , T ev ye, co nsta n tly re m in ds him se lf an d th e au die n ce th at

tr a d itio n is h ow h e k now s w ho h e is a n d w hat G od e x pects o f h im . “ W ith out

our tr a d itio n,” h e sa y s, “ w e a re a s sh ak y a s a fid dle r o n th e ro of” (S te in ,

1971, p . 6 4).

And, i n deed , i n t h e c o urs e o f t h e p la y , w e s e e t h e i n te g rity a n d a b so lu te n ess

of A nate v ka's tr a d itio ns ch alle n ged by th e arriv al of th e czar's tr o ops.

Fam ilia r tr a d itio ns govern in g co urts h ip , m arria g e, an d fa m ily ro le s are

co nfro nte d w ith d if fe re n t tr a d itio ns f ro m a n a lie n s o cie ty a n d r o bbed o f th eir

pow er. A lth ough in th is case it is a m atte r o f m odern so cie ty in vad in g a

tr a d itio nal c o m munity r a th er th an th e m ig ra tio n o f r u ra l v illa g ers to a n u rb an

are a, t h e p ro cess o f p lu ra liz atio n i s e sse n tia lly t h e s a m e.

In 1 927, in

The P ublic a nd Its P ro ble m s

, J o hn D ew ey d esc rib ed h ow th is

em erg in g hete ro gen eity gav e ris e to a m ultip lic ity of “p ublic s.” Fro m

Dew ey 's p ers p ectiv e, th ere is n o su ch th in g a s a u nita ry p ublic in m odern

so cie ty . As peo ple purs u e th eir vario us se lf -in te re sts th ro ugh so cia l

in te ra ctio n, th ere a re c erta in u nin te n ded , in dir e ct c o nse q uen ces, w hic h m ay

be v ie w ed p ositiv ely o r n eg ativ ely . E ntr e p re n eu rs w ho e sta b lis h s te el m ills t o

mak e a p ro fit i n dir e ctly c re ate a ir p ollu tio n. H ow ev er, t h ey m ay a ls o , w ith out

pla n nin g to d o s o , c re ate a m ark et fo r s m alle r b usin esse s in th e s u rro undin g

are a. P ublic s eith er dim in is h or en han ce th ese in dir e ct co nse q uen ces by

callin g f o r t h e a p poin tm en t o f p ublic o ffic ia ls a n d t h e p assa g e o f l a w s.

Thus g overn m en ta l o rg an iz atio ns h av e se rv ed an in cre asin gly p lu ra liz ed

public d urin g th e p ast h undre d y ears . T hese p ublic s, a cco rd in g to D ew ey 's th esis , a re g en era te d b y th e h ete ro gen eo us c o m positio n o f m odern in dustr ia l

so cie ty . A s w e atte m pt to re aliz e our ow n in te re sts , w e in varia b ly fin d

ours e lv es lin ked in te rd ep en den tly w ith o th ers w ho are d if fe re n t an d h av e

dif fe re n t in te re sts . W e a re s o m etim es in hib ite d in a ch ie v in g o ur g oals b y th e

activ itie s o f o th ers a n d s o m etim es h elp ed , b ut w hate v er th e c ase , w e b eg in to

re aliz e th at o ur fa te is b ound u p w ith th e d ecis io ns a n d b eh av io rs o f o th er

peo ple w hose v alu es d if fe r, i n w ay s b oth l a rg e a n d s m all, f ro m o ur o w n.

Postm odern c o nditio ns u nle ash th e in cre asin gly a sse rtiv e e x pre ssio n o f th is

so cio cu ltu ra l d iv ers ity . O ne re su lt is th at g overn m en t b ase d o n b ure au cra tic

ra tio nality , a tte m ptin g to o ffe r s ta n dard iz ed s e rv ic es a n d g oods, in cre asin gly

alie n ate s t h is d iv ers e c itiz en ry . O pera tin g w ith m odern a ssu m ptio ns a d van ced

by th e A m eric an Pro gre ssiv e m ovem en t of th e early tw en tie th cen tu ry ,

govern m en t fin ds its e lf in in te rm in ab le c o nflic t w ith th e p eo ple it se ek s to

se rv e. T he P ro gre ssiv es b elie v ed th at g overn m en t s h ould tr e at e v ery one th e

sa m e i n o rd er t o b e f a ir , a r e aso nab le a ssu m ptio n g iv en t h e p ow er o f p olitic al

mach in es in th at e ra . H ow ev er, n ow so m etim es g overn m en t is e x pecte d to

tr e at ev ery one eq ually (v otin g rig hts , access to em plo ym en t, ju dic ia l

pro cesse s) a n d a t o th er tim es to tr e at th em d if fe re n tly (h an dic ap ped a ccess,

Head Sta rt, affir m ativ e actio n). Sta n dard iz ed polic ie s an d pro gra m s are

in cre asin gly a t o dds w ith d iv ers e a n d v ocal p ublic s.

Im plic a tio n s f o r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

It ap pears th at m odern iz atio n h as h ad th re e m ajo r im plic atio ns fo r p ublic

ad m in is tr a tio n.

The P olit ic a l N atu re o f P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n

An in itia l im pact o f m odern iz atio n o n p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n w as th e a tte m pt

to se p ara te p olitic s fro m ad m in is tr a tio n in o rd er to d ev elo p a sc ie n ce o f

ad m in is tr a tio n, a sc ie n ce th at w as ex pecte d to le ad to a m ore effic ie n t

deliv ery o f p ublic g oods a n d s e rv ic es, o ne u nin flu en ced b y th e d iv ers io ns o f

politic al in flu en ce. T o th e p ro gre ssiv e re fo rm ers o f th e la te n in ete en th a n d

early tw en tie th c en tu rie s, th is s e em ed to o ffe r a n a d van ce b ey ond th e h ig hly

politic iz ed p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n th at h ad e x is te d u nder th e u rb an p olitic al

mach in es o f th e n in ete en th c en tu ry a n d in tr a d itio nal so cie tie s fo r m ost o f hum an h is to ry . H ow ev er, th e p ara d ox w as th at alth ough m odern th in kin g

em phasiz ed th e ap plic atio n of sc ie n tif ic ra tio nality to govern m en t, oth er

ch ara cte ris tic s o f m odern so cie ty m ad e th is n o m ore p ossib le in tw en tie th -

cen tu ry A m eric a th an it h ad b een in th e tr a d itio nal s o cie tie s o f th e p ast. T he

div ers if ic atio n of so cie ty pro duced a m ore tu rb ule n t en vir o nm en t fo r

ad m in is tr a to rs , o ne th at f u rth er im ped ed th e r e m oval o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n

fro m t h e s tr if e o f p olitic s.

In p ostm odern s o cie ty it h as b eco m e in cre asin gly c le ar th at a tte m ptin g to

defin e th e ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le as se p ara te d fro m politic s sim ply is o la te s

ad m in is tr a to rs fro m a hig hly dif fe re n tia te d popula ce an d dis c o ura g es

ad m in is tr a to rs fro m fa cin g th e su bsta n tiv e p olitic al ro le th ey d o p la y . T he

se p ara tio n o f p olitic s fro m a d m in is tr a tio n m ay h av e e x is te d in th e m in ds o f

Max W eb er ( 1 946), W oodro w W ils o n ( 1 887), L eo nard W hite ( 1 926), F ra n k

Goodnow (1 900), a n d a g en era tio n o f o th er sc h ola rs , b ut a lm ost n ow here

els e . T he n otio n th at p olitic ia n s m ak e p olic y d ecis io ns th ro ugh a p ro cess

in volv in g su bsta n tiv e ra tio nality a n d th at a d m in is tr a to rs sim ply a p ply th eir

best sc ie n tif ic in str u m en ta l re aso nin g to w ard im ple m en ta tio n has been

su ffic ie n tly atta ck ed to re q uir e no ex te n siv e tr e atm en t here (G au s, 1936;

Wald o, 1948). Postm odern iz atio n cre ate s pre ssu re s an d dynam ic s th at

co m pel a d m in is tr a to rs to b e in volv ed in d ecis io ns a b out g oals a n d p olic ie s

an d to co m pete w ith oth ers fo r pow er an d re so urc es (B en ven is te , 1977;

Cooper, 1 994; W am sle y a n d Z ald , 1 973).

The m ultip lic atio n a n d d if fe re n tia tio n o f r o le s a re t h e c ritic al p hen om en a i n

th e p olitic s o f th e p ublic a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le . E ach r o le is c o nstitu te d b y a s e t

of o blig atio ns— well o r p oorly d efin ed — th at a d m in is tr a to rs m ust c arry o ut t o

main ta in th e ro le , an d a se t of in te re sts — in co m e, so cia l sta tu s, an d jo b

sa tis fa ctio n— th at th ey d eriv e f ro m th e r o le . W e m ust b ear th e o blig atio ns if

we a re to s e cu re th e in te re sts . S om e o f th ese r o le s b elo ng e x clu siv ely to th e

priv ate l if e o f h om e, f a m ily , a n d c o m munity ; s o m e h av e t o d o w ith t h e w orld

of w ork ; an d so m e overla p th e tw o re alm s. T ogeth er th ey re p re se n t th e

co m ple x m ultif a cete d id en tity of a m odern ad m in is tr a to r (D ow nie , 1971;

Mean s, 1 970). F ro m tim e to tim e th ese ro le s c o m e in to c o nflic t w ith e ach

oth er; th e in te re sts an d o blig atio ns asso cia te d w ith th em co m pete fo r o ur

tim e, atte n tio n, an d en erg y. W e m ust m an ag e th is co nflic t effe ctiv ely to

pre v en t c o nflic ts o f i n te re st t h at c o uld d etr a ct f ro m o ur o bje ctiv e j u dgm en t a s ad m in is tr a to rs o r t h at a t l e ast c o uld b e p erc eiv ed t h at w ay b y t h e c itiz en ry .

The co nflic t betw een th ese ro le s aris e s fro m th e te n sio n cre ate d by

an tith etic al attr a ctio ns: pers o nal eco nom ic in te re sts an d th e oblig atio n to

pro te ct th e p ublic in te re st. T he p olitic s o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le is r o ote d in

th is k in d o f t e n sio n ( C ro zie r, 1 973; T ullo ck , 1 965; W am sle y a n d Z ald , 1 973).

Becau se th e vario us valu es in postm odern so cie ty are not univ ers a lly

accep te d , th ere a re n o a b so lu te s to d efin e p re cis e ly w hat o ught to b e d one

when r o le s c o nflic t. V alu es a re o rd ere d a n d p rio ritie s e sta b lis h ed a m ong r o le s

th ro ugh n eg otia tio n w ith o urs e lv es an d o th ers in each situ atio n, g en era lly

alo ng th e lin es d esc rib ed in C hap te r T w o. I t is in tr a d in g o ff o ur o w n v arie d

in te re sts f o r t h e i n te re sts o f t h e o rg an iz atio n w e w ork f o r, a n d v ic e v ers a , t h at

th e p olitic al d ynam ic s o f t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le e m erg e.

Sheld on W olin (1 960) h as p ro vid ed th e b asis fo r a fu rth er e x pla n atio n o f

org an iz atio nal p olitic s. H is f o cu s i s t h e e v olu tio n o f c o m munitie s t h ro ugh t h e

modern iz in g p ro cess. W olin a rg ues th at d urin g th e n in ete en th a n d tw en tie th

cen tu rie s, th e “o rg an ic ,” in te g ra te d , tr a d itio n-b ase d co m munitie s of th e

pre in dustr ia l a n d p re u rb an e ra b eg an to c ru m ble in th e fa ce o f m ig ra tio n to

urb an an d in dustr ia l are as. Peo ple beg an to lo ok fo r sta b ility , id en tity ,

belo ngin g, se cu rity , purp ose , an d pow er in org an iz atio ns of all kin ds:

re lig io us, in dustr ia l, la b or, re fo rm , politic al, sc ie n tif ic , co m merc ia l, an d

govern m en ta l.

In th is p ro cess th e “ n atu ra l” n etw ork s o f r e la tio nsh ip s o f th e o ld er o rg an ic

co m munitie s w ere bro ken up, an d tr a n sfo rm ed by th e ra tio nality an d

in te n tio nality o f o rg an iz atio ns i n to i n str u m en ts f o r a ch ie v in g p artic u la r g oals .

They w ere d esig ned to r e fin e s te el, m an ufa ctu re a u to m obile s, p ro vid e w ate r,

re fo rm g overn m en t, o pera te tr a n sit f a cilitie s, a n d e n fo rc e b uild in g a n d s a fe ty

re g ula tio ns. H ow ev er, co ntr a ry to W eb er's id eal ty pe, peo ple re fu se to

partic ip ate in th ese o rg an iz atio ns in a p artia l fa sh io n. T hey te n d to w an t to

partic ip ate i n o rg an iz atio ns a s w hole s; t h ey t r y t o s p ill o ver t h e b oundarie s o f

ro le s in a driv e to cre ate su bstitu te s fo r “n atu ra l co m munitie s.” T hese

su bstitu te c o m munitie s, d esc rib ed b y S elz n ic k (1 966), su bvert th e g oals o f

org an iz atio ns a n d d iv ert th eir r e so urc es to w ard s a tis fy in g th e p ers o nal n eed s

of t h eir m em bers .

This i n te rm in glin g o f t w o s e ts o f c o nflic tin g g oals c re ate s t h e m otiv atio n t o

en gag e in politic al activ ity both w ith in an d bey ond th e org an iz atio n. Mem bers o f a n o rg an iz atio n b rin g w ith th em th e o fte n u nartic u la te d g oal o f

se lf -fu lf illm en t th ro ugh so cia l re la tio nsh ip s an d in te ra ctio n, but th e

org an iz atio n i s e sta b lis h ed t o a ch ie v e c erta in s p ecif ic g oals f o r a p ublic o r f o r

th e o w ners o f th e o rg an iz atio n. N eg otia tin g th e te n sio n b etw een th ese g oals

re q uir e s co ntin ual p olitic al tr a n sa ctio ns w ith in an o rg an iz atio n an d am ong

ex te rn al f o rc es.

Furth erm ore , th e o pportu nity to e n gag e in p olitic al b eh av io r is h eig hte n ed

by th e la titu de o f d is c re tio n g ra n te d to p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs (N ach m ia s a n d

Rose n blo om , 1980; R ohr, 1989). T he gro w in g co m ple x ity an d te ch nic al

natu re o f p ro ble m s ad dre sse d b y g overn m en t h av e cre ate d a te n den cy in

le g is la to rs to d ele g ate e n orm ous p ow ers to a d m in is tr a to rs , w ho a re p re su m ed

to hav e sp ecia liz ed know le d ge of partic u la r polic y are as. Thus th e

im ple m en ta tio n o f le g is la tio n b eco m es, in fa ct, an ex erc is e in su bsta n tiv e

polic y m ak in g. B ro ad le g is la tiv e “ sh ells ,” d eb ate d p ublic ly a n d a p pro ved b y

ele cte d o ffic ia ls , a re th en fille d w ith a m ultitu de o f a d m in is tr a tiv e d ecis io ns

th at a re f a r le ss v is ib le a n d f a r m ore d if fic u lt to m onito r. T hese b ure au cra tic

ru le s an d re g ula tio ns b eco m e th e re al su bsta n ce o f p ublic p olic ie s. T hese

cir c u m sta n ces are hig hly co nduciv e to politic al tr a n sa ctio ns (B en ven is te ,

1977; D av is , 1 969; L ie b erm an , 1 973; L ow i, 1 979).

Conse q uen tly it is n ot su rp ris in g to d is c o ver th at stu die s o f ro le o verla p

betw een p olitic ia n s a n d a d m in is tr a to rs i n W este rn d em ocra cie s r e v eal i t t o b e

su bsta n tia l. A berb ach , P utn am , a n d R ock m an ( 1 981) e x am in ed th e e x te n t to

whic h a d m in is tr a tiv e a n d p olitic al o ffic ia ls e n gag e in s im ila r a ctiv itie s. T hey

fo und su bsta n tia l co nverg en ce of th e tw o ro le ty pes, w ith ad m in is tr a to rs

sig nif ic an tly in volv ed in polic y m ak in g an d politic ia n s en gag in g in

ad m in is tr a tiv e m atte rs . T he g re ate st o verla p w as f o und i n t h e U nite d S ta te s.

If th e a d m in is tr a tiv e ro le in p ostm odern s o cie ty is in ev ita b ly p olitic al a n d

heav ily d is c re tio nary in n atu re , sig nif ic an t eth ic al co nsid era tio ns m ust b e

ack now le d ged . F or e x am ple , u sin g th e tw o b ro ad c ate g orie s o f in te rn al a n d

ex te rn al p olitic al tr a n sa ctio ns, w e c an id en tif y th re e ty pes o f e th ic al c o ncern s

asso cia te d w ith e ach : c o rru ptio n, l o ss o f e ffic ie n cy , a n d a b use o f p ow er. I f w e

lo ok at so m e ty pic al ex te rn al p olitic al tr a n sa ctio ns, w e fin d th ese eth ic al

co ncern s m an if e ste d i n t h e f o llo w in g w ay s:

Agen cy– politic a l p arty

. In tr a n sa ctio ns b etw een a p ublic a g en cy a n d a

politic al p arty th e e th ic al c o ncern is u su ally th e p ote n tia l c o rru ptio n o f th e a g en cy 's le g ally m an date d m is sio n. T he p arty m ay u se its in flu en ce

with ag en cy em plo yees to cir c u m ven t esta b lis h ed pro ced ure fo r th e

ben efit o f th e p arty o r c erta in o f its m em bers . T his c o rru pts th e p ublic

in te re st t h at a ll p ublic s e rv an ts a re o blig ate d t o u phold .

Agen cy– agen cy

. W hen t w o p ublic a g en cie s b eco m e i n volv ed i n p olitic al

tr a n sa ctio ns, th e c o ncern is f o r lo ss o f e ffic ie n cy . T his k in d o f s itu atio n

ty pic ally in volv es c o m petitio n fo r re so urc es a n d ju ris d ic tio n— th at is , a

str u ggle f o r p ow er. T he tim e a n d e ffo rt e x pen ded a m ount to a w aste o f

th e citiz en s' m oney as w ell as a bre ach of th eir good fa ith . Poor

ste w ard sh ip o f p ublic re so urc es is u ltim ate ly th e e q uiv ale n t o f s te alin g

fro m t h ose w ho h av e e n tr u ste d t h e a g en cy w ith t h eir p ro perty .

Agen cy– co nstitu tio nal bra nch of govern m en t

. Politic al in te ra ctio n

betw een a n a g en cy a n d m em bers o f t h e e x ecu tiv e, l e g is la tiv e, o r j u dic ia l

bra n ch es o f g overn m en t p ro duces a c o ncern f o r a b use o f p ow er a n d f o r

co rru ptio n. A buse o f p ow er m ay o ccu r w hen m em bers o f t h ese b ra n ch es

atte m pt to u se a n a d m in is tr a tiv e a g en cy fo r th eir o w n a d van ta g e. F or

ex am ple , a p re sid en t w ho t r ie s t o u se t h e p ow ers o f t h e I n te rn al R ev en ue

Serv ic e or th e Fed era l Bure au of In vestig atio n ag ain st politic al

opponen ts is g oin g b ey ond th e a p pro pria te u se o f h is e x ecu tiv e p ow er.

Convers e ly , if an ag en cy b eco m es in volv ed in u sin g its re so urc es in

unusu al w ay s to in flu en ce p ublic o ffic ia ls , th at m ay a ls o b e a m atte r o f

co rru ptio n. W hen , fo r ex am ple , a p la n nin g d ep artm en t co opera te s in

brib in g m em bers o f a c ity c o uncil to g ain fa v ors fo r a d ev elo per, th at

ag en cy 's m ain te n an ce o f t h e p ublic t r u st h as b eco m e c o rru pte d .

Agen cy– in te re st g ro ups

. C orru ptio n is als o th e co ncern w hen in te re st

gro ups b eco m e in volv ed in e ffo rts to in flu en ce a p ublic a g en cy . W hen

la b or unio ns, ch am bers of co m merc e, co m munity im pro vem en t

asso cia tio ns, p ro fe ssio nal a sso cia tio ns, i n dustr ia l a sso cia tio ns, t a x pay ers '

org an iz atio ns, a n d l o bbie s o f v ario us k in ds m ove b ey ond p ers u asio n a n d

beg in t o o ffe r f a v ors , c o rru ptio n i s i m min en t. T he a g en cy m ay f in d i ts e lf

on th e ta k e. Its c h arg e to s e rv e th e p ublic in te re st is th en c o rru pte d b y

th e r e w ard s o f s p ecia l i n te re sts .

When w e tu rn to th e in te rn al p olitic s o f p ublic o rg an iz atio ns, th e p rim ary

co ncern is w ith lo ss o f e ffic ie n cy . W hen in div id ual m em bers o r s u bunits o f

an a g en cy b eg in to c o m pete f o r r e so urc es a n d ju ris d ic tio n o r b uild c o alitio ns with o th ers , th e re so urc es p ro vid ed b y th e c itiz en ry to a cco m plis h a le g ally

esta b lis h ed m is sio n are sip honed off. T he politic al gam esm an sh ip of th e

mem bers o f th e o rg an iz atio n d iv erts tim e, m oney , a n d e ffo rt a w ay fro m th e

pro vis io n o f p ublic g oods a n d s e rv ic es. T he ta x pay ers a re d ep riv ed o f s o m e

portio n o f w hat g overn m en t r ig htf u lly o w es t h em .

The p olitic s o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n, th en , ra is e s s o m e p ote n tia lly s e rio us

co ncern s fo r th e eth ic al p erfo rm an ce o f ad m in is tr a to rs . A s w e all k now ,

politic s is unav oid ab le . G iv en th e dynam ic s of m odern so cie ty an d th e

in te rm in glin g o f p ers o nal an d o rg an iz atio nal g oals th at re su lts fro m th ese

dynam ic s, th e n otio n o f c le arly s e p ara tin g p olitic s f ro m a d m in is tr a tio n is n ot

valid . H ow ev er, it is p ossib le to id en tif y a s p ectr u m o f a d m in is tr a tiv e p olitic s

ra n gin g fro m m in im al to perv asiv e. It als o is possib le to co nceiv e of

ap pro ach es to re d ucin g, o r m in im iz in g, th e c le arly u neth ic al m an if e sta tio ns

of p olitic al c o nduct. ( T hese a re d is c u sse d f u rth er in C hap te rs S ix a n d S ev en .)

The sig nif ic an t questio n is not how to re m ove politic s en tir e ly fro m

ad m in is tr a tio n, but how an d under w hat cir c u m sta n ces to co nstr a in it.

Acco m plis h in g th is ta sk o r, m ore a ccu ra te ly , e n gag in g it re g ula rly re q uir e s

th at m an ag ers th in k n ot in te rm s o f d is c re te d ecis io ns b ut ab out w ay s to

desig n pro cesse s an d str u ctu re s. Polic ie s, pro ced ure s, org an iz atio nal

arra n gem en ts , tr a in in g, a n d sa n ctio ns (b oth p ositiv e a n d n eg ativ e) m ust b e

cra fte d t o e n co ura g e e th ic al c o nduct a n d r e in fo rc e i ts i m porta n ce.

Sep ara tio n o f t h e P ublic A dm in is tr a tiv e a n d C it iz en

Role s

The s e co nd i m pact o f m odern s o cie ty o n p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n i s t h at t h ere i s

a te n den cy to se p ara te th e ro le of public ad m in is tr a to r fro m th e ro le of

citiz en . A ll w ho w ork fo r a g overn m en t b ear a d ual o blig atio n: th ey are

re sp onsib le f o r s e rv in g t h e p ublic a n d t h ey a re m em bers o f t h e p ublic t h ey a re

su ppose d to se rv e. Els e w here I hav e arg ued th at th is dic h oto m y, th e

se p ara tio n o f th e p ublic a n d p riv ate r o le s o f th e p ublic a d m in is tr a to r, is b est

vie w ed o n a p ublic -p riv ate c o ntin uum (C ooper, 1 991). A s o ne m oves m ore

to w ard th e p ublic e n d o f th e c o ntin uum , c iv ic v ir tu e a n d th e c o m mon g ood

beco m e e v en m ore c ritic al, a s d oes th e n eed f o r th e r e sp onsib le a d m in is tr a to r

to e m bra ce t h e r o le o f c itiz en -a d m in is tr a to r. These dual ro le s so m etim es cre ate co nflic tin g oblig atio ns. T he ro le of

em plo yee of a sp ecif ic org an iz atio n, alth ough th eo re tic ally only an

ex pre ssio n o f a la rg er p ublic s e rv an th ood, is f a r m ore p ow erfu l a n d c o ncre te

in i ts s a n ctio ns a n d i n cen tiv es t h an t h at l a rg er r o le . T he r o le o f p ublic s e rv an t

quite e asily b eco m es lim ite d to , a n d d efin ed b y, th e p artic u la r o rg an iz atio n.

When th is o ccu rs , lo yalty to th e o rg an iz atio n m ay b eco m e co nfu se d w ith

duty to u phold th e p ublic in te re st. T his in tu rn o fte n g ets tr a n sla te d in to a n

assu m ptio n t h at c arry in g o ut t h e o rd ers o f s u perio rs i s t a n ta m ount t o f u lf illin g

one's d uty a s a p ublic s e rv an t.

Web er's (1 946) em phasis on fu nctio nal ra tio nality fo r ad m in is tr a to rs , a

re fle ctio n o f m odern iz atio n, e n co ura g es th e b if u rc atio n o f th ese tw o c ritic al

ro le s. W e t h in k s u bsta n tiv ely a b out t h e g oals a n d e n ds o f g overn m en t o nly i n

th e p riv ate s p here o f c itiz en sh ip . I n t h e r o le o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to r, h ow ev er,

we a re e n co ura g ed to th in k o nly o f th e b est m ean s to a cco m plis h th e g oals

pre d ete rm in ed by su perio rs or ele cte d offic ia ls . T he dic h oto m iz atio n of

citiz en a n d a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le s is s e ld om c o m ple te ; h ow ev er, th e p re ssu re to

move in th is d ir e ctio n is s tr o ng in m odern s o cie ty , a n d th e o utc o m e a m ounts

to a n u nknow n n um ber o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs w ho h av e g iv en u p so m e

measu re o f t h eir c itiz en sh ip a t t h e w ork pla ce.

Only b y d ev is in g w ay s o f e n co ura g in g p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs to m ain ta in a

lin kag e b etw een th ese tw o r o le s c an w e s u sta in a b ro ad er v ie w o f th e r o le o f

public se rv an t th an sim ply lo yalty to a govern m en ta l org an iz atio n. T he

te n sio n pro vid ed by th e citiz en sh ip ro le str e tc h es th e boundarie s of th e

ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le to in clu de th e hie ra rc h y of la w an d th e dem ocra tic

tr a d itio n. T his re d efin es th e public ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le in a w ay th at is

ap pro pria te f o r a n in cre asin gly d em an din g c itiz en ry in p ostm odern s o cie ty . I t

positio ns th e ad m in is tr a to r to en gag e citiz en s in th e pro cess of so cia lly

co nstr u ctin g a p olitic al o rd er ra th er th an se ek in g to im pose a u th orita tiv ely

ex pert so lu tio ns. (In m y earlie r w ork , I hav e arg ued th at th e public

ad m in is tr a to r sh ould a ct a s a fid ucia ry a d m in is tr a to r. F or a m ore c o m ple te

dis c u ssio n of th e fid ucia ry ad m in is tr a to r, se e C ooper, 1991, partic u la rly

Chap te r F iv e.)

The e th ic al s ig nif ic an ce o f th ese d ual ro le c h ara cte ris tic s s h ould b e c le ar.

One o f th e re aso ns civ il se rv ic e p ositio ns are g en era lly av aila b le o nly to

citiz en s is th e assu m ptio n th at th ey w ill carry in to p ublic o rg an iz atio ns a prim ary lo yalty to th e p eo ple . T his lo yalty , w hic h s h ould p re ced e lo yaltie s to

an y partic u la r ag en cy or govern m en t offic ia l, will en han ce th e

tr u stw orth in ess o f th eir se rv ic e (S ta h l, 1 976). B ecau se p ublic se rv ic e is a

fid ucia ry r o le , a n yone w ho a ccep ts s u ch e m plo ym en t is u ltim ate ly b ound b y

an oblig atio n to th e public of th at ju ris d ic tio n. This bond of tr u st is

main ta in ed o nly if o ne a cts w ith in a p ublic o rg an iz atio n a s a c itiz en w ith

certa in a d ded re sp onsib ilitie s— as a c itiz en , fir s t, a n d a s o ne c itiz en a m ong

oth ers w ho a g re es to d o w ork o n b eh alf o f a ll, s e co nd. P au l A pple b y ( 1 965)

has ch ara cte riz ed th e occu pan ts of th is dual ro le as “th e esp ecia lly

re sp onsib le c itiz en s w ho a re o ffic ia ls ” ( p . 3 35).

This is p artic u la rly c ritic al fo r th ose w ho a ssu m e a d m in is tr a tiv e ro le s, fo r

th ey ta k e o n th em se lv es e v en g re ate r fid ucia ry re sp onsib ilitie s. T hey a g re e

not only to perfo rm w ork on beh alf of th e peo ple of a govern m en ta l

ju ris d ic tio n but als o to assis t in str u ctu rin g, co ord in atin g, su pportin g,

su perv is in g, a n d e v alu atin g th e w ork o f o th ers w ho h av e c h ose n to s e rv e th e

co lle ctiv e w eal. I n t h e w ord s o f M ic h ael W alz er ( 1 970), “ T hey a re c itiz en s i n

lie u o f th e re st o f u s; th e c o m mon g ood is , s o to s p eak , th eir s p ecia lty ” (p .

216). T hey b ear r e sp onsib ility n ot o nly f o r th eir o w n u se o f p ublic r e so urc es

but a ls o fo r a ch ie v in g th e m ost e ffic ie n t a n d e ffe ctiv e e x pen ditu re o f th ose

re so urc es b y o th ers .

This c o m pound fid ucia ry re sp onsib ility o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs su ggests

th at w hen ev er an em plo yin g o rg an iz atio n is fo und to b e carry in g o ut its

mis sio n in a fa sh io n n ot in th e b est in te re sts o f th e citiz en ry , all p ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs , a n d in deed a ll p ublic e m plo yees, s h ould fe el d uty b ound to

ta k e a ctio n o n b eh alf o f t h eir f e llo w c itiz en s. T he f a ilu re t o d o s o r e p re se n ts a

bre ach o f tr u st a n d a d en ia l o f th e re sp onsib ilitie s o f c itiz en sh ip . T his is a n

eth ic al c o ncern o f t h e m ost f u ndam en ta l s o rt.

The re sp onsib ility asso cia te d w ith th e ro le of th e citiz en is ad m itte d ly

pro ble m atic . F or m ost of us, th ere is no fo rm al sta te m en t of w hat th at

re sp onsib ility e n ta ils , a s o nly n atu ra liz ed c itiz en s a re r e q uir e d to ta k e a n o ath

to u phold th e U .S . C onstitu tio n. H ow ev er, it s e em s re aso nab le to a rg ue th at

what is re q uir e d fo r th ose s e ek in g c itiz en sh ip is im plie d fo r th ose w ho a re

citiz en s b y b ir th .

Anoth er k in d o f p ro ble m is r a is e d b y W alz er ( 1 970), w ho s u ggeste d in th e

mid -tw en tie th c en tu ry th at s o m e p eo ple s e rio usly q uestio n th e m ora l p rio rity of c itiz en sh ip b ecau se o f th e a lie n atio n a n d p ow erle ssn ess th at m an y f e el. H e

arg ued t h at “ th ey e x perie n ce a k in d o f m ora l u neasin ess; t h eir c itiz en sh ip i s a

so urc e o f a n xie ty a s w ell a s o f s e cu rity a n d p rid e” ( p . 2 04).

Nev erth ele ss, W alz er an d oth er citiz en sh ip th eo ris ts hav e asse rte d th e

im porta n ce o f th e c o ncep t a n d th e fu nctio ns it s u ggests . D en nis T hom pso n

(1 970) arg ues th at n orm ativ e citiz en sh ip th eo ry fu nctio ns as an id eal an d

pic tu re s a d esir a b le s ta te o f a ffa ir s th at is n ot y et re aliz ed . W e m ig ht a rg ue

th at re h ab ilita tio n an d en han cem en t o f th e m ean in g o f citiz en sh ip are o f

cru cia l im porta n ce in th e m odern dem ocra tic ad m in is tr a tiv e sta te . If

dem ocra tic c itiz en sh ip c o ntin ues to w an e in m ean in g a n d d im in is h in r e ality ,

dem ocra tic a d m in is tr a tio n w ould s e em t o b e i m possib le . T he r e sp onsib ility o f

th e public ad m in is tr a to r m ust be gro unded in an unders ta n din g of th e

re sp onsib ility o f t h e c itiz en .

As w ell, in to day 's tr a n sn atio nal w orld th e m ean in g an d sig nif ic an ce o f

natio nal c itiz en sh ip m ay b e le ss m ean in gfu l a n d u se fu l th an it o nce w as a s a

dis tin ctio n th ro ugh w hic h w e c ate g oriz e o ur p ublic o blig atio ns (C ooper a n d

Yoder, 1 999). A s th e b oundarie s o f th e n atio n-s ta te a re in cre asin gly b lu rre d

an d th e n atio ns a ro und th e w orld b eco m e in cre asin gly in te rd ep en den t, th e

ta sk o f re d efin in g c itiz en sh ip a n d e v en o f c o nsid erin g

den iz e n sh ip

m ay b e

necessa ry .

Alth ough not all th e citiz en sh ip lite ra tu re pro je cts th e sa m e id eal, tw o

th re ad s s e em to r u n th ro ugh th ose th eo rie s th at a re d em ocra tic in o rie n ta tio n.

One o f th ese is , o f co urs e , p artic ip atio n o f so m e k in d in th e m ak in g o f

politic al d ecis io ns. T he o th er, w hic h is m ore d ir e ctly re le v an t h ere , is an

oblig atio n to co nsid er th e opin io ns an d w is h es of oth er m em bers of th e

citiz en ry a lo ng w ith o ne's o w n. I n P ra n ger's w ord s ( 1 968), “ In cu m ben t u pon

th e good m em ber, th e vir tu ous citiz en , is th e ab ility to m ak e politic al

decis io ns w hic h a t o nce p ro te ct h is o w n in te g rity a n d ta k e c o gniz an ce o f th e

in te g rity o f o th ers ” (p . 1 02). S im ila rly , W alz er (1 970) m ain ta in s th at u nle ss

citiz en s h av e “ a s e n se o f th e w hole o ver a n d a b ove th eir s e n se o f th em se lv es

as p artic u la r p ers o ns,” th ey w ill h av e little in te re st in p artic ip atin g in p olitic s.

He c o nclu des th at “ it is u pon s o m e s u ch s e n se o f th e w hole th at th e id eal o f

citiz en sh ip r e sts ” ( p . 2 15).

Does th is p rim ary o blig atio n to th e citiz en sh ip ro le su ggest th at p ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs sh ould ru n to th e p re ss, a n e le cte d o ffic ia l, o r a p ro se cu to r ev ery tim e s o m eth in g o ccu rs th at is n ot to ta lly c o nsis te n t w ith th e le g is la tiv e

man date fo r th eir o rg an iz atio n? C erta in ly n ot! It is im porta n t to a sse ss th e

se rio usn ess o f a s itu atio n, c o nsid er th e f u ll r a n ge o f v alu es a t s ta k e, a n d th en

act in p ro portio n to th ese c ir c u m sta n ces. T here is n oth in g to b e g ain ed a n d

much t o b e l o st b y o verre actin g t o a p erc eiv ed p ro ble m . A p re ss c o nfe re n ce i s

hard ly w arra n te d t h e f ir s t t im e t h e b oss a sk s y ou t o h ir e a f rie n d w ho d oes n ot

ra n k a s h ig hly a s o th er c an did ate s fo r a p ositio n. A ta lk w ith th e b oss to

ex pre ss y our d is a p pro val o f th e re q uest m ig ht b e m ore a p pro pria te . G eo rg e

Gra h am (1 974) p ro pose s a s e rie s o f s te p s th at a re g en era lly c o nsis te n t w ith

th is “ p ro portio nal” a p pro ach . H is p re sc rip tio ns a re f o unded o n th e c o ncep t o f

due p ro cess, w hic h re q uir e s “ all a d m in is tr a to rs in e x erc is in g th e p ow er a n d

dis c re tio nary a u th ority w ith w hic h th ey a re e n tr u ste d to b e in fo rm ed , to b e

fa ir , t o b e r a tio nal, a n d t o b e r e aso nab le ” ( p . 9 ).

Main ta in in g a citiz en sh ip ro le w hile se rv in g as an ad m in is tr a to r o f th e

public 's b usin ess re q uir e s a h ealth y se n se o f critic al p ers p ectiv e ab out an

ag en cy 's c o nduct, b ut it d oes n ot n ecessita te d is p ro portio nate re sp onse s to

mis d eed s th at m ay do m ore harm to th e org an iz atio n th an good. T he

org an iz atio n its e lf is a p ie ce o f th e p ublic 's p ro perty . A tte n tio n to th e d ouble

oblig atio ns o f b ein g a c itiz en -a d m in is tr a to r im plie s th e c are fu l a d ju stm en t,

re p air , or on occasio n m ajo r overh au l of th e public 's m ach in ery . M ora l

im ag in atio n is th e re q uis ite sk ill an d eth ic al au to nom y is th e quality of

ch ara cte r n ecessa ry f o r s u ch s te w ard sh ip .

The n orm ativ e b asis fo r v ie w in g th e a d m in is tr a to r in th is w ay is fo und in

our h is to ric al tr a d itio n o f eth ic al citiz en sh ip . T his tr a d itio n is n ot sim ply

re ceiv ed a s a g iv en fro m th e p ast b ut ra th er is a so cia l c o nstr u ct th at w e

ours e lv es h av e c o nsc io usly c re ate d o ver tim e th ro ugh d elib era tio n a n d th e

weav in g to geth er o f se v era l str a n ds o f p olitic al th ought: A nti- F ed era lis m ,

Je ffe rs o nia n is m , th e Colo nia l Purita n s' dem ocra tic id eas, an d an

unders ta n din g o f th e im porta n ce o f v olu nta ry asso cia tio ns. T his h is to ric al

so cia l c o nstr u ct s e rv es t h e f u nctio n o f a f o undatio nal s o urc e i n t h e a b se n ce o f

a u niv ers a l o ne. (S ee C ooper, 1 991, fo r an ela b ora tio n o f th is n orm ativ e

arg um en t.)

Man agers o f D iv ersit y

The t h ir d i m plic atio n o f t h e p ostm odern e ra i s t h at p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs m ust be m an ag ers o f d iv ers e in te re sts . I n th e a b se n ce o f a n y u nita ry v alu e s y ste m

with ab so lu te au th ority in p ostm odern so cie ty , b oth th e p olitic al an d th e

ad m in is tr a tiv e pro cesse s of govern m en t beco m e th e fo cu s of div ers e

in te re sts . A s c itiz en s a tte m pt to c o nstr u ct so cia lly a se t o f in stitu tio ns a n d

polic ie s to se rv e th e fu nctio ns once pro vid ed by re ceiv ed tr a d itio n an d

su bse q uen tly b y th e s c ie n tif ic p ers p ectiv e a d van ced b y m odern p ro gre ssiv e

re fo rm ers , a d m in is tr a to rs f in d t h em se lv es b esie g ed b y t h is a sse rtiv e c itiz en ry .

The a d m in is tr a tiv e a rm o f g overn m en t b eco m es sig nif ic an tly in volv ed in

man ag in g c itiz en s' d iv ers e in te re sts b ecau se , e v en w ith th e c o m ple x p olitic al

re p re se n ta tio n p ro vid ed b y th e fe d era l g overn m en t, p eo ple still d o n ot fe el

th at th eir p re fe re n ces, n eed s, a n d p ro ble m s a re c are d fo r a d eq uate ly . T hey

te n d to o rg an iz e in v olu nta ry a sso cia tio ns, w hic h a sse rt th eir o w n p ro posa ls

an d dem an ds at ev ery poin t in th e polic y m ak in g pro cess, fro m ele cto ra l

politic s to th e le g is la tiv e p ro cess to th e s ta g e in w hic h la w s a re im ple m en te d .

Ken neth M eie r (1 979) p oin ts o ut th at m ost o f th ese g ro ups h av e lo ng s in ce

le arn ed th at ad m in is tr a tiv e ag en cie s are k ey le v era g e p oin ts b ecau se m ost

le g is la tiv e p ro posa ls o rig in ate t h ere a n d t h e r e su ltin g l a w s a re t h en s h ap ed b y

th ese ag en cie s in sig nif ic an t w ay s d urin g im ple m en ta tio n (s e e als o L ow i,

1979).

In te re st gro up th eo ris ts su ch as B en tle y (1 949), C alh oun (1 953), an d

Tru m an ( 1 951) h av e a rg ued th at th ese c itiz en o rg an iz atio ns a re e sse n tia l f o r

dem ocra tic re p re se n ta tio n in th e m odern sta te . T he fo rm al m ach in ery of

govern m en t co uld not possib ly be desig ned to re p re se n t th e ch an gin g

sp ectr u m o f in te re sts in a p lu ra lis tic m ass s o cie ty lik e th e U nite d S ta te s w ith

su ffic ie n t p artic u la rity . It is fa r m ore e ffic ie n t a n d e ffe ctiv e to a llo w th ese

gro ups to fo rm th em se lv es an d pro je ct th eir ow n dem an ds in to th e

govern m en ta l p ro cess ( O rn ste in a n d E ld er, 1 978).

How ev er, Pare n ti (1 970) has id en tif ie d a se rio us pro ble m w ith th is

th eo re tic al pers p ectiv e. It assu m es th at all sig nif ic an t in te re sts can be

re p re se n te d in th is fa sh io n. In h is c ase stu dy o f e ffo rts to o rg an iz e a lo w -

in co m e c o m munity in N ew J e rs e y , P are n ti c o nclu des th at o nly th ose w ith th e

necessa ry eco nom ic re so urc es can m ak e th em se lv es heard effe ctiv ely by

govern m en t th ro ugh in te re st g ro up a ctiv ity . T he im ped im en ts th at c itiz en s

must su rm ount in ord er to in flu en ce public decis io n m ak in g hav e been

co ncep tu aliz ed as

partic ip atio n co sts

by a num ber of sc h ola rs , in clu din g Buch an an an d T ullo ck (1 962), W arre n an d W esc h le r (1 975), an d m yse lf

(C ooper, 1 979).

The gre ate st le v era g e fo r re d ucin g or su bsid iz in g th ese co sts lie s w ith

public ad m in is tr a to rs . A dm in is tr a to rs hav e gre at pote n tia l fo r in flu en cin g

polic y d ev elo pm en ts th at a ffe ct s e rv ic es, a n d o fte n c o nsid era b le d is c re tio n in

th e actu al deliv ery of se rv ic es. A dm in is tr a tiv e in itia tiv e in m an ag in g th e

plu ra l in te re sts of m odern so cie ty is esse n tia l fo r effe ctiv e govern m en t.

Adm in is tr a to rs c an p ro vid e a lin k b etw een c itiz en s a n d e le cte d o ffic ia ls th at

is v ita l fo r th e n atio nal, sta te , co unty , an d ev en city g overn m en ts w hose

popula tio ns h av e e x pan ded s u bsta n tia lly d urin g t h e p ast f if ty y ears .

How ev er, th e te n den cy of public ad m in is tr a tio n durin g th e fir s t th re e-

quarte rs o f th e tw en tie th c en tu ry w as to p la ce a h ig h v alu e o n s ta n dard iz ed

se rv ic es a n d to r e sp ond to th e p lu ra liz atio n o f s o cie ty w ith r e lu cta n ce ( C aro ,

1975). F ro m W eb er to W ils o n to G oodnow to W hite to U rw ic k a n d G ulic k

(1 957), w e fin d a ra th er c o nsis te n t d ev elo pm en t o f th e n otio n th at th e c h ie f

ta sk o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs is to im ple m en t p olic y e ffic ie n tly b y a p ply in g

gen eric sc ie n tif ic p rin cip le s. T his p ers p ectiv e e sc h ew ed n otio ns th at so cia l

an d c u ltu ra l v aria tio n m ig ht s ig nif ic an tly a ffe ct a d m in is tr a tiv e p rin cip le s. A

gen eric ap pro ach to ad m in is tr a tio n, co m bin ed with an em phasis on

effic ie n cy , gav e ris e to a te n den cy to sta n dard iz e public se rv ic es.

Cen tr a liz atio n, of co urs e , has been one of th e lo gic al co nco m ita n ts of

sta n dard iz atio n, p artic u la rly d urin g th e N ew D eal, W orld W ar II, an d th e

postw ar y ears .

Anoth er fa cto r c o ntr ib utin g to th e te n den cy to s ta n dard iz e s e rv ic es is th e

bure au cra tic assu m ptio n th at eq uality is th e eq uiv ale n t o f eq uity (C ooper,

1979)— th at if e v ery one is tr e ate d th e sa m e, th en e v ery one w ill b e tr e ate d

fa ir ly . T his assu m ptio n ap pears to hav e gain ed dom in an ce th ro ugh th e

Am eric an P ro gre ssiv e m ovem en t o f th e la te n in ete en th a n d e arly tw en tie th

cen tu rie s. R eactin g ag ain st th e sp ecia l fa v ors , p atr o nag e, an d n ep otis m o f

co rru pt m ach in e g overn m en ts , th e P ro gre ssiv es c alle d f o r e q ual tr e atm en t o f

all c itiz en s a n d g overn m en t e m plo yees. “ W ith out f e ar o r f a v or” w as th e w ay

public ad m in is tr a to rs w ere to p erfo rm th eir d utie s. G ood g overn m en t w as

unders to od a s s ta n dard iz ed g overn m en t, w hic h w ould in tu rn y ie ld e ffic ie n t

govern m en t.

The g oal o f th e r a tio nal m an ag em en t o f s o cie ty h as im plie d th at u nif o rm ity an d o rd er a re re q uis ite s fo r e ffic ie n cy . H ow ev er, in a d iv ers e so cie ty w ith

min im al sh are d assu m ptio ns ab out valu es an d lif e sty le s, th is kin d of

ra tio nality n o lo nger w ork s fo r m an y a d m in is tr a tiv e fu nctio ns. H ugh M ille r

(2 002) n ote s th at in a p ostm odern v ie w o f th e w orld , th e v ery n otio n o f

ra tio nality is m ore lim ite d th an it w as in th e m odern v ie w . M ille r a sse rts th at

“o ur a tte m pts t o b e e v er m ore r a tio nal s e em t o g et i n o ur o w n w ay . R ule s p ile

up o n r u le s… . R ule s a re in te n ded to b e n eu tr a l, p erh ap s, b ut th ey f a v or s o m e

in div id ual o r g ro up i n s p ite o f t h e b est i n te n tio ns… . C ontin ued a tte m pts t o b e

a m ore ra tio nal so cie ty b rin g a b out ra tio nality 's o w n c o rro sio n” (p p. x –xi) .

What se em s to be re q uir e d is a new unders ta n din g of ad m in is tr a tiv e

ra tio nality th at is r o ote d m ore in n otio ns o f d iv ers ity , c o m ple x ity , tu rb ule n ce,

an d d is o rd er a n d a ls o i n t h e i d ea t h at r a tio nality i s n ot s tr ic tly l in ear.

We a re n ow r e aliz in g th at th e o ld a p pro ach is u nw ork ab le a n d im pra ctic al.

A m ore s y ste m ic v ie w o f th e re la tio nsh ip b etw een p ublic a g en cie s a n d th e

citiz en ry is re q uir e d . If th e ad m in is tr a tiv e ag en cie s o f g overn m en t are to

re m ain e ffe ctiv e a n d v ia b le , th ey m ust v ie w th em se lv es a s o pen s y ste m s in

tu rb ule n t e n vir o nm en ts . T he c itiz en ry , th e m ost im porta n t c o m ponen t o f th e

en vir o nm en t, m ust n ot b e ig nore d o r e v en y ie ld ed to re lu cta n tly u nder th e

pre ssu re of in te re st gro ups. R ath er, th ose w ho dir e ct an d m an ag e th ese

sy ste m s m ust act w ith in itia tiv e to be certa in th at in put fro m th e so cia l

en vir o nm en t is b ein g s o ught a n d e n co ura g ed a n d th at p artic ip atio n c o sts a re

re d uced o r s u bsid iz ed a s m uch a s p ossib le .

This k in d o f d ynam ic i n te ra ctio n w ith t h e s o cia l e n vir o nm en t m ay t r a d e o ff

so m e m easu re o f p ro ductio n e ffic ie n cy f o r a v arie d a rra y o f s e rv ic e t y pes a n d

deliv ery m odes. It m ay e v en le ad to th e d ev olu tio n o f s e rv ic e p ro vis io n o r

deliv ery t o l o w er l e v els o f s c ale , s u ch a s n eig hborh oods. ( S ee B erry , P ortn ey ,

an d T hom pso n, 1 991, fo r re se arc h o n n eig hborh ood g overn an ce.) A ll th is

may lo ok le ss o rd erly a n d th ere fo re le ss e ffic ie n t in th e sh ort ru n b ut m ay

re p re se n t a m ore effe ctiv e ad ap ta tio n to th e plu ra lis tic en vir o nm en t of

modern s o cie ty . I t m ay b e a m atte r o f g iv in g u p a lim ite d k in d o f e ffic ie n cy ,

whic h su boptim iz es th e p ro ductio n a t th e le v el o f sin gle a g en cie s, fo r th e

sa k e o f th e b ro ad er e ffic ie n cy o f th e e n tir e d em ocra tic g overn m en ta l s y ste m

(B en nis , 1 966).

The e th ic al c o ncern r e la te d t o t h is t h ir d p ro positio n i s f o r s o cia l e q uity . T he

assu m ptio n t h at e q ual t r e atm en t i s f a ir t r e atm en t n eed s t o b e r e ex am in ed . I f i n fa ct m em bers o f a p opula tio n a re n ot th e s a m e a n d a re q uite v arie d in th eir

ta ste s, n eed s, p re fe re n ces, an d b ack gro unds, th en tr e atin g th em as th ough

th ey w ere t h e s a m e i s n ot f a ir .

In eq uity h as o fte n b een in stitu tio naliz ed in th e p ra ctic es o f p ublic a g en cie s

under th e b an ner o f sta n dard iz atio n. T his is b ecau se th e sta n dard s a d opte d

hav e te n ded to b e th e k ey a ttr ib ute s o f o ne p opula tio n g ro up— ofte n th ose o f

th e m ajo rity . C onse q uen tly , s o -c alle d s ta n dard iz ed c iv il s e rv ic e e x am s h av e

ofte n a ssu m ed th e a ttr ib ute s o f w hite , A nglo -S ax on, P ro te sta n t m ale s a s th e

norm s. P ublic e d ucatio n h as b een b uilt a ro und c u rric u la r a ssu m ptio ns th at

fa v or th e offs p rin g of m id dle -c la ss, Englis h -s p eak in g nucle ar fa m ilie s.

Housin g c o des h av e b een sta n dard iz ed a ro und id eal, n ew ly b uilt str u ctu re s

an d co nta in a bia s ag ain st th e vary in g co nditio ns an d need s of old er

neig hborh oods.

Ach ie v in g s o cia l e q uity r e q uir e s a r e sp onse f ro m p ublic a g en cie s t h at s e ek s

to a p pro xim ate t h e n eed s, p re fe re n ces, a n d d em an ds o f t h e c itiz en ry . B ecau se

ev ery one i s n ot t h e s a m e i n t h ese r e sp ects , p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs n eed a s e t o f

te ch niq ues fo r g en era tin g c itiz en in put in to o rg an iz atio nal d ecis io n m ak in g,

an d th e s k ills to u se th ese te ch niq ues a n d to m ain ta in a n a ccu ra te a sse ssm en t

of t h e s o cia l e n vir o nm en t. T his k in d o f i n te llig en ce w ould m ak e i t p ossib le t o

co nsid er a n a rra y o f s e rv ic es a n d m ean s o f s e rv ic e d eliv ery c o ngru en t w ith a n

org an iz atio n's c o nstitu en t g ro ups.

This i s n ot s im ply a p ra g m atic a tte m pt t o a ch ie v e g re ate r c lie n t s a tis fa ctio n.

Alth ough it is c o ncern ed w ith p ro vid in g p ublic s e rv ic es in a m ore s a tis fy in g

fa sh io n, it is m ore fu ndam en ta lly a m atte r of eq uita b le tr e atm en t of all

citiz en s. F urth erm ore , fro m o ne p ers p ectiv e, in a m odern in dustr ia l so cie ty

th e fu ll re aliz atio n of citiz en sh ip in volv es th e ab ility to co nsu m e public

se rv ic es. A cco rd in g to W arre n a n d W esc h le r (1 975), c itiz en sh ip in su ch a

so cie ty r e q uir e s m ore t h an t h e l e g al c o nstitu tio nal r ig hts n orm ally a ssu m ed t o

be th e p riv ile g es o f c itiz en sh ip . T hey a rg ue th at p eo ple a re d ep riv ed o f th eir

fu ll c itiz en sh ip if s e rv ic es a re p ro vid ed in s u ch a w ay th at th ey a re to o c o stly

to c o nsu m e.

Warre n a n d W esc h le r (1 975) d efin e

co nsu m ptio n c o sts

as in cre m en ts o f

tim e, e ffo rt, a n d m oney th at m ust b e a d ded b y a c itiz en -c o nsu m er to a p ublic

good o r s e rv ic e t o m ak e i t c o nsu m ab le . I f o ne h as t o w alk o r d riv e t h re e m ile s

to r e ach th e n eare st b us s to p, th ose tr a v el c o sts m ust b e a d ded to th e f a re to asc erta in th e tr u e co st o f u sin g th at b us se rv ic e. T hus w hen se rv ic es are

sta n dard iz ed , th e co sts of co nsu m in g public se rv ic es w ill be dis tr ib ute d

dis p ro portio nate ly to re so urc es. J u stic e in th e d is tr ib utio n o f p ublic s e rv ic es

will n ot b e a ch ie v ed o r e v en a p pro xim ate d .

A p ara lle l e th ic al c o ncern h as t o d o w ith t h e d is tr ib utio n o f t h e p artic ip atio n

co sts . It h as b een a rg ued th at if p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re to d ev elo p m ore

accu ra te a sse ssm en ts o f c itiz en s' n eed s, p re fe re n ces, a n d d em an ds, th e a ctiv e

purs u it o f c itiz en in put is n ecessa ry . T o a ch ie v e th at g oal, p artic ip atio n c o sts

must b e lo w en ough to allo w th e fu ll p opula tio n sp ectr u m to p artic ip ate .

Again , th is is n ot o nly a m atte r o f p ra ctic al n ecessity b ut als o an eth ic al

co nsid era tio n. C itiz en s s h ould n ot b e d ep riv ed o f th e rig ht to p artic ip ate in

public d ecis io n m ak in g b ecau se it re q uir e s a g re ate r ex pen ditu re o f tim e,

effo rt, a n d m oney th an th ey c an a ffo rd o r th an th e a n tic ip ate d b en efits s e em

to w arra n t.

Public a d m in is tr a to rs in m odern s o cie ty n eed to b e e ffe ctiv e m an ag ers o f

div ers e in te re sts . A s b oth O str o m (1 974) a n d W ald o (1 965) h av e a rg ued , if

dem ocra tic ad m in is tr a tio n is to ta k e pla ce, public ad m in is tr a to rs m ust

ab an don t h eir a lm ost e x clu siv e p re o ccu patio n w ith t h e c o sts o f p ro vid in g a n d

pro ducin g p ublic g oods a n d s e rv ic es a n d b eg in to b ala n ce th ese c o sts a g ain st

th e c o sts th at m ust b e b orn e b y c itiz en s. W ald o s ta te s th e c ase th us: “ It h as

lo ng se em ed to m e th at our ap pro ach to ad m in is tr a tio n is fa r to o m uch

‘p ro ducer o rie n te d ,’ f a r to o little ‘ c o nsu m er o rie n te d .’ … But if w e v alu e n ot

only e ffic ie n cy a n d p ro ductiv ity , b ut a ls o se ek to in cre ase h um an e q uality

an d t h e v alu es o f p artic ip atio n, d o w e g iv e t h ese th e a tte n tio n th ey d ese rv e i n

an d r e la tin g t o t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro cess? ” ( p . 4 5).

Polit ic a l T heo ry a n d A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

Sin ce th e f ir s t e d itio n o f th is b o ok w as p ublis h ed , it h as b eco m e in cre asin gly

cle ar th at an ad eq uate n orm ativ e th eo ry o f th e p ublic ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le ,

in clu din g a n orm ativ e e th ic al t h eo ry , m ust b e d ev elo ped w ith in t h e c o nte x t o f

a la rg er p olitic al th eo ry o f p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n. S uch a th eo ry lie s b ey ond

th e s c o pe o f th is b ook, b ut it s e em s a p pro pria te to in dic ate a t th is p oin t s o m e

of t h e e th ic al i s su es t h at w ill n eed t o b e d ealt w ith i n s u ch a t h eo ry .

The d iv ers ity o f m odern s o cie ty , t h e t e n den cy t o s e p ara te t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e ro le fro m th e citiz en sh ip ro le , an d th e dem is e of th e m odern notio n of

se p ara tin g p olitic s an d ad m in is tr a tio n, w ith its en su in g re co gnitio n o f th e

unav oid ab ility of ad m in is tr a tiv e dis c re tio n— all th ese fo rc es pose so m e

se rio us p ro ble m s fo r a d efin itio n o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e ro le . It is n ow c le ar

th at public ad m in is tr a to rs m ak e politic al ju dgm en ts th at ra n ge fro m th e

tim in g of polic y pro posa ls to budget str a te g ie s to ex te n siv e ru le s an d

re g ula tio ns p urs u an t to la w s th at le g is la to rs in te n tio nally m ad e v ag ue. P ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs ex erc is e dis c re tio n, an d th ey do so politic ally w ith both

le g is la to rs a n d c lie n te le g ro ups. A dm in is tr a to rs s e em to b e f ir m ly e n sc o nced

with in t h e p olic y “ ir o n t r ia n gle ” a s k ey p artic ip an ts i n t h e p olitic al p ro cess o f

public p olic y f o rm atio n a n d a d optio n ( s e e S m ith , 1 988, f o r e x am ple s o f t h is ).

How ev er, ev en th ough w e ack now le d ge th is fa ct an d fin d no dearth of

desc rip tiv e a n aly se s o f th e d ynam ic s in volv ed , w e h av e n oth in g a p pro ach in g

an a d eq uate p re sc rip tiv e p olitic al th eo ry o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le th at w ould

defin e t h e o blig atio ns o f t h e a d m in is tr a to r i n t h e p olitic s o f t h e p olic y p ro cess

(F le is h m an , L ie b m an , a n d M oore , 1 981).

Fro m th is la ck o f n orm ativ e cla rity , eth ic al is su es em erg e aro und th re e

re la te d asp ects of th e dem ocra tic public polic y pro cess: re p re se n ta tio n,

ed ucatio n, a n d i m ple m en ta tio n.

Rep rese n ta tio n

In m odern dem ocra cie s it is assu m ed th at th e peo ple m ain ta in politic al

so vere ig nty b ut th at th eir in te re sts , d em an ds, a n d p re fe re n ces a re r e fle cte d in

th e p ublic p olic ie s th at a re a d opte d . T his h as b een u nders to od a s o ccu rrin g

th ro ugh th e pro cess of re p re se n ta tio n, w hic h until re cen t years has been

assig ned e n tir e ly to th e p olitic al ro le . H ow ev er, if w e h av e n ow d is c o vere d

th at ad m in is tr a to rs als o act in politic ally sig nif ic an t w ay s in th e polic y

pro cess, th en it is u ncle ar w heth er in s o d oin g th ey a ls o in cu r o blig atio ns f o r

re p re se n ta tio n. It se em s pla u sib le to arg ue th at in a dem ocra tic polity ,

re p re se n ta tio n o f p opula r p re fe re n ces, d em an ds, a n d in te re sts m ust o pera te in

so m e fa sh io n w hen ev er s u bsta n tiv e p olic y d ecis io ns a re b ein g m ad e. If th is

pro positio n is v alid , p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs b ear a n o blig atio n to r e p re se n t th e

citiz en ry w hen ev er th ey are in flu en cin g or dete rm in in g th e su bsta n tiv e

co nte n t o f p olic ie s ( C han dle r, 1 984).

Should w e a ccep t th e re p re se n ta tiv e o blig atio ns o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs , th ere a re o nly m ore q uestio ns to b e a n sw ere d . W e m ust th en a sk to w hat

ex te n t an d in w hat w ay s ad m in is tr a to rs are so o blig ate d . H ow m ust th eir

ex erc is e o f d is c re tio n b e i n fo rm ed b y t h e p eo ple ? I s s o m e k in d o f r e g ula r a n d

sy ste m atic acco untin g to th e public re q uir e d , an alo gous to th e ele cto ra l

pro cess, o r is a cco unta b ility m ain ta in ed th ro ugh e le cte d o ffic ia ls ? In o th er

word s, s h ould a d m in is tr a tiv e r e p re se n ta tio n i n volv e a d ir e ct r e la tio nsh ip w ith

th e p eo ple o r o ne t h at i s i n dir e ct? I f i t i s d ir e ct, s y ste m atic a n d r e g ula r c itiz en

partic ip atio n se em s an esse n tia l fu nctio n fo r th e ad m in is tr a to r. If in dir e ct,

th en e le cte d o ffic ia ls a n d a d m in is tr a to rs b ear re sp onsib ility fo r d is c o verin g

way s o f a ck now le d gin g a n d c arry in g o ut a s h are d o blig atio n.

Furth erm ore , if public ad m in is tr a to rs are oblig ate d to re p re se n t th e

citiz en ry in so m e fa sh io n, th e cla ssic d eb ate o ver

tr u ste e

v ers u s

dele g ate

defin itio ns o f re p re se n ta tio nal o blig atio n m ust b e a d dre sse d o nce m ore , th is

tim e in th e a d m in is tr a tiv e c o nte x t. A re p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs tr u ste es o f s u ch

norm ativ e g oals a s t h e p ublic i n te re st, s o cia l e q uity , o r r e g im e v alu es? S hould

it b e th eir re sp onsib ility to a d vocate s u ch v alu es a n d p rin cip le s, e v en if th e

peo ple d o n ot c le arly s u pport t h em ?

Or a re a d m in is tr a to rs m ore lik e d ele g ate s o f th e p eo ple , w hose p rim ary

co ncern s h ould b e d is c ern in g p ublic p re fe re n ces a n d d em an ds a n d r e sp ondin g

to th e p ublic w ill? H ow a re p ro fe ssio nal ju dgm en t a n d p opula r s o vere ig nty

re co ncile d w ith e ach o th er? If th ey a re ir re co ncila b le , w hic h s h ould re ceiv e

prio rity ( G ru neb au m , 1 981)? O f c o urs e t h e v ery n atu re o f p ro fe ssio nalis m f o r

public a d m in is tr a to rs tu rn s o n th e a n sw er to th ese q uestio ns. Is p ro fe ssio nal

ju dgm en t f u ndam en ta lly o rie n te d to w ard te ch nic al e x pertis e o r p opula r w ill?

Whic h t a k es p rio rity ?

We m ig ht b e te m pte d to c o nclu de to o q uic k ly th at th e tr u ste e d efin itio n is

more a p pro pria te f o r th e a d m in is tr a to r, a s th at is a n onele ctiv e r o le . I t m ig ht

ap pear th at re p re se n ta tio n th ro ugh d ele g atio n o ccu rs o nly th ro ugh a s p ecif ic

overt a ct, s u ch a s e le ctio n. W e m ig ht a ssu m e t h at u nle ss t h e p eo ple e n gag e i n

an a ct o f c h oosin g s o m e in div id ual to r e p re se n t th em , d ele g atio n o f p olitic al

re sp onsib ility can not occu r. This is not necessa rily th e case , how ev er.

Dele g atio n o f a u th ority a n d r e sp onsib ility to o rg an iz atio ns a n d c ate g orie s o f

pers o nnel a ls o o ccu rs th ro ugh le g is la tio n, in clu din g th e n orm al p ro cess a n d,

in s o m e s ta te s, th e in itia tiv e o f c itiz en s. T hese a re a cts o f g en era l d ele g atio n.

Pre su m ab ly pers o ns w ho th en accep t positio ns w ith in th ose desig nate d org an iz atio ns a re a g re ein g to b ear re sp onsib ility fo r c arry in g o ut th e p ublic

will e x pre sse d in th e la w . I f th at w ill is n ot c le arly d efin ed in la w , w e m ig ht

co nclu de th at th ere is a n im plie d o blig atio n to d is c ern it th ro ugh w hate v er

mean s p ossib le .

Of c o urs e th e p ro ble m w ith c arry in g o ut th e d ele g ate ro le in m an y su ch

case s is th at a ll to o o fte n th e le g is la tio n, o f n ecessity , d oes n ot s p ell o ut th e

public 's w ill w ith g re at c la rity . T hus t h e a d m in is tr a to r i s l e ft w ith a d ele g atio n

of p ublic a u th ority a n d re sp onsib ility th at d oes n ot sp ecif y in m uch d eta il

what is ex pecte d . Politic al co nflic ts av oid ed an d te ch nic al questio ns

unad dre sse d in th e le g is la tiv e p ro cess a re p asse d a lo ng to a d m in is tr a to rs fo r

re so lu tio n.

The q uan dary o ver d ele g ate v ers u s t r u ste e o blig atio ns i s e m bed ded i n t h ese

ch ara cte ris tic s of m uch of our le g is la tio n. O n th e one han d, unre so lv ed

politic al is su es call fo r ad m in is tr a to rs to act as re sp onsiv e dele g ate s in

arriv in g a t so m e p ublic ly a ccep ta b le a ctio ns. O n th e o th er h an d, te ch nic al

co nsid era tio ns se em to re q uir e tr u ste es w ho e x erc is e th e b est p ro fe ssio nal

ju dgm en t in g ettin g th e jo b d one w hile s e rv in g th e b ro ad n orm ativ e g oals o f

th e p olity . C onse q uen tly th e q uestio n s till r e m ain s: W hic h o f th ese a sp ects o f

public p olic y sh ould ta k e p re ced en ce? S hould th e p ublic ad m in is tr a to r b e

oblig ate d to r e p re se n t th e c itiz en ry p rim arily a s a d ele g ate o r a s a tr u ste e? I s

th e a n sw er v aria b le , a n d if s o u nder w hat c o nditio ns s h ould o ne o r th e o th er

beco m e d om in an t?

Educa tio n

It is g en era lly a ssu m ed in d em ocra tic th eo ry th at n ot o nly d o th e s o vere ig n

peo ple v ote b ut th ey c ast a m ore o r l e ss in fo rm ed b allo t. O ne j u stif ic atio n f o r

politic al d eb ate is its e d ucatio nal v alu e. W hen p oin ts o f v ie w a re e x ch an ged ,

re aso n is put to th e te st of opposin g id eas, perc ep tio n is bro ad en ed ,

in fo rm atio n is acq uir e d , an d se lf -in te re st is te m pere d by th e in te re sts of

oth ers . I t is th ro ugh th is p ro cess o f in div id uals ta lk in g to o ne a n oth er a n d to

th eir politic al le ad ers th at a public is fo rm ed an d public opin io n is

tr a n sfo rm ed in to p ublic ju dgm en t (Y an kelo vic h , 1 981). Y an kelo vic h (1 991)

arg ues th at p ublic o ffic ia ls a n d o th er e x perts h av e p aid to o little a tte n tio n to

th e dev elo pm en t of m atu re , in fo rm ed , co nsis te n t public ju dgm en t fro m

re activ e, em otio nal, ill- in fo rm ed , an d in co nsis te n t p ublic o pin io n. O n th e basis o f ex perim en ta l re se arc h , h e p re sc rib es th e n ecessa ry sta g es o f th is

pro cess i n w ay s h elp fu l t o a d m in is tr a to rs .

In th e c la ssic d em ocra tic fo rm ula tio n, th e k ey a cto rs in th is e d ucatio nal

pro cess of deb ate an d delib era tio n are th e citiz en ry an d th eir ele cte d

re p re se n ta tiv es. H ow ev er, in th e m odern a d m in is tr a tiv e s ta te , th e ro le o f th e

care er public ad m in is tr a to r m ust be acco unte d fo r in so m e w ay . Som e

ad m in is tr a to rs a re c lo se to th e p ro ble m s, p osse ss s p ecia liz ed k now le d ge a n d

te ch nic al e x pertis e , h av e o ngoin g re la tio nsh ip s w ith th eir c lie n te le g ro ups,

an d te n d to m ain ta in lo nger te n ure in govern m en t th an m ost politic ia n s.

These ap pear to be esse n tia l partic ip an ts in th e dem ocra tic ed ucatio nal

pro cess, a n d th eir c o ntr ib utio ns s e em n ecessa ry fo r th e fu ll d ev elo pm en t o f

public j u dgm en t.

How ev er, t h e o blig atio ns o f t h is a sp ect o f t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le — te ach in g

an d le arn in g th ro ugh public delib era tio n— are neith er cle arly defin ed nor

gen era lly a ck now le d ged . F or e x am ple , o ne c an re ad th e e n tir e w in te r 1 985

is su e o f t h e

Kette rin g R evie w

( d ev ote d to e x plo rin g h ow th e p ublic le arn s th e

public 's b usin ess, w ith a rtic le s b y th oughtf u l in div id uals s u ch a s D ere k B ok,

Dan ie l Yan kelo vic h , Robert M acN eil, Gera ld in e Ferra ro , an d Dav id

Math ew s) a n d b e le ft w ith th e im pre ssio n th at p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs h av e n o

ro le to p la y in th is p ro cess. T his jo urn al— gen era lly in sig htf u l, s o phis tic ate d ,

an d “d ed ic ate d to im pro vin g th e quality of public lif e in th e A m eric an

dem ocra cy ”— mak es no m en tio n of public ad m in is tr a to rs as sig nif ic an t

partic ip an ts in th e public dia lo gue. T he cla ssic al assu m ptio ns, fo cu sin g

ex clu siv ely o n th e c itiz en s a n d th eir p olitic al le ad ers , s e em n ot to h av e b een

re v is e d here fo r th e m odern ad m in is tr a tiv e sta te . The m ed ia an d th e

univ ers ity c o m munity a re a ck now le d ged , b ut n ot t h e b ure au cra ts w ho r u n o ur

govern m en ts o n a d ay -to -d ay , y ear-to -y ear b asis .

How ev er, if th e o blig atio n o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs fo r a k ey e d ucatio nal

ro le in th e pub lic polic y pro cess is to be esta b lis h ed , th ere are dif fic u lt

questio ns to be an sw ere d an d is su es to be re so lv ed . T he oblig atio n fo r

in fo rm in g an d ed ucatin g ele cte d offic ia ls beh in d th e sc en es is gen era lly

accep te d . A naly zin g d ata , co nductin g re se arc h , p re p arin g b rie fin g p ap ers ,

pro vid in g ev alu atio n stu die s, an d dev elo pin g co st estim ate s fo r ele cte d

offic ia ls on re q uest are all w ell w ith in th e cla ssic al vie w of public

ad m in is tr a to rs as n onpolitic al in str u m en ts in th e h an ds o f p olitic ia n s. B ut once w e m ove a w ay f ro m th at v ie w , h ow d o w e r e d efin e th e o blig atio ns a n d

re sp onsib ilitie s o f a d m in is tr a to rs fo r e d ucatin g p olitic ia n s a n d le arn in g fro m

th em ? H ow sh ould w e unders ta n d th e ed ucatio nal re la tio nsh ip betw een

ad m in is tr a to rs a n d p olitic ia n s i n t h e p olic y p ro cess?

For ex am ple , is th ere an o blig atio n to g o b ey ond th e re activ e m ode o f

pro vid in g in fo rm atio n o nly w hen re q ueste d ? S hould th e a d m in is tr a to r ro le

in clu de p re p arin g a n d d is se m in atin g in fo rm atio n n ot re q ueste d ? S hould a n

ag en cy ad m in is tr a to r fe el oblig ate d to pla n an d co nduct a sy ste m atic

ed ucatio nal p ro cess, f o rm al o r i n fo rm al, f o r p olitic ia n s? S hould t h is i n clu de a

delib era te ch alle n ge of politic al positio ns th at do not ap pear to be w ell

gro unded in f a ctu al k now le d ge, o f v alu es a n d p rin cip le s th at a re in co nsis te n t

with th e A m eric an politic al tr a d itio n, or of pro posa ls th at re st on fa u lty

meth ods? P ublic a d m in is tr a to rs u se th ese a p pro ach es fro m tim e to tim e, b ut

sh ould w e n ow i n clu de t h em a m ong t h e d efin ed p ro fe ssio nal o blig atio ns?

Furth erm ore , s h ould w e s o m etim es e x pect a d m in is tr a to rs to c arry o n th is

ed ucatio nal p ro cess n ot b eh in d th e sc en es b ut o ut o n c en te r sta g e, in fu ll

public v ie w ? I f p olitic s a n d a d m in is tr a tio n c an not b e n eatly s e p ara te d , d oes i t

mak e s e n se to th in k in te rm s o f th e to ta l s u bord in atio n o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e

ro le to th e p olitic al o ne? O r s h ould w e u nders ta n d a d m in is tr a tiv e o blig atio ns

as i n clu din g t h e c h aste n in g o f p o litic al w him s a n d p assio ns w ith i n fo rm atio n,

ex pertis e , a n d e x perie n ce? I f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re “ citiz en s in lie u o f th e

re st o f u s,” s h ould w e n ot h old th em r e sp onsib le f o r p ublic ly a sk in g th e h ard

questio ns an d artic u la tin g th e co unte ra rg um en ts th at ex pan d an d bala n ce

politic al d eb ate , s o t h at t h eir f id ucia ry o blig atio ns a re v is ib ly e x ecu te d ?

Lik ew is e , how sh ould we unders ta n d th e oblig atio n of th e public

ad m in is tr a to r t o l e arn f ro m e le cte d o ffic ia ls ? T he p ro fe ssio nal p ers p ectiv es o f

th e a d m in is tr a to r, ro ote d in s p ecia liz ed k now le d ge, te ch nic al e x pertis e , a n d

clie n te le r e la tio nsh ip s, m ay n eed to b e le av en ed w ith p olitic al k now le d ge o f

partic u la r c o nstitu en cie s a n d th e w ay s o f le g is la tiv e b odie s. A dm in is tr a tiv e

sp ecia lis ts c an b eco m e n arro w ly f o cu se d a n d is o la te d f ro m th e te x tu re o f th e

politic al c o m munity . T hey m ay b e o verly i n flu en ced b y c lie n t g ro ups a n d t o o

fir m ly c o nvin ced o f th e “ o ne b est w ay ” o f g ettin g th e jo b d one. T hey m ay

fo rg et t h e i m porta n ce o f p olitic al s u pport, n ot o nly i n a d optin g p olic y b ut a ls o

in c arry in g it o ut. L eg is la tiv e p ro posa ls , a d m in is tr a tiv e r u le s a n d r e g ula tio ns,

an d ag en cy im ple m en ta tio n p la n s m ay n eed to b e in fo rm ed re g ula rly b y politic al r e alitie s.

In ad ditio n to a m utu al oblig atio n fo r m utu ally ed ucativ e in te ra ctio n

betw een a d m in is tr a to rs a n d e le cte d o ffic ia ls , w e m ust a ls o th in k th ro ugh a

sim ila r re la tio nsh ip betw een citiz en s an d public ad m in is tr a to rs . Perh ap s

ad m in is tr a to rs w ho cu ltiv ate th e k in d o f re la tio nsh ip w ith p olitic ia n s ju st

outlin ed s h ould b e p re p are d to o ffe r tw o k in ds o f k now le d ge to th e c itiz en ry .

The fir s t is th eir o w n s u bsta n tiv e k now le d ge o f p artic u la r p olic y a re n as a n d

is su es, an d th e se co nd is pro ced ura l know le d ge ab out how govern m en t

work s. I f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re i n deed “ th e e sp ecia lly r e sp onsib le c itiz en s

who a re o ffic ia ls ,” s h ould n ot te ach in g th eir fe llo w c itiz en s th ese th in gs b e

am ong th eir c en tr a l re sp onsib ilitie s? If th e re st o f u s a re to b e a b le to c arry

out o ur c itiz en sh ip o blig atio ns, is it n ot e sse n tia l th at c itiz en -a d m in is tr a to rs

pro vid e us w ith th eir best te ch nic al in fo rm atio n an d ju dgm en ts , in an

unders ta n dab le f o rm , a s w ell a s a m ore e ffe ctiv e u nders ta n din g o f h ow b oth

th e b ure au cra cy a n d t h e l e g is la tiv e p ro cess w ork ?

Com munic atin g su bsta n tiv e in fo rm atio n to th e p ublic is e sse n tia l if se lf -

govern m en t is to b e ev en ap pro xim ate d . S hould n ot p ublic ad m in is tr a to rs

unders ta n d t h is a s a n o ngoin g, p rim ary r o le o blig atio n t h at c an not b e s e t a sid e

or c u rta ile d in o rd er to g et o n w ith th e jo b? I s th at n ot th e m ost f u ndam en ta l

jo b, a p art f ro m w hic h a d m in is tr a tiv e e ffic ie n cy i s s h orts ig hte d a n d d oom ed t o

fa ilu re ?

Should w e n ot a ls o a g re e th at c are er p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re lik ely to b e

th e b est c iv ic s te ach ers a v aila b le to th e c itiz en ry ? E xperie n ce w ith s tu den ts ,

esp ecia lly underg ra d uate s, su ggests th at one of th e w eak est lin ks in our

dem ocra tic pro cess is th e te ach in g of young peo ple ab out how th eir

govern m en t r e ally w ork s. S om eh ow t h ey a rriv e a t t h e u niv ers ity w ith , a t b est,

a w ooden , o vers im plif ie d c o ncep tio n o f th e w ay p ublic p olic y is f o rm ed a n d

im ple m en te d . T his c aric atu re , a cq uir e d fro m te x tb ooks, is c arrie d o ver in to

ad ult lif e . Q uite u nders ta n dab ly th en , m ost o f o ur c itiz en s h av e little o r n o

in te re st in g overn m en t b ecau se it ap pears b orin g in th e ex tr e m e, o r th ey

beco m e q uic k ly d is illu sio ned o ver th e g ap b etw een th e w orld a s it is a n d th e

world as th ey w ould lik e it to b e. In eith er case th ey re m ain alo of an d

dis e n gag ed fro m activ itie s th at ap pear to be eith er dull or bey ond th eir

pow ers .

Adm in is tr a to rs en gag ed w ith th e g overn m en ta l p ro cess o n a d aily b asis may b e th e b est so urc es o f a ric h er a n d m ore in te re stin g k now le d ge o f its

pra ctic al w ork in gs. H ow can w e best co ncep tu aliz e a public ed ucatio nal

oblig atio n f o r a d m in is tr a to rs ? M ig ht it c all f o r a n e x pan ded u nders ta n din g o f

how ad m in is tr a to rs are in volv ed in polic y m ak in g, perh ap s as pro ced ura l

co ach es o r tu to rs fo r c itiz en s a s w ell a s su bsta n ce e x perts ? Y an kelo vic h 's

work ( 1 991) s u ggests t h at a d m in is tr a to rs h av e a p ote n tia lly s ig nif ic an t r o le t o

pla y i n h elp in g c itiz en s m ove f ro m p ublic o pin io n t o p ublic j u dgm en t.

Now l e t u s t u rn t o t h e r e cip ro cal a sp ect o f t h e e d ucativ e o blig atio n b etw een

ad m in is tr a to rs an d citiz en s. Is th ere not th e re sp onsib ility to le arn fro m

citiz en s a s w ell a s te ach th em ? If a d m in is tr a to rs sta n d in a re p re se n ta tiv e

re la tio nsh ip to th e citiz en s, is it not esse n tia l th at th ey unders ta n d th e

pers p ectiv es, p ro ble m s, p erc eiv ed n eed s, a n d p rio ritie s o f c itiz en s? B ecau se

ad m in is tr a to rs c o ntr o l f o cu se d p ublic r e so urc es, a re th ey n ot o blig ed to r e ach

out b ey ond t h eir c lie n te le g ro ups a n d p olitic al a llie s t o h elp c u ltiv ate a p ublic

co nvers a tio n? D av id M ath ew s (1 985) a rg ues p ers u asiv ely th at a d em ocra tic

public can not fo rm an d act on its ow n beh alf w ith out su ch ongoin g

co nvers a tio n. It c an not m ove b ey ond p ublic o pin io n to p ublic k now le d ge,

an d f in ally to p ublic ju dgm en t, w ith out th is c o m munic atio n. M ath ew s in sis ts

th at “ a d em ocra tic c o m munity b eg in s w ith — in fa ct, is — a c o nvers a tio n o f

peo ple ta lk in g to one an oth er. If th e public is not ta lk in g, th ere is no

dem ocra tic s ta te ” (p . 6 0). U nfo rtu nate ly M ath ew s's a ssu m ptio n s e em s to b e

th at only ele cte d offic ia ls an d th e m ed ia bear th e re sp onsib ility fo r th is

co m munic ativ e pro cess. D oes th at not am ount to th e om is sio n of an

en orm ous s e t o f a cto rs w ith k now le d ge, e x perie n ce, a n d re so urc es? S hould

we not ag re e th at th e ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le als o carrie s w ith it a cen tr a l

oblig atio n t o s tim ula te t h is c o nvers a tio n a m ong c itiz en s a n d t o l e arn f ro m i t?

Moore ( 1 995) r e fe rs to th is k in d o f e n gag em en t a s “ p ublic d elib era tio n” in

whic h c itiz en s m ust c o m e to g rip s w ith c o nflic tin g v ie w poin ts e x pre sse d b y

oth ers a n d in th e p ro cess s e ek s o m e k in d o f a cco m modatio n, s o m e fo rm o f

“p ublic v alu e.” H e v ie w s t h is k in d o f “ so cia l l e arn in g” a s a k ey r e sp onsib ility

of g overn m en t l e ad ers h ip .

We te n d to a ssu m e th at p ublic d elib era tio n c an o ccu r o nly o n a re la tiv ely

sm all sc ale , but w e hav e se en th e em erg en ce of vario us te ch niq ues fo r

co nductin g la rg e-s c ale d elib era tio n. O ne e x celle n t e x am ple is th e w ork b ein g

done b y A m eric a S peak s, u nder th e le ad ers h ip o f C aro ly n L uken sm ey er. T he org an iz atio n has co nducte d delib era tiv e ex erc is e s fo r as m an y as fiv e

th ousa n d p eo ple , u sin g a c o m bin atio n o f te ch nolo gy a n d s k ille d fa cilita tio n.

The a ssu m ptio n u nderly in g th is w ork is th at p ublic o ffic ia ls a n d th e p ublic

can le arn fro m e ach o th er in c o m ple x w ay s. S pecif ic p ro je cts a re d esc rib ed

on th e Am eric a Speak s W eb site (

www.a m eric asp eak s.o rg

), an d th e

org an iz atio n's n ew est a n d m ost w id ely a v aila b le o ffe rin g is a n o nlin e f o ru m ,

The A m eric an S quare (

th eam eric an sq uare .o rg

).

Im ple m en ta tio n

Fin ally , th e th ir d a sp ect o f th e p olic y p ro cess th at g iv es r is e to e th ic al is su es

ab out th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le in a p olitic al e n vir o nm en t is im ple m en ta tio n. I n

th e c la ssic al p ara d ig m th is w as th e a d m in is tr a tiv e a re a o f re sp onsib ility . It

was assu m ed th at ad m in is tr a to rs re ceiv e p olic y d ecis io ns ad opte d b y th e

politic ia n s a n d t h en a p ply t h eir b est f u nctio nal r a tio nality t o p uttin g t h em i n to

pra ctic e. A dm in is tr a to rs w ere ex pecte d to u se th eir p ro fe ssio nal ju dgm en t

ab out th e m ost e ffic ie n t m ean s fo r a ch ie v in g th e p urp ose s d efin ed b y th e

le g is la tiv e p ro cess.

How ev er, o nce w e ack now le d ge th e in esc ap ab ly p olitic al n atu re o f th e

public ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le , th e oblig atio ns of th e ad m in is tr a to r in

im ple m en ta tio n a re n o lo nger s o c le ar. F or e x am ple , a s le g is la tiv e p ro posa ls

ofte n o rig in ate th ro ugh a d m in is tr a tiv e in itia tiv e, w hat o blig atio n s h ould th e

ad m in is tr a to r b ear f o r s p ecif y in g a t th e o uts e t h ow a p ro pose d p olic y w ould

lik ely b e im ple m en te d ? S hould te n ta tiv e ru le s, re g ula tio ns, sta n dard s, an d

tim e sc h ed ule s be co nsid ere d alo ng w ith th e polic y sta te m en t durin g

le g is la tiv e d eb ate , ra th er th an b e le ft u ntil la te r fo r a d m in is tr a to rs to h an dle ,

as is ty pic ally th e case now ? W ould th is se rv e th e purp ose of m ak in g

ad m in is tr a tiv e actio n more vis ib le , an d th ere fo re more politic ally

acco unta b le ?

Als o , w e fa ce ag ain a pro ble m ra is e d in th e earlie r dis c u ssio n of th e

re p re se n ta tio nal oblig atio ns of th e public ad m in is tr a to r. H ow sh ould w e

ex pect a d m in is tr a to rs to b ala n ce p ro fe ssio nal e x pertis e w ith r e p re se n ta tio n o f

th e citiz en durin g th e im ple m en ta tio n phase ? A sid e fro m w hate v er is

cu rre n tly re q uir e d b y la w fo r citiz en p artic ip atio n in th e im ple m en tin g o f

polic ie s, sh ould public ad m in is tr a to rs bear an eth ic al oblig atio n fo r

re p re se n tin g t h e i n te re sts , p re fe re n ces, a n d d em an ds o f t h e p eo ple t h ro ughout th is p ro cess? I f s o , is th e tr u ste e o r th e d ele g ate p ers p ectiv e m ore a p pro pria te

here a t th e im ple m en ta tio n s ta g e? S hould w e u nders ta n d th e a d m in is tr a to rs '

best pro fe ssio nal ju dgm en t as ta n ta m ount to th e tr u ste e ap pro ach to

re p re se n ta tio n a n d th ere fo re s u ffic ie n t? O r s h ould w e e x pect a d m in is tr a to rs ,

in im ple m en tin g p olic ie s, to th in k o f th em se lv es as d ele g ate s in n eed o f

re g ula r in str u ctio ns fro m th e peo ple ? Is th ere an ap pro pria te sh if t fro m

dele g ativ e r e p re se n ta tio n i n t h e a d optio n s ta g e, a s p olic y i s b ein g f o rm ed , t o a

tr u ste e pers p ectiv e in im ple m en ta tio n, as te ch nic al ju dgm en ts are m ost

pro m in en t a t t h at p oin t? O r a g ain , i s t h e a p pro pria te p ers p ectiv e v aria b le f ro m

polic y to p olic y , d ep en din g o n c o m ple x ity , s p ecif ic ity , s c o pe, s ig nif ic an ce o f

pro bab le i m pact, a n d o th er f a cto rs ?

Con clu sio n

Fro m th ese th re e asp ects of th e public polic y pro cess— re p re se n ta tio n,

ed ucatio n, an d im ple m en ta tio n— a ple th ora of eth ic al is su es em erg es

co ncern in g t h e p ro per d efin itio ns o f t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le i n a n u nav oid ab ly

politic al c o nte x t. N o a n sw ers h av e b een p ro vid ed , b ut th e q uestio ns ra is e d

beg in t o s k etc h o ut a n a g en da f o r n orm ativ e t h eo ry d ev elo pm en t.

These attr ib ute s of th e ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le in m odern an d postm odern

so cie ty a n d t h e e th ic al c o ncern s t h at e m erg e f ro m t h em l e ad q uite n atu ra lly t o

a c o nsid era tio n o f a d m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility . T he n ex t c h ap te r b eg in s th is

co nsid era tio n w ith a d is c u ssio n o f th e o rig in s o f th e te rm

re sp onsib ility

a n d

tw o w ay s o f c o ncep tu aliz in g i t. Chapte r F ou r

Adm in is tr a tiv e R esp on sib ility : T he K ey t o

Adm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

The K ey t o A dm in is tr a tiv e E th ic s

R esp onsib ility i s t h e k ey c o ncep t i n d ev elo pin g a n e th ic f o r t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e

r o le . F re d eric k M osh er (1 968) o nce o bse rv ed , “ R esp onsib ility m ay w ell b e

t h e m ost im porta n t w ord in a ll th e v ocab ula ry o f a d m in is tr a tio n, p ublic a n d

p riv ate ” ( p . 7 ). T w o m ajo r a sp ects o f th at c o ncep t, a s d efin ed b y M osh er, a re

u se d h ere : s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility a n d o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility .

W hen y ou a re c o nfro nte d w ith a p ro ble m o ver w hat y ou sh ould d o in a

g iv en s itu atio n, y ou a re e x perie n cin g t h e n eed t o d efin e y our r e sp onsib ility i n

t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le . F or e x am ple , a ssu m e th at y ou a re a n a d m in is tr a to r in

a fe d era l ag en cy th at allo cate s fu nds to sta te ag en cie s fo r hig hw ay

c o nstr u ctio n. Y our org an iz atio n's m is sio n is to re v ie w pro pose d hig hw ay

r o ute s fo r th eir an tic ip ate d en vir o nm en ta l im pact. H ig hw ay pro je cts th at

s ig nif ic an tly affe ct th e en vir o nm en t re q uir e an en vir o nm en ta l im pact

s ta te m en t (E IS ); o th ers d o n ot. O ne s e ctio n o f a fe d era l la w m an date s th at

h ig hw ay s c o nstr u cte d w ith f e d era l m oney m ay n ot h av e a n im pact o n o r u se

p ublic p ark la n d u nle ss it h as b een d ete rm in ed th at th ere is n o fe asib le a n d

d esir a b le a lte rn ativ e— a d ete rm in atio n th at is n orm ally m ad e b y c o nductin g

a n E IS .

A m em ber o f y our s ta ff c o m es t o y ou w ith a p ro ble m . S he h as r e cen tly m et

w ith offic ia ls fro m a certa in sta te to dis c u ss a pro pose d hig hw ay

i m pro vem en t. T he ex is tin g h ig hw ay is n arro w , w ith n o sh ould ers , an d is

h eav ily u se d b y e le m en ta ry sc h ool stu den ts o n b ic y cle s a n d o n fo ot. It is

e x tr e m ely u nsa fe , a s th e n um ber o f a ccid en ts c le arly in dic ate s. T he sc h ool

b oard , th e p are n ts ' a sso cia tio n, th e lo cal n ew sp ap er, th e c o uncil o f c h urc h es,

a n d s ta te h ig hw ay o ffic ia ls a re a ll c allin g fo r im med ia te a ctio n to w id en th e hig hw ay a n d a lle v ia te th ese h azard ous c o nditio ns. T he p ro ble m , a cco rd in g to

th e sta te hig hw ay pla n ners , is th at w id en in g th e ro ad su ffic ie n tly w ould

re q uir e ta k in g a s tr ip o f la n d f iv e f e et w id e b y o ne h undre d f e et lo ng f ro m a

fif ty -a cre m unic ip al p ark . T his c an b e d one w ith in th e la w , b ut a n E IS m ust

be p re p are d to id en tif y a n d ju stif y th e e n vir o nm en ta l im pact. T his p ro cess

ty pic ally t a k es t w o y ears t o c o m ple te .

You are re sp onsib le fo r co m ply in g w ith th e la w under w hic h your

org an iz atio n o pera te s, b ut y ou als o b elie v e y our re sp onsib ility is to h elp

re d uce th e h azard ous ro ad c o nditio n a s q uic k ly a s p ossib le . T w o ty pes o f

re sp onsib ility c an b e i d en tif ie d i n t h is c ase . T hey a re s o m etim es r e fe rre d t o a s

obje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility a n d s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility ( M osh er, 1 968; W in te r,

1966).

Obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility

h as to d o w ith ex pecta tio ns im pose d fro m

outs id e o urs e lv es, w here as

su bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility

c o ncern s th ose th in gs f o r

whic h w e fe el a re sp onsib ility . A s w e s h all s e e, th is d is tin ctio n is n ot to b e

unders to od a s a d if fe re n ce b etw een r e al a n d u nre al; s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility ,

as an ex pre ssio n of our belie fs , pers o nal an d pro fe ssio nal valu es, an d

ch ara cte r t r a its , i s j u st a s r e al a s t h e m ore t a n gib le m an if e sta tio ns o f o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility . T hese co ncep ts are th e m ain fo cu s o f th is ch ap te r, as th ey

se em to re p re se n t th e m ost c o m mon w ay s in w hic h a d m in is tr a to rs a ctu ally

ex perie n ce p ro ble m s i n d efin in g t h eir r e sp onsib ility i n c o ncre te s itu atio ns.

Obje ctiv e R esp on sib ilit y

The sp ecif ic fo rm s o f o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility d is c u sse d h ere in volv e tw o

dim en sio ns: acco unta b ility an d im pose d oblig atio n. All obje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility in volv es re sp onsib ility

to

so m eo ne, o r so m e c o lle ctiv e b ody,

an d re sp onsib ility

fo r

certa in ta sk s, su bord in ate pers o nnel, an d goal

ach ie v em en t. T he fo rm er is

acco unta bility

an d th e la tte r is

oblig atio n

.

Acco unta b ility a n d o blig atio n, re sp onsib ility

to

s o m eo ne e ls e

fo r

so m eth in g

—th ese a re t h e d ual d im en sio ns o f o bje ctiv e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility .

Prin cip al- a g en t th eo ry , in its c u rre n t u se d ra w n la rg ely fro m e co nom ic s,

atte m pts to desc rib e an d ex pla in obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility in te rm s of

re la tio nsh ip s betw een th ose w ith th e prim ary rig ht to ex erc is e au th ority

( prin cip als

) an d th ose ch arg ed w ith carry in g out th eir w is h es (

agen ts

).

Sap pin gto n ( 1 991) id en tif ie s th e c en tr a l c o ncern o f th is p ers p ectiv e a s “ h ow th e p rin cip al c an b est m otiv ate th e a g en t to p erfo rm a s th e p rin cip al w ould

pre fe r, t a k in g i n to a cco unt t h e d if fic u ltie s i n m onito rin g t h e a g en t's a ctiv itie s”

(p . 4 5).

The l im ita tio ns o f t h is p ers p ectiv e f o r u se i n a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s a re t h at i t

overs im plif ie s th e p rin cip al- a g en t r e la tio nsh ip ; it f o cu se s o n th e s in gle v alu e

of effic ie n cy an d fa ils to deal w ith th e eth ic al dim en sio ns. T he public

ad m in is tr a to r's ro le a s a n a g en t is c o m plic ate d b y re sp onsib ility to m ultip le

prin cip als , in clu din g o rg an iz atio nal s u perio rs , p olitic al o ffic ia ls , p ro fe ssio nal

asso cia tio ns, an d th e citiz en ry . A lth ough effic ie n cy is h ig hly im porta n t in

ad m in is tr a tiv e w ork , it is n ot n ecessa rily th e m ost im porta n t v alu e; ju stic e,

rig hts ( s u ch a s p riv acy ), h onesty , a n d a w hole h ost o f o th er v alu es m ust a ls o

be co nsid ere d . The need to deal w ith co nflic ts am ong prin cip als an d

co m petin g v alu es, a n d b etw een a cco unta b ility a n d o blig atio n, r e q uir e s e th ic al

re fle ctio n an d an aly sis gen era lly ig nore d by prin cip al- a g en t th eo ry (D e

Geo rg e, 1 992; D ees, 1 992).

In te rm s of re la tiv e im porta n ce, oblig atio n is th e m ore fu ndam en ta l,

where as a cco unta b ility is th e m ean s f o r e n su rin g th e f u lf illm en t o f o blig atio n

in a hie ra rc h ic al str u ctu re . Acco unta b ility im plie s su perio r-s u bord in ate

re la tio nsh ip s a n d th e e x erc is e o f a u th ority f ro m th e to p d ow n to m ain ta in th e

flo w o f w ork to w ard th e ach ie v em en t o f m an date d g oals . If w e ex plic ate

th ese tw o asp ects of obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility in th e org an iz atio nal an d

politic al co nte x ts of th e public ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le , w e can cla rif y th e

re la tio nsh ip s am ong th e key acto rs in th e polic y pro cess in te rm s of

re sp onsib ilitie s. They will be ord ere d fro m m ore to le ss pro xim ate

re la tio nsh ip s of acco unta b ility an d fro m le ss to more fu ndam en ta l

re la tio nsh ip s o f o blig atio n.

Fir s t, public ad m in is tr a to rs are m ost im med ia te ly re sp onsib le to th eir

org an iz atio nal su perio rs fo r carry in g o ut th e su perio rs ' d ir e ctiv es an d als o

mutu ally a g re ed -o n g oals a n d f o r t h e c o nduct o f t h eir o w n s u bord in ate s. T hey

must be ab le to ex pla in th eir co nduct an d allo catio n of tim e an d oth er

re so urc es a s c o nsis te n t w ith t h e w ork p la n a n d o bje ctiv es o f t h e o rg an iz atio n,

wheth er th e pla n an d obje ctiv es re su lt fro m ord ers orig in ate d in a str ic t

hie ra rc h ic al fa sh io n or fro m so m e co lla b ora tiv e decis io n-m ak in g pro cess.

This is th e m ost p ro xim ate r e la tio nsh ip o f a cco unta b ility , in volv in g a r e g ula r

re p ortin g p ro cess. H ow ev er, th e re la tio nsh ip o f o blig atio n h ere is th e le ast fu ndam en ta l. T he org an iz atio n's w ork pla n , sp ecif ic obje ctiv es, an d ta sk

assig nm en ts are sim ply in str u m en ta l. They are purs u an t to polic ie s

esta b lis h ed i n t h e p olitic al a re n a.

Obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a ls o fo r th e a ctio ns o f s u bord in ate s is e sse n tia l to

th e W eb eria n i d eal t y pe o f b ure au cra cy . S uperio rs m ust d ir e ct t h e a ctiv itie s o f

th ose u nder th eir s u perv is io n, p ro vid e r e so urc es f o r a cco m plis h in g th e w ork ,

dele g ate ad eq uate au th ority fo r assig ned d utie s, an d m onito r p erfo rm an ce.

They in tu rn are held acco unta b le fo r how th eir su bord in ate s use th e

re so urc es p ro vid ed a n d e x erc is e d ele g ate d a u th ority to w ard th e f u lf illm en t o f

an a ssig nm en t. T his a ssu m es o f c o urs e t h at s u perio rs a re a ls o a cco unta b le f o r

cle arly d efin in g t h e a ssig ned d utie s i n t h e f ir s t p la ce a n d, w here v er d is c re tio n

is a llo w ed , d elin eatin g its b oundarie s. S ubord in ate s a re in str u cte d to r e fe r to

th eir s u perio rs a n y d ecis io ns th at e x ceed th e s tip ula te d b ounds o f d is c re tio n,

an d t h us t h e s u perio rs m ain ta in u ltim ate r e sp onsib ility .

Seco nd, public ad m in is tr a to rs are re sp onsib le to ele cte d offic ia ls fo r

carry in g o ut th eir w is h es a s e m bodie d in p ublic p olic ie s. S uch p olic ie s a re

co lle ctiv ely d ete rm in ed fo r le g is la tiv e a cts , s in gly d ete rm in ed fo r e x ecu tiv e

ord ers . A s w e h av e s e en p re v io usly , th is o blig atio n in clu des b oth p re p arin g

polic y pro posa ls an d im ple m en tin g le g is la tio n an d ex ecu tiv e ord ers .

Adm in is tr a to rs m ust b e a b le to e x pla in th eir a ctio ns a n d u se o f re so urc es a s

co nsis te n t w ith le g is la tiv e in te n t or th e in te n t of ex ecu tiv e ord ers . T his

re la tio nsh ip o f le g al a cco unta b ility is le ss p ro xim ate th an th e f ir s t b ecau se it

in volv es re la tiv ely in fre q uen t re p ortin g, but it is a m ore fu ndam en ta l

oblig atio n. A s p ublic p olic y is th e b asis fo r th e o rg an iz atio nal m an date a n d

mis sio n, o blig atio ns to th ose w ho e sta b lis h p olic y su pers e d e o blig atio ns to

org an iz atio nal s u perio rs .

Fin ally , p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re r e sp onsib le t o t h e c itiz en ry f o r d is c ern in g,

unders ta n din g, an d w eig hin g citiz en s' pre fe re n ces, dem an ds, an d oth er

in te re sts . T hey m ay re sp ond to th ese in te re sts b y c h an gin g p ro gra m s w ith in

ex is tin g la w or re co m men din g new le g is la tio n to ele cte d offic ia ls .

Adm in is tr a to rs m ust be ab le to ex pla in th eir co nduct to th e citiz en ry as

co nsis te n t w ith e ith er th e w is h es o f th e c itiz en ry o r th e la rg er p ublic in te re st.

This is th e le ast p ro xim ate re la tio nsh ip o f acco unta b ility , w ith o nly v ery

in fre q uen t a n d o fte n in dir e ct re p ortin g o f c o nduct a n d a ch ie v em en ts . It is ,

how ev er, th e m ost fu ndam en ta l re la tio nsh ip of oblig atio n, becau se th e citiz en s a re s o vere ig n a n d p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re th eir f id ucia rie s. S harin g

re p re se n ta tiv e an d fid ucia ry fu nctio ns w ith ele cte d offic ia ls in m odern

dem ocra tic s o cie ty m ean s th at th is re la tio nsh ip o f o blig atio n is a ls o s h are d .

For b oth g ro ups t h is i s t h e s o urc e o f r o le a m big uity a n d c o nflic t.

One f in al w ord a b out th e n atu re o f a cco unta b ility in a ll th re e r e la tio nsh ip s

is in o rd er. A cco unta b ility m ay b e u nders to od in b oth p ra ctic al a n d e th ic al

te rm s. T he r e sp onsib le a d m in is tr a to r m ust b e p re p are d to a n sw er f o r c o nduct

fro m both pers p ectiv es, but eth ic al acco unta b ility m ust fin ally pre v ail.

Gen era lly w e s h ould a ssu m e t h at a n a d m in is tr a to r w ill b e e x pecte d t o e x pla in

actio ns fro m a pra ctic al pers p ectiv e in te rm s su ch as co st effe ctiv en ess,

effic ie n cy , eco nom y, fe asib ility , an d pro ductiv ity , an d fro m an eth ic al

pers p ectiv e acco rd in g to valu es an d prin cip le s su ch as eq uity , eq uality ,

fre ed om , tr u th fu ln ess, b en efic en ce, h um an d ig nity , p riv acy , a n d d em ocra cy .

The p ra ctic ality o f c o nduct i s n ev er s u ffic ie n t i n a n d o f i ts e lf . U nle ss a c o urs e

of actio n can be ad eq uate ly ex pla in ed on eth ic al gro unds, it is not a

re sp onsib le a ct. T he f u ll m ean in g o f r e sp onsib ility r e q uir e s e th ic al a s w ell a s

pra ctic al a cco unta b ility . T o illu str a te th ese c o ncep ts , I w ill u se th e fe d era l

hig hw ay c ase i n tr o duced a t t h e b eg in nin g o f t h is c h ap te r.

Resp on sib ilit y t o E le cte d O ffic ia ls T hro u gh S upport

fo r t h e L aw

Your re sp onsib ility as a public ad m in is tr a to r to ele cte d offic ia ls th ro ugh

co m plia n ce w ith th e la w is a m atte r o f o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . Y ou are

ex pecte d t o b eh av e a cco rd in g t o t h e w is h es o f t h ose s e t i n a u th ority o ver y ou.

Here th e ex pecta tio ns are th ose o f d uly ele cte d le g is la to rs ex pre sse d in a

le g ally c o dif ie d s ta te m en t. T hat l e g is la tio n p re sc rib es h ow y ou a re t o c o nduct

yours e lf w hen th e co nstr u ctio n o f h ig hw ay s affe cts p ublic p ark la n d, ap art

fro m y our o w n f e elin gs a b out t h e m atte r.

Obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility in volv es acco unta b ility to so m eo ne els e an d

oblig atio n f o r a p artic u la r s ta n dard o r c ate g ory o f p erfo rm an ce. I t i s o bje ctiv e

in th at th e so urc e of acco unta b ility an d oblig atio n lie s outs id e yours e lf .

Obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is n ot th e re su lt o f a se rie s o f d ecis io ns y ou m ad e

ab out w hat o ught to b e d one. R ath er it flo w s fro m th e d ecis io ns o f o th ers

ab out w hat so m eo ne o ccu pyin g y our ad m in is tr a tiv e p ositio n o ught to d o. Your decis io n to accep t th e positio n is unders to od to be ta n ta m ount to

accep tin g t h ese e x pecta tio ns a n d c o nstr a in ts . O bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility p ro je cts

gen era liz ed o blig atio ns fo r all w ho fill th is ty pe o f p ositio n, w ith out an y

atte m pt to ack now le d ge th e in div id ual need s, lim ita tio ns, pre fe re n ces, or

pre d ile ctio ns of a partic u la r in cu m ben t. It is th ro ugh th ese ex te rn al

gen era liz ed oblig atio ns th at th e ro le is str u ctu re d , giv en its dis tin ctiv e

co nte n t, a n d m ain ta in ed th ro ugh c h an gin g tim es, in cu m ben ts , a n d s itu atio ns.

It is th ro ugh h ie ra rc h ic al a rra n gem en ts th at a cco unta b ility is m ain ta in ed . T he

sta b ility a n d c o ntin uity o f t h e r o le a re r o ote d i n t h ese t w o a sp ects o f o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility .

Resp onsib ility to th e la w s g overn in g y our o rg an iz atio n a n d y our c o nduct

with in it is o ne fo rm o f o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility fo r y our ro le a s a p ublic

ad m in is tr a to r. Ultim ate ly , of co urs e , le g al re sp onsib ility in clu des an

oblig atio n to u phold th e C onstitu tio n. T hro ugh th e C onstitu tio n a n d s p ecif ic

pie ces o f l e g is la tio n c o nsis te n t w ith i t, t h e i n te n tio ns o f t h e c itiz en ry f o r t h ose

em plo yed in th e public se rv ic e are pre su m ed to be fo rm ally ex pre sse d .

In here n t in th e fid ucia ry natu re of th e public ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le is th e

obje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility to th e la w . L eg al m an date s f o r p ublic a g en cie s a re a

man if e sta tio n of th ose ag en cie s' prim ary oblig atio n to se rv e th e public 's

in te re sts , not th e in te re sts of th e peo ple em plo yed by th e ag en cie s.

Resp onsib ility to th e la w is a c o nsta n t r e m in der th at p ublic o rg an iz atio ns a n d

th eir a d m in is tr a to rs e x is t o n b eh alf o f t h e p ublic .

Thus in th e h ig hw ay -w id en in g c ase y ou a re h eld a cco unta b le fo r a ctin g

co nsis te n tly w ith y our o blig atio ns u nder th e la w th at g overn s th e u se o f

park la n d. Y our p ers o nal o pin io n a b out th e re la tiv e im porta n ce o f h ig hw ay

sa fe ty v ers u s p ark s p ace is n ot th e c o ntr o llin g f a cto r; th at f a cto r is th e c o urs e

of a ctio n th at th e la w r e q uir e s o f y ou a s a n a g en t o f th e p ublic . I n a cco untin g

fo r y our co nduct an d ju stif y in g y our d ecis io n, it w ill n ot b e su ffic ie n t to

ex pla in th at y ou “ h av e lo ved th at p ark s in ce y ou w ere a k id a n d ju st c o uld n't

sta n d to s e e it w hittle d a w ay f o r a h ig hw ay .” T his w ould lik ely b e v ie w ed a s

ir re sp onsib le c o nduct.

Resp on sib ilit y t o S uperio rs a n d f o r S ubord in ate s

In ad ditio n to th e la w th ere are num ero us oth er obje ctiv e so urc es of

re sp onsib ility fo r public ad m in is tr a to rs : org an iz atio nal ru le s an d polic ie s, offic ia l j o b d esc rip tio ns, a n d p ro fe ssio nal s ta n dard s. H ow ev er, a lo ngsid e l a w ,

th e most pro m in en tly ex perie n ced obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is to th e

hie ra rc h ic al a cco unta b ility s tr u ctu re o f th e o rg an iz atio n f o r w hic h y ou w ork :

your r e sp onsib ility to o rg an iz atio nal s u perio rs a n d y our r e sp onsib ility f o r th e

co nduct o f s u bord in ate s.

Pau l A pple b y ( 1 952) h as a rg ued th at h ie ra rc h y is “ th e f o rm al s tr u ctu re a n d

in str u m en t of re sp onsib ility ” (p . 340). T he ch ain of co m man d, w ith its

su ccessiv e dele g atio ns of re sp onsib ility , is th e m ean s by whic h th e

gen era liz ed in te n tio ns o f th e la w a re a p pro xim ate d in c o ncre te p ro gra m s a n d

se rv ic es. S uccessiv e a p pro xim atio ns o f g en era l le g al in te n t a re a ch ie v ed b y

sp ecif y in g a cco unta b ility fo r p artic u la r a sp ects o f th e to ta l ta sk . P artic u la r

org an iz atio ns a n d in div id uals a re h eld r e sp onsib le f o r im ple m en tin g s p ecif ic

portio ns o f t h e l e g al m an date o r p ro vid in g s u pport f o r o th ers i n f u lf illin g t h eir

re sp onsib ility .

Whate v er in div id uals w ork in g w ith in th e hie ra rc h ie s of go vern m en ta l

org an iz atio ns m ay fe el ab out th ose hie ra rc h ie s, th ey are th e fo rm ally

acco unta b le m ean s o f m ain ta in in g c o nduct th at is c o nsis te n t w ith th e w is h es

of th e c itiz en ry . A pple b y (1 952) in sis ts th at o nly th ro ugh “ lo yalty u pw ard

dis c ip lin ed by th e sa n ctio ns of hie ra rc h y” (p . 228) can th e public be

main ta in ed at th e hig hest le v el in dem ocra tic decis io n m ak in g. Public

se rv an ts m ay very w ell fe el co nstr a in ed an d lim ite d in th eir ra n ge of

dis c re tio n b y th e c h ain o f c o m man d, b ut th at is o ne o f th e in te n ded f u nctio ns

of o rg an iz atio nal str u ctu re . T he p ers o nal p re fe re n ces o f in div id ual p ublic

em plo yees must be su bju gate d to th e popula r will, pre su m ab ly as

co m munic ate d t h ro ugh t h e o rg an iz atio nal c h ain o f c o m man d.

Fro m A pple b y's p ers p ectiv e th is is a cco m plis h ed b y m ak in g o ffic ia ls a t th e

to p o f th e h ie ra rc h y re sp onsib le fo r th e c o nduct o f th ose b elo w . T hen , a s

div ers e p ublic p re fe re n ces a n d d em an ds a re i n tr o duced a t v ario us s u bord in ate

le v els o f th e o rg an iz atio nal s tr u ctu re , th ey a re p ush ed u pw ard f o r r e so lu tio n.

Those w ith g re ate r o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility f o r c o nfo rm ity t o l a w a n d p opula r

will are h eld acco unta b le fo r re co ncilin g th ese m ultip le , o fte n co nflic tin g,

dem an ds. Acco rd in g to Baile y (1 965), th is vie w of th e obje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility o f h ie ra rc h ie s a ssu m es th at “ th e b asic m ora lity o f th e s y ste m is

in its f o rc in g o f u nita ry c la im s in to th e m ill o f p lu ra lis tic c o nsid era tio ns” ( p .

283) a s t h ey m ove u pw ard . Once a g ain th e c ase o f th e h ig hw ay a n d th e p ark e x em plif ie s th is p ro cess.

The m em ber o f y our s ta ff w ho la id th e p ro ble m b efo re y ou r e co gniz ed th ere

were c o nflic tin g p ublic d em an ds th at s h e w as n ot c o m pete n t to r e so lv e a t h er

le v el of re sp onsib ility . T he la w , ex pre ssin g th e pre su m ed in te n t of th e

citiz en ry of th e natio n, cle arly re q uir e d an E IS , but th e lo cal public , as

re p re se n te d b y th e n ew sp ap er, c h urc h es, s c h ool b oard , p are n ts ' a sso cia tio n,

an d s ta te h ig hw ay o ffic ia ls , w as p rim arily c o ncern ed a b out th e e x ped itio us

wid en in g o f th e ro ad . H er o nly re sp onsib le o ptio n w as to c arry th e p ro ble m

up t h e c h ain o f c o m man d t o t h e n ex t l e v el.

Auth ority

a n d

politic s

a re th e k ey c o ncep ts fo r u nders ta n din g th is u pw ard

movem en t. A t an y g iv en le v el in th e h ie ra rc h y, w hen th ere is a p olitic al

co nflic t a n d in su ffic ie n t a u th ority to r e so lv e it, it b eco m es n ecessa ry to m ove

th e p ro ble m u p t h e l a d der o f r e sp onsib ility . W hen i t r e ach es a n o rg an iz atio nal

le v el at w hic h th ere is both re sp onsib ility fo r re so lv in g th e co nflic t an d

au th ority to d o s o , th en a d ecis io n c an a n d s h ould b e m ad e. I f, f o r e x am ple ,

you hav e been dele g ate d th e au th ority to m ak e ex cep tio ns to th e le g al

re q uir e m en t f o r a n E IS , th en y ou a re o blig ate d to d ecid e w heth er to d o s o in

th is c ase . H ow ev er, if y ou h av e n ot b een a u th oriz ed b y y our su perio rs to

gra n t e x cep tio ns, th e p ro ble m w ill n eed to b e p ush ed u pw ard u ntil it r e ach es

so m eo ne w ith t h at a u th ority a n d o blig atio n.

Anoth er p ossib ility is th at y ou m ay h av e th e a u th ority to r e so lv e th e is su e

an d a tte m pt to d o s o , b ut s o m e s ig nif ic an t a cto rs in th e p olitic al a re n a m ay

not b e s a tis fie d w ith t h e o utc o m e a n d m ay a p peal t o t h ose h ig her i n t h e c h ain

of co m man d to re v ie w an d o verrid e y our d ecis io n. In m atte rs o f se rio us

co nse q uen ce th is m ovem en t up th e hie ra rc h y m ay re ach th e to p of th e

org an iz atio nal p yra m id w ith out b ein g s e ttle d a n d e v en tu ally f in d its w ay in to

th e j u dic ia l s y ste m f o r r e so lu tio n.

One o f th e p ath olo gie s o f b ure au cra tic o rg an iz atio ns is a fa ilu re am ong

ad m in is tr a to rs to e x erc is e r e sp onsib ility w hen th ey a re in f a ct a u th oriz ed a n d

oblig ate d to m ak e a g iv en d ecis io n ( B arn ard , 1 952). P assin g th e b uck u p th e

ch ain o f co m man d b ecau se y ou d o n ot w an t to b ear y our o blig atio n fo r

decid in g is ju st a s ir re sp onsib le a s a ctin g w hen y ou a re n ot a u th oriz ed to d o

so or allo w in g su bord in ate s to en gag e in m is c o nduct. T his re lu cta n ce to

accep t th e sh are o f th e re sp onsib ility d ele g ate d to y ou re su lts in su perio rs '

bein g in undate d w ith d ecis io ns th ey s h ould n ot h av e to m ak e, th us le av in g su bord in ate s with out ad eq uate dir e ctio n. It dis to rts th e org an iz atio nal

str u ctu re a n d i m ped es t h e f lo w o f w ork .

Nev erth ele ss, th e o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility th at a n a d m in is tr a to r e x perie n ces

fro m th e o rg an iz atio nal h ie ra rc h y m ust n ot b e v ie w ed a s th e rig id , o ne-w ay

pro cess e x em plif ie d b y th e s tr ic te st in te rp re ta tio n o f th e W eb eria n id eal ty pe

(W eb er, 1 946). C arl F rie d ric h ( 1 952) h as c ritic iz ed W eb er's m odel p re cis e ly

at th is poin t; it does not su ffic ie n tly ack now le d ge th e possib ility of

co nsu lta tio n a n d c o opera tio n b etw een l e v els o f t h e o rg an iz atio n. T he e x erc is e

of o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility w ith in th e h ie ra rc h y s h ould n ot in volv e a s im ple

flo w o f d ir e ctiv es fro m to p to b otto m ; it sh ould b e fa r m ore c o m ple x a n d

dynam ic . T he a p pare n tly fix ed su bord in ate -s u perio r re la tio nsh ip s sh ould in

fa ct b e s o m ew hat flu id b ecau se o f th e n eed fo r c o nsu lta tio n a n d fo r s h arin g

in fo rm atio n up an d dow n th e hie ra rc h y. Superio rs in an y bure au cra tic

org an iz atio n are hig hly dep en den t on th e sp ecia liz ed know le d ge an d

ex perie n ce o f su bord in ate s. S ubord in ate s in tu rn n eed to c o nsu lt re g ula rly

with th ose ab ove th em ab out le g al re q uir e m en ts , cla rif ic atio n of ag en cy

re g ula tio ns, a n d p olitic al c o nsid era tio ns. A pple b y's n orm ativ e v ie w o f th is

pro cess h as b een d esc rib ed b y E gger ( 1 965) a s “ th e s tr u ctu rin g o f a n etw ork

of in te llig en ce a n d c o m munic atio n w hic h p ro vid es a m atr ix o f a b undan tly

div ers e a n d c ath olic v alu es a n d in flu en ces fo r th e d ecis io ns o f a p lu ra lis tic

so cie ty ” ( p . 3 07).

Hugh H eclo (1 975) h as d esc rib ed th e re sp onsib ility o f in div id ual p ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs i n t e rm s t h at a re g en era lly c o nsis te n t w ith t h ose o f A pple b y. I t

was A pple b y's b elie f th at, f a r f ro m b ein g th e d ocile s u bm is siv e im ple m en te r,

“th e fu nctio n o f a n a d m in is tr a to r w as to c o m plic ate th e liv es o f h is p olitic al

maste rs a t le ast to th e e x te n t o f a ssu rin g th at th ey d id n ot re so lv e c o m ple x

is su es o n th e b asis o f d is in gen uously s im ple c rite ria ” (E gger, 1 965, p . 3 07).

Heclo ( 1 975) r e fe rre d to th is a ctiv e, e v en a g gre ssiv e r o le o f th e a d m in is tr a to r

as o ne o f e x erc is in g “ n eu tr a l c o m pete n ce.” B y th at h e m ean t th at th e ro le

does n ot r e q uir e th e c o nduct o f a d ocile a n d s im ply c o m plia n t a u to m ato n b ut

“a s tr a n ge a m alg am o f lo yalty th at a rg ues b ack , p artis a n sh ip th at s h if ts w ith

th e c h an gin g p artis a n s, in dep en den ce th at d ep en ds o n o th ers ” (p . 8 2). B oth

Apple b y a n d H eclo w ere d esc rib in g th e re sp onsib ility o f th e to p le v els o f

ad m in is tr a tio n to politic al offic ia ls ; how ev er, th e m ode of co nduct th ey

su ggest se em s gen era lly ap pro pria te fo r all le v els of th e ad m in is tr a tiv e hie ra rc h y.

The o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility o f an y p ublic ad m in is tr a to r to th e ch ain o f

co m man d d oes n ot im ply a p assiv e a ccep ta n ce o f d ir e ctiv es fro m a b ove o r

th e u nila te ra l is su an ce o f o rd ers to th ose b elo w . It in clu des th e sy ste m atic

filte rin g u pw ard o f in fo rm atio n th at w ill c o m plic ate th e liv es o f s u perio rs in

th e se n se of pro vid in g a m ore accu ra te re p re se n ta tio n of is su es an d th e

re g ula r cla rif ic atio n dow nw ard of accep ta b le norm s fo r co nduct. If

dem ocra tic g overn m en t is to b e m ain ta in ed in a m odern p lu ra lis tic s o cie ty ,

th ose w ith a u th ority a n d re sp onsib ility fo r m ak in g d ecis io ns sh ould d o so

with f u ll k now le d ge o f r e le v an t te ch nic al in fo rm atio n, p ublic o pin io n tr e n ds,

positio ns of in te re st gro ups, in te rp re ta tio ns of th e la w , past pra ctic e, th e

vie w s o f in te re ste d e le cte d o ffic ia ls , th e p ers p ectiv es o f o th er g overn m en ta l

ag en cie s, a n d th e b est in fo rm ed ju dgm en t o f s u bord in ate s, b oth p ra ctic al a n d

eth ic al. T hose in s u bord in ate p ositio ns s h ould a ct w ith c le ar d ir e ctiv es fro m

ab ove a b out th e p ublic ly m an date d m is sio n o f th e o rg an iz atio n, a n d th ese

dir e ctiv es s h ould b e b ase d o n f u ll k now le d ge o f a ll r e le v an t f a cto rs .

When y our s ta ff m em ber c am e t o y ou w ith t h e p ro ble m o f t h e h ig hw ay a n d

th e p ark , s h e w as a ctin g re sp onsib ly fro m th e p ers p ectiv es o f A pple b y a n d

Heclo if s h e c o m plic ate d y our lif e w ith r e le v an t in fo rm atio n a b out a d ecis io n

sh e d id n ot h av e a u th ority to m ak e. I f, f o r e x am ple , s h e in fo rm ed y ou th at in

ad ditio n to s u pport o f th e p ro je ct fro m th e c h urc h es, s c h ool b oard , p are n ts '

asso cia tio n, n ew sp ap er, a n d s ta te h ig hw ay o ffic ia ls , t h ere w as a ls o o ppositio n

fro m o th er q uarte rs , s h e w ould b e c arry in g o ut h er o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility .

She m ig ht a ls o h av e r e sp onsib ly t o ld y ou t h at t h e s ta te e n vir o nm en ta l a g en cy ,

th e m unic ip al p ark s a n d r e cre atio n c o m mis sio n, t h e l o cal c h ap te r o f t h e S ie rra

Clu b, a h om e o w ners ' a sso cia tio n in th e a re a s u rro undin g th e p ark , a n d a c ity

co uncil m em ber fro m th at dis tr ic t w ere str o ngly opposin g th e hig hw ay

pro je ct a n d th re ate n in g litig atio n. A nd sh e m ig ht h av e a p pris e d y ou o f th e

possib ility of a m ore ex pen siv e alte rn ativ e co urs e of actio n th at w ould

in volv e a r e alig nm en t o f th e h ig hw ay b ut w ould p erm it th e u se o f in dustr ia l

pro perty o n t h e o pposite s id e o f t h e r o ad w ay i n ste ad o f t h e p ark la n d.

The o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs to th e h ie ra rc h y o f a n

org an iz atio n in clu des n ot o nly ta k in g d ecis io ns u p th e c h ain o f c o m man d

when th e a d m in is tr a to rs ' a u th ority h as b een tr a n sc en ded b y th e m ag nitu de o f

an is su e but als o passin g alo ng as m uch in fo rm atio n as need s to be co nsid ere d in a rriv in g a t a d ecis io n. T his is n ot o nly a m atte r o f in div id ual

re sp onsib ility b ut a ls o , w hen s u m med t h ro ughout a n e n tir e o rg an iz atio n o r a n

en tir e g overn m en t, t h e r e sp onsib le c o nduct o f t h e p ublic 's b usin ess. W ile n sk y

(1 967) h as d em onstr a te d t h at t h e f lo w o f i n te llig en ce t h ro ugh a n o rg an iz atio n

is esse n tia l not only fo r th e org an iz atio n's su rv iv al but als o , an d m ore

im porta n t, f o r a ch ie v in g d em ocra tic v alu es.

The d ysfu nctio ns o f th is h ie ra rc h ic al s y ste m a re w ell d ocu m en te d ( M erto n,

1952). W ith p artic u la r c o ncern fo r th e flo w o f in fo rm atio n, T ullo ck (1 965)

an d P erro w (1 972) id en tif y tw o ty pes o f p ro ble m s. T ullo ck d esc rib es th e

te n den cy f o r s u bord in ate s to w ith hold o r d is to rt in fo rm atio n, w here as P erro w

arg ues th at s u perio rs o fte n r e ceiv e a p pro pria te in fo rm atio n b ut a re u nw illin g

to u se it. T he c o m mon m otiv atio n in b oth c ase s is th e d esir e to p ro te ct s e lf -

in te re sts . S ubord in ate s te n d to f ilte r o ut in fo rm atio n th at m ay u pse t th e b oss

an d cre ate pro ble m s fo r th em se lv es, an d th ose hig her in th e ch ain of

co m man d t e n d t o s u ppre ss i n fo rm atio n t h at i s n ot f a v ora b le t o t h eir p ositio ns.

The d if fic u lty h ere is c en te re d in a la ck o f c o ngru en ce b etw een s u bje ctiv e

an d o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . W e w ill re tu rn to th e p ro ble m o f in co ngru ity

betw een th ese fo rm s o f re sp onsib ility in C hap te rs F iv e a n d S ix . F or n ow ,

su ffic e it to s a y th e a ssu m ptio n h ere is th at it is n ot n ecessa rily b ure au cra tic

org an iz atio n its e lf th at g iv es r is e to th ese p ro ble m s. O n th e b asis o f y ears o f

ap plie d re se arc h o n h ie ra rc h ic al o rg an iz atio ns, E llio tt J a q ues (1 976) a rg ues

th at b ure au cra cie s a re “ d ep en den t i n stitu tio ns, s o cia l i n str u m en ts , t a k in g t h eir

in itia l obje ctiv es an d ch ara cte ris tic s fro m th e asso cia tio ns w hic h em plo y

th em ” (p . 2 ). J a q ues in sis ts th at b ure au cra tic o rg an iz atio ns c an b e e ffe ctiv e

an d h um an e to ols f o r a d em ocra tic s o cie ty . W e w ill r e tu rn to h is p re sc rip tio n

fo r “ re q uis ite ” o rg an iz atio ns i n C hap te r S ev en .

Resp on sib ilit y t o t h e C it iz en ry

A th ir d fo rm o f o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is a n o blig atio n to s e rv e th e p ublic

in te re st. W heth er b y fo rm al o ath , g overn m en t c o de o f e th ic s, o r le g is la tiv e

man date , a ll p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs a re u ltim ate ly re sp onsib le fo r m easu rin g

th eir c o nduct in te rm s o f th e p ublic in te re st. H ow ev er, it is im possib le to

id en tif y a n y d efin itio n o f th e

public in te re st

th at w ould re ceiv e w id esp re ad

su pport a m ong e ith er s c h ola rs o r p ra ctitio ners . T he p ublic in te re st h as b een

ex am in ed b y p olitic al th eo ris ts lik e R ic h ard F la th m an (1 966), b ut in 1 990 Charle s G oodse ll c o m men te d th at th ere h ad b een n o s e rio us tr e atm en t o f th e

co ncep t in th e p ublic a d m in is tr a tio n lite ra tu re s in ce 1 957. T hat s itu atio n h as

im pro ved o nly s lig htly s in ce 1 990, w ith a r e cen t tr e atm en t o f th e c o ncep t b y

Dougla s M org an ( 2 001). H ow ev er, it r e m ain s tr u e th at p ublic a d m in is tr a to rs

hav e s h ow n l ittle s u sta in ed i n te re st i n p ublic i n te re st t h eo ry . T he r e su lt i s t h at

public ad m in is tr a to rs are co nfro nte d w ith an arra y of alte rn ativ es fo r

co ncep tu aliz in g th e p ublic in te re st, le ft to f e n d f o r th em se lv es, a n d e x pecte d

to s e rv e th is c o nfu sin g id ea e v en th ough it is a f a r le ss s p ecif ic a n d c o ncre te

fo rm of obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility th an eith er th e w ill of ele cte d offic ia ls

em bodie d i n l a w o r t h e o rg an iz atio nal c h ain o f c o m man d ( H eld , 1 970).

The c o nfo undin g p ara d ox is th at it is a ssu m ed th at a n in defin ite c o ncep t o f

th is k in d sh ould g uid e o ur ju dgm en t in re sp ondin g to th ese tw o fa r m ore

defin ite a n d p ro xim ate s o urc es o f o blig atio n. I t i s n ot s u rp ris in g t h en t h at a s a

pra ctic al m atte r, w e e ith er t r e at th e p ublic in te re st a s th e o bje ct o f l ip s e rv ic e,

alo ng w ith th e f la g , m oth erh ood, a n d a p ple p ie , o r w e r e d uce it to b ala n cin g

pow er in a p olitic al s tr u ggle a lo ng th e lin es o f th e p lu ra lis t tr a d itio n, w ith its

in te re st g ro up th eo ry , a s d is c u sse d in C hap te r T hre e. In th e fo rm er c ase w e

may hav e been ex pose d to ab str a ct philo so phic al tr e atis e s th at hav e

co nvin ced u s th at th e p ublic in te re st is im possib le to d efin e a n d h as little to

do w ith t h e r e alitie s o f l if e i n a g overn m en ta l a g en cy ( F rie d ric h , 1 962). I n t h e

la tte r in sta n ce w e m ay h av e in te rn aliz ed th e p lu ra lis t n otio n th at b ala n cin g

org an iz ed in te re sts is th e w ay d em ocra cy in a m ass s o cie ty a p pro xim ate s th e

gen era l w ell- b ein g o f t h e c itiz en ry ( H arm on, 1 969).

The p ublic i n te re st i s c le arly a p ro ble m atic c o ncep t. N one o f t h e a tte m pts a t

defin in g it h as b een v ery u se fu l in p ro vid in g g uid an ce fo r th e p ra ctic in g

ad m in is tr a to r. A nd y et i t r e m ain s i n o ur p olitic al t r a d itio n, o ur l e g is la tio n, o ur

offic ia l c o des o f e th ic s, o ur p olitic al d eb ate s, o ur c am paig n r h eto ric , a n d o ur

deep est r e fle ctio ns d urin g tim es o f p ro fo und c ris is s u ch a s W ate rg ate a n d th e

Vie tn am W ar. It re m ain s a p art o f o ur th in kin g ab out th e en ds o f p ublic

polic y a n d t h e r e sp onsib ility o f p ublic s e rv an ts — an d r ig htly s o .

The f u nctio n s e rv ed b y th e c o ncep t o f p ublic in te re st is n ot s o m uch o ne o f

defin in g sp ecif ic ally w hat w e o ught to d o o r ev en p ro vid in g o pera tio nal

crite ria fo r p artic u la r d ecis io n-m ak in g p ro ble m s. R ath er th e p ublic in te re st

sta n ds a s a k in d o f q uestio n m ark b efo re a ll o ffic ia l d ecis io ns a n d c o nduct.

The a d m in is tr a to r's p rim ary o blig atio n a s a m em ber o f th e c itiz en ry to s e rv e th e public in te re st sh ould cau se him or her to ask w heth er all re le v an t

in te re sts h av e b een c o nsid ere d , w heth er “ th e in te re sts a n d w elf a re o f m ore

in clu siv e p opula tio ns th an se lf , fa m ily , c la n , o r tr ib e” a re a cco unte d fo r in

an y d ecis io n ( W ald o, 1 974, p . 2 67).

Has th e r a n ge o f v ie w poin ts r e p re se n te d in th e d ev elo pm en t o f y our p olic y

re co m men datio ns, pro gra m im ple m en ta tio n pla n s, or se rv ic e deliv ery

guid elin es b een to o re str ic te d ? A re y ou a n d y our s ta ff lis te n in g to o pin io ns

th at ru n co ntr a ry to y our o w n o r to o pin io ns th at w ould n ot b en efit th e

org an iz atio n p olitic ally ? H av e y ou s e rio usly c o nsid ere d th e g ain s a n d lo sse s

of th ose n ot re p re se n te d in th e h earin g ro om o r th e a d vic e o f e x perts o r th e

lo bbyin g p ro cess?

The oblig atio n to se rv e th e public in te re st sh ould alw ay s cau se

ad m in is tr a to rs a n d e le cte d o ffic ia ls to f e el a little u neasy , n ot q uite s u re th at

ev ery one w orth h earin g h as b een h eard . T hat is its m ost p ra ctic al fu nctio n.

The fu lf illm en t of th is obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is to be fo und neith er in

ad optin g a B en th am ite u tilita ria n fo rm ula n or in p ro m ulg atin g a u niv ers a l

blu ep rin t fo r so cie ty b ut in a m in d-s e t. It is a m atte r o f c arry in g o ut y our

dutie s as th ough you m ig ht be re q uir e d to sta n d befo re th e asse m ble d

popula ce a n d e x pla in y our c o nduct.

In 1 922, W alte r L ip pm an n o bse rv ed , in a n o fte n q uote d re m ark , th at th e

public in te re st is “w hat m en w ould ch oose if th ey sa w cle arly , th ought

ra tio nally , a cte d d is in te re ste d ly a n d b en ev ole n tly ” (q uote d in H eld , 1 970, p .

205). A dm itte d ly th is is a n e x tr e m ely g en era l sta te m en t, w ith a sig nif ic an t

“if ” in th e m id dle . H ow ev er, it d oes s u ggest a n a ttitu de in d ealin g w ith th e

public 's b usin ess th at is m ore th an rh eto ric . It is n ot u nlik e th e c o nditio ns

stip ula te d b y J o hn R aw ls ( 1 971) a s th e n ecessa ry p re re q uis ite s f o r a rriv in g a t

prin cip le s o f j u stic e t h at c an b e d efin ed a s “ fa ir .”

Raw ls (1 971) in sis ts th at a n yone w ho a tte m pts to re fle ct o n th is p ro ble m

sh ould d o s o fro m th e “ o rig in al p ositio n,” th at is , w ith out c o nsid era tio n fo r

his o r h er o w n so cia l, c u ltu ra l, e co nom ic , o r b io lo gic al c ir c u m sta n ces. W e

sh ould a tte m pt to r e aso n a b out th e r e q uir e m en ts o f ju stic e a s th ough w e d id

not know our ow n so cia l cla ss, natu ra l asse ts an d ab ilitie s, in te llig en ce,

str e n gth , o r e v en th e p olitic al a n d e co nom ic c h ara cte ris tic s o f o ur s o cie ty . H e

te rm s th is p ers p ectiv e “ th e v eil o f ig nora n ce.” O ne o f th e b asic c o nclu sio ns

Raw ls re ach es b y re aso nin g fro m th is a ssu m ed v an ta g e p oin t is th is : “ A ll so cia l p rim ary g oods— lib erty a n d o pportu nity , in co m e a n d w ealth , a n d th e

base s of se lf -re sp ect— are to be dis tr ib ute d eq ually

unle ss an uneq ual

dis tr ib utio n o f a ny o r a ll o f th ese g oods is to th e a dva nta ge o f th e le a st

fa vo re d

” (p . 1 9, e m phasis a d ded ). In o th er w ord s, if n one o f u s k new w hat

our a ctu al s itu atio n in s o cie ty w as, a cco rd in g to R aw ls , w e w ould a ll th in k it

ju st to d is tr ib ute th ese g oods e q ually o r in a w ay th at w ould in cre ase th e

ad van ta g es o f t h ose w ho t u rn o ut t o b e a m ong t h e l e ast f a v ore d . W e w ould d o

so b ecau se f ro m b eh in d “ th e v eil o f ig nora n ce,” it w ould b e in o ur in te re st to

do so ; n one o f u s w ould w an t to ru n th e ris k o f w in din g u p am ong th e

dis a d van ta g ed w ith out t h ese p ro vis io ns.

This very lim ite d tr e atm en t of th e co m ple x an d care fu lly re aso ned

philo so phy o f J o hn R aw ls is in clu ded o nly to s u ggest th e a ttitu de r e q uir e d o f

ad m in is tr a to rs in se rv in g th e p ublic in te re st, a n a ttitu de b uilt o n ra tio nality

an d b en ev ole n ce, b oth in clu siv e an d p ro je cte d o ver th e lo ng ru n. It is an

attitu de th at atte m pts to esc h ew sh ort- ru n pers o nal gain s an d re sis ts

im med ia te pre ssu re s. It is a fra m e of m in d th at str u ggle s to m ain ta in a

co m mitm en t t o a n e v olv in g s o cia l s y ste m , a v is io n o f t h e d is ta n t f u tu re , a n d a

se n se o f e q uity t h at e x clu des n one. I t a ssu m es t h at p ublic s e rv an ts c an r e aliz e

th at t h ey a re p rim arily m em bers o f t h e p ublic , w hose f o rtu nes w ill r is e o r f a ll

with th e co ncern an d fa ir n ess ex erc is e d in th e co nduct of th e public 's

busin ess.

Subje ctiv e R esp on sib ilit y

Exte rn ally im pose d oblig atio ns are only one dim en sio n of re sp onsib ility .

Alo ngsid e th ese are o ur o w n fe elin gs o f re sp onsib ility an d b elie fs ab out

re sp onsib ility . O bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a ris e s fro m le g al, o rg an iz atio nal, a n d

so cie ta l dem an ds on our public ad m in is tr a to r ro le , but su bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility is ro ote d in o ur o w n b elie fs ab out lo yalty , co nsc ie n ce, an d

id en tif ic atio n. S ubje ctiv e re sp onsib ility in carry in g out our ad m in is tr a tiv e

ro le re fle cts th e kin d of pro fe ssio nal eth ic dev elo ped th ro ugh pers o nal

ex perie n ce th at w as d is c u sse d a t th e b eg in nin g o f C hap te r T w o. W e b elie v e

in bein g le g al, an d so w e are co m pelle d by our co nsc ie n ce to act in a

partic u la r w ay , n ot b ecau se w e a re re q uir e d to d o s o b y a s u perv is o r o r th e

la w b ut b ecau se o f a n in ner d riv e c o m pose d o f b elie fs , v alu es, a n d c h ara cte r (th e l a tte r u nders to od a s p re d is p ositio ns t o a ct i n c erta in w ay s). T hese i n te rn al

so urc es o f re sp onsib ility m ay b eg in a s e x te rn al sta n dard s a n d e x pecta tio ns

th at b eco m e i n te rn aliz ed o ver t im e t h ro ugh t r a in in g a n d s o cia liz atio n.

Faced w ith th e h ig hw ay p ro ble m , f o r e x am ple , e v en th ough y ou m ay h av e

no sp ecif ic obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility fo r re d ucin g hazard ous co nditio ns,

nev erth ele ss y ou m ay h av e a n in te n se c o ncern f o r th e s a fe ty o f c h ild re n . A ll

th e l a w r e q uir e s o f y ou i s t o p re p are a n e n vir o nm en ta l i m pact s ta te m en t w hen

park la n d is in volv ed . T hat is a ls o w hat th e h ie ra rc h y o f y our a g en cy e x pects

of y ou. T he o ne s o urc e o f o bje c tiv e re sp onsib ility th at m ay re q uir e m ore o f

you is th e o blig atio n to se rv e th e p ublic in te re st. H ow ev er, th at is su ch a n

ab str a ct an d elu siv e notio n th at it m ay not se rv e ev en th e purp ose of

ex pan din g th e p ers p ectiv e o f th e d ecis io n m ak er, u nle ss h e o r sh e h as a

str o ng s e n se o f s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility . S om etim es s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility

re in fo rc es a pers o n's obje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s, an d so m etim es not.

Som etim es it m oves th e p ublic in te re st o blig atio n to th e fo re fro nt, an d at

oth er t im es i t o bsc u re s i t a lto geth er.

Our fe elin gs a n d b elie fs a b out re sp onsib ility to s o m eo ne o r fo r s o m eth in g

em erg e fro m th e so cia liz atio n p ro cess. T hey are m an if e sta tio ns o f v alu es,

attitu des, an d b elie fs w e acq uir e fro m fa m ily , sc h ool, re lig io us affilia tio n,

frie n ds, p ro fe ssio nal tr a in in g, a n d o rg an iz atio nal in volv em en t. T hro ugh th ese

ex perie n ces w e beg in to perc eiv e patte rn s in physic al natu re an d in th e

beh av io r o f o th ers t h at b eco m e a p art o f o ur c o gnitiv e s y ste m .

Acco rd in g to R okeach ( 1 970), th ese b elie fs m ay b e d esc rip tiv e ( “ I b elie v e

ra in i s a f o rm o f w ate r” ), e v alu ativ e ( “ I b elie v e r a in i s g ood f o r t h e e arth ”), o r

pre sc rip tiv e (“ I belie v e ex perim en ts to in cre ase ra in fa ll sh ould be

en co ura g ed ”) ( p p. 1 12–113). T hese b elie fs , R okeach e x pla in s, a re o rg an iz ed

in to a ttitu des a s th ey b eco m e o rie n te d a ro und ty pes o f s itu atio ns. T hey a re

re la tiv ely e n durin g a n d te n d to c re ate w ith in u s p re d is p ositio ns to r e sp ond in

a c o nsis te n t f a sh io n to p artic u la r s itu atio ns— an oth er w ay o f s a y in g th at th ey

co ntr ib ute to th e dev elo pm en t of both ch ara cte r (p re d is p ositio ns) an d

in te g rity ( c o nsis te n cy o f c o nduct o ver t im e).

Valu es a re t y pes o f b elie fs m ore b asic t h an o th er b elie fs w e m ay h old ; t h ey

are c en tr a l to o ur b elie f s y ste m s a n d th us to o ur a ttitu des. T hey a re b elie fs

ab out h ow w e o ught t o b eh av e a n d a b out t h e d esir a b ility o f c erta in e n d s ta te s.

Fig ure 4 .1

s h ow s th re e c o ncen tr ic c ir c le s: v alu es a re lo cate d in th e in nerm ost cir c le , in dic atin g th eir fu ndam en ta l re la tio nsh ip to th e m ore s p ecif ic b elie fs

one h old s; b elie fs lie in th e m id dle r in g; a n d a ttitu des a re p la ced in th e o ute r

cir c le to s u ggest th at th ey a re g en era liz ed c o m posite s o f v alu es a n d b elie fs

(s e e a ls o W rig ht, 1 971).

Fig u re 4 .1

B elie fs , A ttitu des, a n d V alu es.

Sourc e: B ase d o n R okea ch , 1 970. Valu es are pow erfu l in flu en ces in hum an ex perie n ce. A lth ough I hav e

re fe rre d to s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a s in volv in g fe elin gs, it is im porta n t to note th at th e v alu es fro m w hic h th is k in d o f re sp onsib ility e m erg es a re n ot

sim ply e m otio nal e x pre ssio ns. T hey h av e th re e c o m ponen ts th at a ffe ct th e

way w e liv e: c o gnitiv e, a ffe ctiv e, a n d b eh av io ra l. V alu es n ot o nly e m erg e

fro m our co gnitiv e in te ra ctio n w ith our en vir o nm en t but als o sh ap e our

perc ep tio ns as w e co ntin ue to ex perie n ce th e w orld . V alu es als o ev oke

em otio nal re sp onse s to w hat w e p erc eiv e; w e h av e p ositiv e an d n eg ativ e

fe elin gs a sso cia te d w ith w hat w e b elie v e a b out w hat w e p erc eiv e ( D re w s a n d

Lip so n, 1 971). T he c o m bin atio n o f c o gnitiv e a n d a ffe ctiv e re sp onse s to th e

physic al an d so cia l en vir o nm en t cre ate s p re d is p ositio ns w ith in u s to w ard

certa in k in ds o f b eh av io r. I n o th er w ord s, w hat w e b elie v e a n d h ow w e f e el

ab out th ose b elie fs a ffe ct o ur c h ara cte r, w hic h s h ap es o ur c o nduct. A v alu e

fu nctio ns a s a p ow erfu l im pera tiv e to a ctio n; it is “ a s ta n dard o r y ard stic k to

guid e a ctio ns” ( R okeach , 1 970, p . 1 60).

As a fe d era l a d m in is tr a to r c o nsid erin g th e h azard ous h ig hw ay , y ou m ay

pre v io usly h av e f o rm ed a n

attitu de

o f s u pport f o r a n y e ffo rt th at p ro pose s to

alte r h ig hw ay s fo r th e in cre ase d sa fe ty fo r ch ild re n . T his attitu de m ay b e

co m pose d o f a n um ber o f

belie fs

a b out t h e a ccid en t r a te o n n arro w h ig hw ay s,

th e b est m ean s fo r re d ucin g th at ra te , th e v uln era b ility o f p ed estr ia n s a n d

bic y cle r id ers , th e s p ecia l v uln era b ility o f c h ild re n tr a v elin g b y th ese m ean s,

an d th e d esir a b ility o f w alk in g a n d r id in g b ic y cle s in ste ad o f b ein g d riv en in

moto r v eh ic le s. A t a d eep er a n d m ore d ete rm in ativ e le v el in y our c o gnitiv e

sy ste m , th ere m ay b e s o m e fu n dam en ta l v alu es a b out p re se rv in g th e d ig nity

of h um an lif e an d th e p artic u la r im porta n ce o f p ro te ctin g ch ild re n . T hese

valu es m otiv ate y ou to fe el re sp onsib le fo r e x ped itin g th e w id en in g o f th e

hig hw ay . T hey c au se y ou t o w an t t o t a k e a ctio n i n t h at d ir e ctio n.

Such s o urc es o f s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility m ay b e r o ote d in o ne o r m ore o f

our o th er ro le s, su ch a s m em ber o f a p ro fe ssio nal o r re lig io us a sso cia tio n,

citiz en , o r p are n t. F or ex am ple , o ur m em bers h ip an d in volv em en t in th e

Am eric an S ocie ty f o r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n ( A SPA ) m ay c re ate , th ro ugh th e

ex perie n ces it p ro vid es, a se n se o f su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility th at in flu en ces

our c o nduct in o ur w ork ro le . T his m ay a ris e fro m A SPA 's d e fa cto e th ic al

sta n dard s e x pre sse d th ro ugh th e in fo rm al n orm s o f its c u ltu re . W e a cq uir e

th ese s ta n dard s th ro ugh p artic ip atio n in its a ctiv itie s. N ote th at th ese m ay b e

co nsis te n t t o v ary in g d eg re es w ith A SPA 's e sp ouse d e th ic s s e t f o rth e x plic itly

in i ts c o de o f e th ic s. Subje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility is r o ote d in th ese b asic d ete rm in ativ e b elie fs th at

we r e fe r t o a s v alu es, w hic h b eco m e e la b ora te d t o g re ate r o r l e sse r d eg re es a s

prin cip le s. T hese p rin cip le s c o nnect v alu es to b ro ad c rite ria fo r c o nduct. A s

we c o nfro nt p ro ble m s a n d is su es, o ur v alu es, a n d th e p rin cip le s a sso cia te d

with th em , g iv e r is e to f e elin gs a n d in clin atio ns to b eh av e in a c erta in w ay o r

to s e ek t h e f u lf illm en t o f a p artic u la r g oal.

Cheste r B arn ard , in

The F unctio ns o f th e E xecu tiv e

( 1 964), h as a rg ued th at

th ese v alu es a n d p rin cip le s a re o rg an iz ed in to v ario us c o nste lla tio ns— whic h

he t e rm s p riv ate , u nw ritte n

co des

—govern in g t h e c o nduct o f a n i n div id ual ( p .

262). H is n otio n o f c o des s u ggests th at v alu es a n d p rin cip le s a re n ot m ere ly

ra n ked hie ra rc h ic ally but als o are str u ctu re d in to su bsy ste m s. These

norm ativ e su bsy ste m s are fu nctio nally re la te d to th e vario us ty pes of

activ itie s i n w hic h w e a re i n volv ed . T hey s e rv e a s u nw ritte n , i n te rn al c o des o f

co nduct f o r p artic u la r a sp ects o f o ur liv es. A lth ough B arn ard d oes n ot r e la te

th ese in te rn al co des sp ecif ic ally to th e ro le s w e occu py, it is gen era lly

co nsis te n t w ith h is c o ncep tu al sc h em e to d o so . Id en tif y in g in te rn al c o des

with ro le s h elp s to c la rif y b oth h ow th ey a re o rg an iz ed a n d h ow th ey a re

lin ked to b eh av io r. V alu es th at a re a p pro pria te f o r d efin in g a n d s tr u ctu rin g a

giv en ro le fu nctio n a s a su bsy ste m o f o ur to ta l v alu e sy ste m , fu nctio nally

orie n te d a ro und c o nduct in a p artic u la r ro le b ut re la te d a ls o to o th er v alu e

su bsy ste m s f o r o th er r o le s.

Role s w ere d esc rib ed g en era lly in C hap te r T hre e a s b undle s o f o blig atio ns

an d in te re sts . N ow th e d esc rip tio n n eed s to b e e la b ora te d in a m ore c o m ple x

fa sh io n. T here a re tw o c o m ponen ts in th e e n actm en t o f a ro le : th e o bje ctiv e

an d th e su bje ctiv e. T he obje ctiv e co m ponen t co nsis ts of th ose ex te rn al

oblig atio ns th at w ere d is c u sse d u nder o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . T hey g iv e to

th e ro le a s tr u ctu re , s ta b ility , p re d ic ta b ility , a n d c o ntin uity th at a p pro xim ate

th e w ill o f t h e c itiz en ry . T he s u bje ctiv e c o m ponen t c o nsis ts o f a s u bsy ste m o f

valu es a n d p rin cip le s th at w e c o nstr u ct in th e p ro cess o f r e sp ondin g to th ose

obje ctiv e o blig atio ns a n d e x pecta tio ns. A s w e a ssu m e th e ro le a n d b eg in to

act it o ut in m ak in g p artic u la r d ecis io ns, w e o rg an iz e a se t o f v alu es a n d

prin cip le s th at guid e our sp ecif ic , pers o nal, in div id ual re sp onse s to th e

gen era liz ed o bje ctiv e d efin itio n o f t h e r o le . I n t h is p ro cess, e le m en ts o f a r o le

th at b eg an a s e x te rn al e x pecta tio ns m ay b e in te rn aliz ed th ro ugh s o cia liz atio n

an d b eco m e p art o f o ur sy ste m o f su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . T he m ore w e in te rn aliz e th e v alu es an d p rin cip le s o f a ro le , th e m ore o ur b eh av io r is

guid ed b y o ur s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a n d th e le ss w e d ep en d o n e x te rn al

str u ctu re s.

In o th er w ord s, w e d ev elo p a s tr u ctu re o f s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility th at is

th e co unte rp art of th e obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility im pose d fro m outs id e

ours e lv es. T his is th e w ay w e m esh our ow n need s an d id io sy ncra tic

pers p ectiv es w ith th e d em an ds o f th e r o le . A r o le e v okes w ith in u s a n eed to

cre ate a v alu e s u bsy ste m , a c o de f o r l iv in g o ut i ts o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ilitie s i n

a w ay t h at i s c o m patib le w ith o ur o w n i n ner i n clin atio ns.

This in ner co de m ay or m ay not be sig nif ic an tly in fo rm ed by so m e

pro fe ssio nal co nse n su s ab out th e re sp onsib ility of public ad m in is tr a to rs .

When a n a d m in is tr a to r h as n ot b een s o cia liz ed b y a p ro fe ssio nal c o m munity ,

id io sy ncra tic p ers o nal v alu es d eriv ed fro m o th er ro le s m ay p ro vid e th e o nly

so urc e fo r su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility ; no id en tif ia b le public se rv ic e eth ic al

norm s s h ap e t h e c o nduct o f t h e a d m in is tr a to r. I n t h ese c ase s t h e p ublic r o le i s

carrie d o ut o n th e b asis o f p ers o nal v alu es th at m ay o r m ay n ot b e c o nsis te n t

with p ublic e x pecta tio ns. In co nsis te n cy m ay b e d is c o vere d o nly w hen s o m e

sig nif ic an t actio n by th e ad m in is tr a to r is fo und by su perio rs , politic al

offic ia ls , o r t h e p ublic t o b e a t o dds w ith p ublic s e rv ic e n orm s.

Barn ard (1 964) a ls o m ak es a u se fu l d is tin ctio n b etw een m ora l s ta tu s a n d

re sp onsib ility . M ora l s ta tu s h as to d o w ith th e a ttr ib ute s o f th e in ner c o de f o r

a partic u la r ro le : “sim ple or co m ple x , hig h or lo w , co m pre h en siv e or

narro w .” R esp onsib ility is “ th e p ow er o f a p artic u la r p riv ate c o de o f m ora ls

to c o ntr o l th e c o nduct o f th e in div id ual in th e p re se n ce o f str o ng c o ntr a ry

desir e s o r im puls e s” ( p . 2 63). T hus w e m ay h av e a c le arly w ork ed o ut c o de

fo r an y giv en ro le but m ay not beh av e co nsis te n tly in a m an ner th at is

co ngru en t w ith th e c o de. T o th e e x te n t th at o ur c o des d o n ot c o nsis te n tly

co ntr o l o ur b eh av io r, w e m ay b e d esc rib ed a s ir re sp onsib le . A re sp onsib le

pers o n's c o nduct i s n ot a t o dds w ith h is o r h er c o de f o r t h at r o le .

Som etim es w e s a y th at th ose w hose a ctio ns a re in c o nflic t w ith w hat th ey

belie v e a re la ck in g in in te g rity . T hey c an not b e tr u ste d b ecau se th eir in ner

co ntr o ls a re so w eak th at th eir b eh av io r is u npre d ic ta b le a n d in co nsis te n t.

Main ta in in g a h ig h d eg re e o f s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is im porta n t n ot o nly

fo r t h e s a k e o f o ur s e n se o f w hole n ess, s e lf -e ste em , a n d i d en tity — esse n tia l a s

th ese are to m en ta l health — but als o fo r th e fu lf illm en t of our obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . As Sriv astv a an d Cooperrid er (1 988) su ggest, in te g rity

in volv es w hole n ess, n ot o nly w ith in o urs e lv es b ut in o ur r e la tio nsh ip s. T hese

au th ors m ain ta in t h at i n te g rity i s n ot a s in gle c h ara cte r t r a it a n d n ot l im ite d t o

partic u la r ro le s, b ut ra th er “ a s o phis tic ate d s ta te o f p ro cessin g e x perie n ce in

th e w orld th at en co m passe s m ora l ju dgm en t, cre ativ ity , an d in tu itiv e

cap ab ility , a s w ell a s r a tio nal- a n aly tic p ow ers ” ( p . 5 ). T hey f u rth er a sse rt t h at

ex ecu tiv es w ho h av e th is k in d o f in te g rity “ in vite tr u st f ro m o th ers ” b ecau se

th ey are “co nsis te n t in w ord an d deed ” (p . 5). M ore esse n tia lly th an

org an iz atio n c h arts a n d p ro ced ure s, it is th is tr u st th at a ctu ally in te g ra te s th e

org an iz atio n.

Egger (1 965) cau tio ns us to be su sp ic io us of th e notio n th at an

ad m in is tr a to r c an fu nctio n “ as a so rt o f e th ic al a u to m ato n.” H e a rg ues, in

effe ct, th at th e n eed f o r lo gic a n d c o nsis te n cy in o ur a d m in is tr a tiv e b eh av io r

re q uir e s a d ev elo ped su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . T he ra n ge o f a d m in is tr a tiv e

dis c re tio n th at th e obje ctiv e so urc es of re sp onsib ility allo w m ust be

str u ctu re d b y “ p osse ssio n o f s o m e o f t h e i m ped im en ts o f r e fle ctiv e m ora lity .”

An ad m in is tr a to r need s “so m e ben ch m ark s fo r re la tin g th e vario us an d

fre q uen tly c o nflic tin g c la im s o f c o m petin g v alu es w hic h e n te r i n to h is o ffic ia l

actio ns” (p . 3 03). T hese w ill n ot b e p ro vid ed b y th e la w , th e co urts , o r

dele g ate d au th ority ; th ey are to o gen era l in natu re . A cco rd in g to E gger,

so urc es o f s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a re th e m ean s fo r “ th e m ain te n an ce o f a

co nsis te n t an d p erh ap s co rre ctiv e eth ic al co ntin uum to th e ad m in is tr a tiv e

pro cess” ( p . 3 04).

Conse q uen tly s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility is n ot o nly a n u nav oid ab le fa ct o f

hum an e x perie n ce, g ro w in g o ut o f o ur s o cia liz atio n a n d o ur o th er ro le s, b ut

its co nsc io us an d sy ste m atic dev elo pm en t is esse n tia l fo r carry in g out

obje ctiv e re sp onsib ility in a co nsis te n t, ra tio nal, an d dep en dab le fa sh io n.

Consis te n t an d p ow erfu l in te rn al co ntr o ls allo w ad m in is tr a to rs to ex erc is e

dis c re tio n in a p atte rn th at is re la tiv ely p re d ic ta b le a n d th ere fo re e n gen ders

tr u st am ong asso cia te s. T he eth ic al p ro cess is th e m ean s b y w hic h th ese

in te rn al so urc es of re sp onsib ility are re la te d to ex te rn al dem an ds. M ora l

im ag in atio n is th e re q uis ite sk ill fo r m esh in g th e tw o w ith out a lo ss of

in te g rity . T he r e fle ctiv e d ecis io n-m ak in g a p pro ach d is c u sse d in C hap te r T w o

outlin es th e ste p s fo r m ain ta in in g c o ngru en ce b etw een v alu es a n d e x te rn al

oblig atio ns a sso cia te d w ith t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le . Now l e t u s t u rn t o a n oth er c ase s itu atio n a n d a tte m pt t o a p ply s o m e o f t h ese

co ncep ts a n d d is tin ctio ns r e la te d t o s u bje ctiv e a n d o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility .

“W hat t o D o A bou t M rs. C arm ic h ael”

The M unic ip al R ed ev elo pm en t A gen cy (M RA ) is in volv ed in a p ro je ct in

Vic to ria , o ne o f th e o ld er c o m munitie s in U rb opolis . B ecau se m ost o f th e

tu rn -o f-th e-c en tu ry h ousin g is in a s e rio usly d ila p id ate d s ta te , th e U rb opolis

City C ouncil h as d ecla re d V ic to ria a n a p pro pria te a re a f o r r e d ev elo pm en t.

You hav e been ap poin te d assis ta n t pro je ct dir e cto r, with prim ary

re sp onsib ility fo r d ete rm in in g w hic h o f th e h ouse s sh ould b e re h ab ilita te d

an d w hic h m ust b e d em olis h ed . Y ou h av e a s ta ff t h at i n clu des t w o s p ecia lis ts

in m unic ip al b uild in g c o des a n d h ousin g c o nstr u ctio n. Y ou h av e a ssig ned

th em to c o nduct o n-s ite in sp ectio ns o f th e r e sid en ces in th e f ir s t p ro je ct a re a

an d p re p are a d ra ft r e p ort w ith th eir r e co m men datio ns. T hey a re n earin g th e

co m ple tio n o f t h eir f ie ld w ork ; a n oth er t w o o r t h re e w eek s s h ould d o i t.

Harm on, o ne o f th e tw o s p ecia lis ts , b uzzes y ou o n th e in te rc o m to s a y th at

he a n d F ra n klin , t h e o th er s p ecia lis t, n eed t o t a lk w ith y ou a s s o on a s p ossib le

ab out M rs . C arm ic h ael, w ho liv es in p ro je ct a re a 1 ; in fa ct, sh e h as liv ed

th ere fo r th ir ty y ears . M rs . C arm ic h ael is n ow eig hty -tw o y ears o ld , h er

husb an d is d ecease d , a n d h er in co m e h as b een s o b atte re d b y in fla tio n th at it

bare ly m eets h er b asic liv in g e x pen se s. T he m ortg ag e h as b een p aid o ff, b ut

th ere hav e been ta x es an d m ain te n an ce co sts . Som e tim e ag o M rs .

Carm ic h ael b eg an to n eg le ct re p air s o n h er h om e a s h er m oney sh ra n k in

valu e. “ N ow ,” H arm on s a y s, “ h er h ouse is in p re tty b ad s h ap e.” H e s u m s u p

th e c o nditio n o f th e h ouse b y a d m ittin g th at a cco rd in g to th e s ta n dard s th ey

hav e b een ap ply in g els e w here in th e fir s t p ro je ct are a, M rs . C arm ic h ael's

hom e s h ould b e d em olis h ed .

How ev er, H arm on c an not b rin g h im se lf to re co m men d th e d estr u ctio n o f

th e o ld w om an 's h om e. T his is h is fo urth re d ev elo pm en t p ro je ct a n d h e h as

se en it hap pen befo re : “E ld erly peo ple , w hose hom es can not ju stif y

re h ab ilita tio n lo an s, a re re lo cate d in to a p artm en ts , o r b oard a n d c are h om es,

only to la p se in to se n ility an d so m etim es d eath .” H arm on n ev er fe lt v ery

good a b out i t b efo re , a n d h e j u st c an not s ta n d t o d o i t a g ain . H e t e lls y ou t h at

he know s w hat th e la w re q uir e s an d w hat th e M RA pro je ct guid elin es sp ecif y , b ut it s e em s w ro ng. H e a rg ues th at “ th e g overn m en t h as n o b usin ess

tr e atin g d ecen t p eo ple w ho h av e w ork ed h ard a ll th eir liv es a s th ough th ey

were d is p osa b le t r a sh .”

You fe el m oved b y H arm on's c o ncern fo r M rs . C arm ic h ael, b ut y ou a re

unsu re a b out w hat it m ean s fo r y ou a n d th e p ro je ct. It o ccu rs to y ou th at

Fra n klin h as s a id n oth in g, s o y ou a sk i f h e a g re es w ith H arm on.

No, F ra n klin d oes n ot a g re e. H e f e els a s s tr o ngly a s H arm on b ut n ot in th e

sa m e w ay . “ It i s t o o b ad a b out M rs . C arm ic h ael, a n d a ll t h e M rs . C arm ic h aels

who g et c au ght in h er p re d ic am en t, b ut th ere is n oth in g

we

c an d o a b out it,”

sa y s F ra n klin . H e te lls y ou th at th e M RA 's jo b is to r e h ab ilita te w hen it c an

an d d em olis h w hen it c an not, a n d th ere a re la w s a n d r u le s a n d s ta n dard s th at

must g overn t h ose d ecis io ns.

Fra n klin in sis ts th at y ou c an not g o a ro und m ak in g e x cep tio ns; y ou h av e to

be f a ir w ith e v ery one, a n d th at m ean s tr e atin g e v ery one e q ually . T here m ust

be n o s p ecia l f a v ors , o r th e e n ti r e p ro je ct w ill b e je o pard iz ed . E very one w ill

dem an d a n e x cep tio n, a n d n oth in g w ill g et d one. T he o nly w ay to d eal w ith

th is c ase is to g o b y th e b ook. “ L et th e r e lo catio n u nit f in d h er a s a tis fa cto ry

pla ce to liv e— th at's th eir p ro ble m ,” F ra n klin m ain ta in s. “ O ur p ro ble m is to

mak e a d ecis io n a b out w heth er t o f ix u p h er p la ce o r t e ar i t d ow n.” H e k now s

th at th e h ouse is b ey ond re p air a cco rd in g to th e s ta n dard s e m plo yed b y th e

MRA f o r a ll o th er s im ila r p ro je cts .

The t e n sio n h as b een r is in g b etw een H arm on a n d F ra n klin , a n d a t t h is p oin t

a h eate d a rg um en t b re ak s o ut b etw een th e tw o m en . Y ou tr y to c alm th eir

te m pers , a n d a s th ey s e ttle b ack in to th eir s e ats , y ou e x pre ss a p pre cia tio n f o r

both m en 's c o ncern s. Y ou a ssu re th em th at y ou re sp ect th eir ju dgm en t a n d

in dic ate th at y ou w ould lik e to g iv e th e m atte r s o m e th ought a n d d is c u ss it

ag ain la te r. H arm on a n d F ra n klin th an k y ou fo r h earin g th em o ut a n d th en

le av e y our o ffic e.

It is n ot o ur in te n tio n to a tte m pt to re so lv e th e is su e o f M rs . C arm ic h ael's

house , b ut to u se th is c ase to illu str a te s o m e o f th e c o ncep ts ju st d is c u sse d in

th is c h ap te r a n d in dic ate w ay s o f c la rif y in g th e s itu atio n th at w ill b e h elp fu l

in a rriv in g a t a d ecis io n.

Fir s t, c o nsid er t h e f a cts c o ncern in g y our o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility . Y ou k now

th e f o llo w in g, f o r e x am ple :

1.

T he la w s re la te d to th is re d ev elo pm en t pro je ct cle arly au th oriz e th e co ndem natio n a n d d em olitio n o f s u bsta n dard s tr u ctu re s. I f t h e o w ner c an not

or w ill n ot m ak e t h e n ecessa ry r e p air s , t h e b uild in g m ay b e t o rn d ow n.

2.

A l o ng s e rie s o f c o urt c ase s h av e u pheld t h is k in d o f a ctio n.

3.

T he c rite ria f o r d ete rm in in g s u bsta n dard b uild in gs a re w ell d efin ed i n t h e

ag en cy g uid elin es f o r s u ch p ro je cts a n d i n t h e U rb opolis b uild in g a n d s a fe ty

co de.

4.

Y ou are re sp onsib le to B ro nso n, th e V ic to ria R ed ev elo pm en t P ro je ct

dir e cto r, fo r re co m men din g w hic h build in gs sh ould be dem olis h ed an d

whic h r e h ab ilita te d . I f i t l o oks a s t h ough t h is c ase w ill b e a m atte r o f d is p ute

or if y ou can not re so lv e th e is su e in y our o w n m in d, y ou m ay h av e to

dis c u ss i t w ith h im .

5.

Y ou are not su re w hat your re sp onsib ility fo r uphold in g th e public

in te re st r e q uir e s o f y ou i n t h is c ase . Y ou n eed t o a sc erta in h ow t h e p ublic , a t

le ast i n t h e V ic to ria a re a, f e els a b out i t.

Then y ou re v ie w in y our m in d w hat y ou k now a b out M rs . C arm ic h ael's

case a n d w hat e sse n tia l in fo rm atio n y ou n eed to o bta in . Y ou f e el r e aso nab ly

co nfid en t a b out t h e f o llo w in g:

1.

F ro m H arm on's d esc rip tio n, th e h ouse p ro bab ly f a lls in to th e d em olitio n

cate g ory . H arm on d id n ot t r y t o s o fte n t h e h ard r e alitie s o f i ts c o nditio n, a n d

Fra n klin c o ncu rre d .

2.

B ecau se th e h ouse is in s u ch b ad s h ap e, it w ill n ot q ualif y fo r a fe d era l

gra n t o r l o an l a rg e e n ough t o d o t h e w ork r e q uir e d t o a v oid c o ndem natio n.

3.

M rs . C arm ic h ael co uld n ot q ualif y fo r a lo an fro m a p riv ate le n din g

in stitu tio n, a n d s h e w ould b e u nab le t o m ak e t h e p ay m en ts i f s h e d id .

4.

I f d em olitio n ta k es p la ce, M rs . C arm ic h ael c o uld n ot a ffo rd to r e b uild o n

th e p re se n t s ite .

5.

If th e a g en cy c o ndem ns th e h ouse fo r d em olitio n, M rs . C arm ic h ael w ill

re ceiv e m ark et v alu e f o r i t.

You fe el m uch le ss c erta in a b out se v era l o th er a sp ects o f th e c ase . Y ou

belie v e t h at y ou n eed t o c la rif y t h e f o llo w in g:

1.

H ow d oes M rs . C arm ic h ael fe el a b out th e s itu atio n? H arm on is d eep ly

co ncern ed a b out s a v in g h er h ouse , b ut n ot o nce in h is p re se n ta tio n o f th e

pro ble m d id h e r e p ort

her

v ie w poin t. I t w ould b e a g ood i d ea t o s to p b y a n d

hear h er r e actio ns f ir s th an d. M ay be s h e w ould l ik e t o m ove i n to a p la ce t h at

sh e c o uld m an ag e b ette r. 2.

C an s h e h an dle a c h an ge in re sid en ce? W hat a re h er m en ta l, e m otio nal,

an d physic al sta te s? Is sh e in re aso nab ly good health ? Y ou know th at

Harm on i s r ig ht a b out t h e s e rio us n eg ativ e i m pact o f m ovin g o n s o m e o ld er

peo ple .

3.

W hat a re s o m e o ptio ns i f h er h ouse i s d em olis h ed ? W ill s h e h av e e n ough

money fro m th e ag en cy 's purc h ase of her house to buy an oth er house

els e w here o r p erh ap s a c o ndom in iu m ? M ay be s h e c o uld i n vest t h e p ro ceed s

an d p ro duce e n ough a d ditio nal i n co m e t o a ffo rd a n ic e a p artm en t.

4.

Is M rs . C arm ic h ael tr u ly a n e x cep tio nal c ase ? A re th ere o th er e ld erly

peo ple in th e p ro je ct a re a w ho f a ce th e s a m e th re at? M ay be th ey s h ould b e

co nsid ere d a s a g ro up.

5.

H ow d o p eo ple in th e c o m munity fe el a b out M rs . C arm ic h ael's c ase ?

With out v io la tin g h er p riv acy , is it p ossib le to a sse ss h ow o th ers b elie v e

th eir i n te re sts m ig ht b e s e rv ed o r s u bverte d b y t h e w ay h er c ase i s h an dle d ?

Fin ally , y ou re fle ct o n y our o w n p ers o nal in clin atio ns. Y ou atte m pt to

cla rif y in y our o w n m in d w hat y our s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility is w ith r e sp ect

to M rs . C arm ic h ael. A fte r m ullin g it over fo r a w hile , you re aliz e th e

fo llo w in g:

1.

Y our g en era l

attitu de

to w ard o ld er p eo ple is o ne o f d eep re sp ect. S in ce

your boyhood day s w ith your gra n dpare n ts , you hav e fe lt alm ost a

re v ere n ce f o r t h ose w ho h av e s u rv iv ed t h e v ic is situ des o f t h e m odern w orld .

They e v oke w ith in y ou a d efe re n tia l f e elin g.

2.

T his a ttitu de is c o m pose d o f a n um ber o f

belie fs

. Y ou v ie w o ld er p eo ple

as hav in g “p aid th eir dues,” as hav in g w ork ed hard an d dese rv in g our

este em fo r hav in g done so . Y ou belie v e young peo ple ofte n do not

re co gniz e th e v alu ab le k now le d ge a n d e x perie n ce th at o ld er p eo ple h av e

accu m ula te d . Y ou b elie v e th at th e e ld erly a re o fte n ig nore d a n d m is tr e ate d .

They g en era lly d o n ot r e ceiv e w hat i s c o m in g t o t h em .

3.

B eh in d th ese b elie fs a re s o m e

va lu es

y ou h av e lo ng re co gniz ed w ith in

yours e lf . W is d om ab out lif e in th e w orld , base d on know le d ge an d

ex perie n ce, is im porta n t to y ou. G ettin g th e m ost o ut o f th e tim e a llo tte d to

one is s o m eth in g a b out w hic h y ou f e el d eep ly . P ers e v era n ce in th e f a ce o f

hard sh ip is a s ig nif ic an t v ir tu e in y our v alu e s y ste m . F air n ess, o r e q uity , is

one o f th e m ost esse n tia l p rin cip le s o f all. S en sitiv ity to th e fe elin gs o f

oth ers i s a n oth er o f y our v alu es. On th e b asis o f th ese r e fle ctio ns, y ou c o nclu de th at y our s tr o ngest s e n se o f

su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility le ad s y ou in th e d ir e ctio n o f tr y in g to re so lv e th e

pro ble m w ith out h arm in g M rs . C arm ic h ael in a n y w ay . Y ou d o n ot w an t to

dis tu rb her lif e . H ow ev er, you hav e oth er oblig atio ns to o. Y ou are th e

ad m in is tr a to r re sp onsib le fo r mak in g a re co m men datio n ab out M rs .

Carm ic h ael's h ouse . Y ou are p aid to d o th at b y M RA , an d y ou m ad e a

co m mitm en t to c arry o ut th at r e sp onsib ility w hen y ou a ccep te d th e jo b. I t is

your o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility , a n d a s lo ng a s y ou h old th is p ositio n, y ou m ay

not i g nore i t.

Als o , you hav e oth er su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s asso cia te d w ith your

ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le . Y ou fe el re sp onsib le fo r m ain ta in in g m ora le an d a

co opera tiv e te am s p ir it a m ong s ta ff m em bers . Y ou v alu e e ffic ie n cy , a n d y ou

belie v e th ese q ualitie s a re e sse n tia l fo r a n e ffic ie n t o rg an iz atio n. Y ou a ls o

fe el re sp onsib le fo r av oid in g co nflic t w ith th e re sid en ts o f V ic to ria , b oth

becau se th at w ould u pse t th e o rd erly s c h ed ule o f w ork a n d le ad to re d uced

effic ie n cy an d becau se you valu e th e este em of oth ers . Y ou w an t th e

re sid en ts to fe el th at y ou h av e b een fa ir w ith th em . F urth erm ore , y ou fe el

re sp onsib le to B ro nso n, th e V ic to ria P ro je ct dir e cto r, an d M ark ham , th e

ex ecu tiv e d ir e cto r o f M RA , f o r m ain ta in in g th e im ag e o f th e a g en cy . L oyalty

to t h e o rg an iz atio n i s i m porta n t t o y ou.

In d ete rm in in g th e b est c o urs e o f a ctio n, y ou m ay s im ply re sp ond to th e

str o ngest an d m ost d efin itiv e so urc es o f o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility — perh ap s

your su perio r, th e la w , o r b oth if th ey c o ale sc e. O r y ou m ay a llo w d eep -

se ate d f e elin gs t o f u nctio n a s t h e d ecis iv e f a cto rs .

The p ers p ectiv e o utlin ed in C hap te r T w o a ssu m es th at if w e w an t to m ak e

eth ic al d ecis io ns in a m ore in te n tio nal a n d r a tio nal m an ner, w e m ust b e m ore

sy ste m atic . W ork in g th ro ugh th e s te p s o f th e p ro cess o utlin ed th ere is a w ay

of a cco m plis h in g t h is t a sk . A s w e c o nsid er a lte rn ativ e c o urs e s o f a ctio n, t h eir

pro bab le c o nse q uen ces, a n d h ow e ach m ig ht b e d efe n ded , w e a re s e ek in g a n

accep ta b le fit a m ong th e fa cts o f a situ atio n, o ur v alu es, a n d o ur e x te rn al

oblig atio ns. Reso lu tio n is ach ie v ed w hen w e are ab le to im ag in e an

alte rn ativ e th at sa tis fie s th e n eed fo r c o nsis te n cy in o ur fu ndam en ta l se lf -

im ag e. T his a llo w s u s t o m ain ta in o ur s e n se o f i n te g rity , a f e elin g o f b ein g a n

id en tif ia b le w hole , so m eo ne w hom w e an d oth ers w ill re co gniz e as th e

pers o n w e i m ag in e o urs e lv es t o b e. N eed le ss t o s a y , t h is s e lf -im ag e a n d s e n se of in te g rity sh ould be sh ap ed to a la rg e ex te n t by a norm ativ e public

ad m in is tr a tiv e i d en tity , b y a n i n te rn aliz ed p ublic s e rv ic e e th ic .

Con clu sio n

Fulf illin g o ur re sp onsib ilitie s is a s tr e ssfu l, c o m ple x ta sk in m odern s o cie ty .

As sh ould be obvio us fro m th is ch ap te r, th e man ag em en t of th e

ad m in is tr a tiv e r o le w ith its d ual c o m ponen ts is a d if fic u lt ta sk in its e lf . A ny

re ad er w ith a d m in is tr a tiv e e x perie n ce w ill r e aliz e b y t h is p oin t t h at i t i s m uch

more c o m plic ate d th an s u ggeste d h ere . I f w e b eg in to c o nsid er, f o r e x am ple ,

th e m ultip lic ity o f r o le s t h at m ust b e m ain ta in ed b y a n i n div id ual i n t h e u rb an

world to day , th e th ought a n d e n erg y r e q uir e d c an b e o verw helm in g. C onflic t

am ong re sp onsib ilitie s re la te d to a sin gle ro le , co m pounded by co nflic ts

am ong se v era l ro le s, is a re g ula r, ev en daily ex perie n ce fo r public

ad m in is tr a to rs . I n t h e n ex t c h ap te r w e e x am in e t h ese c o nflic ts . Chapte r F iv e

Con flic ts o f R esp on sib ility : T he E th ic a l

Dile m ma

The E th ic a l D ile m ma

C onfro ntin g co nflic tin g re sp onsib ilitie s is th e m ost ty pic al w ay public

a d m in is tr a to rs e x perie n ce e th ic al d ile m mas. W e m ay fe el to rn b etw een tw o

s e ts o f e x pecta tio ns o r in clin atio ns, n eith er o f w hic h is w ith out sig nif ic an t

c o sts . “D am ned if you do, dam ned if you don't ” is a co m mon w ay of

e x pre ssin g th is fe elin g o f b ein g cau ght b etw een in co m patib le alte rn ativ es.

F re q uen tly w e d o n ot id en tif y th is d ile m ma a s a n e th ic al is su e, o nly a s a

p ra ctic al p ro ble m . H ow ev er, at b ase th ese situ atio ns in volv e o rd erin g o ur

v alu es a n d p rin cip le s, c o nsc io usly o r o th erw is e . T hey a re th ere fo re p ro ble m s

o f e th ic s a s w ell a s p ra ctic al p ro ble m s. T hey a re o ccasio ns o n w hic h w e r u n

t h e ris k o f v io la tin g o ne o r m ore o f w hat B an to n (1 965) c alls “ th e so cia l

b arg ain s w hic h u nderlie c o opera tio n.” H e a rg ues th at th ey in volv e “ m ora l a s

w ell a s l e g al c u sto m ary r e q uir e m en ts ” ( p . 2 ).

Once w e h av e lo oked a t th e n atu re o f ro le s in m odern a n d p ostm odern

s o cie ty ( re v ie w ed i n C hap te r T w o) a n d a t t h e d ual m ean in gs o f a d m in is tr a tiv e

r e sp onsib ility (d is c u sse d in C hap te r Thre e), w e are not su rp ris e d th at

c o nflic ts o f r e sp onsib ility a re s o c o m mon. B ecau se th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le is

o nly o ne a m ong a w hole r e p erto ir e o f r o le s w e m ig ht o ccu py in m odern a n d

p ostm odern so cie ty , th e p ossib ility o f ro le c o nflic t is a lw ay s p re se n t. E ach

r o le c o nsis ts o f s e ts o f o blig atio ns a n d in te re sts th at s ta n d a h ig h c h an ce o f

b ein g a t o dds w ith th e o blig atio ns a n d in te re sts o f o ne o r m ore o th er ro le s.

F urth erm ore , b ecau se t h e r o le o f p ublic a d m in is tr a to r i s s o m etim es i n t e n sio n

w ith th e c itiz en sh ip ro le , th ere is th e p ote n tia l fo r re cu rrin g c o nflic t a m ong

t h ese t w o r o le s i n p artic u la r.

Als o , a s I h av e a rg ued in

An E th ic o f C itiz e n sh ip fo r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n (C ooper, 1991), th e fid ucia ry ch ara cte r of public se rv ic e em plo ym en t,

in volv in g re sp onsib ility to a ct o n b eh alf o f th e c itiz en ry , a n d th e fa ct th at it

occu rs w ith in o rg an iz atio nal s e ttin gs, e sta b lis h th e p ossib ility o f tw o ty pes o f

co nflic t:

co nflic t a m ong in te re sts

(s u ch a s p ers o nal in te re sts , o rg an iz atio nal

in te re sts , an d public in te re sts ) an d

co nflic t am ong va rio us so urc es of

auth ority

( s u ch a s o rg an iz atio nal s u perio rs , p olitic al o ffic ia ls , a n d l a w s).

Befo re w e ex am in e each ty pe o f co nflic t, it m ig ht b e u se fu l to re m in d

ours e lv es th at in th is b ook w e a re d ealin g w ith a d m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility ,

so o ur atte n tio n is fo cu se d o n th e co nduct o f an ad m in is tr a to r w ith in an

em plo yin g o rg an iz atio n. T hus w e w ill n ot e x am in e h ere a ctiv itie s o f f a m ily ,

co m munity , an d volu nta ry asso cia tio ns unle ss th ey dir e ctly re la te to th e

ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le w ith in th e org an iz atio n. H ow ev er, w e sh ould not be

obliv io us to th e way s th ose oth er so urc es of re sp onsib ility affe ct

ad m in is tr a tiv e c o nduct. A lth ough ro le s su ch a s m oth er, sp ouse , o r in vesto r

are not en acte d w ith in th e org an iz atio n, th ese so urc es of oblig atio n an d

in te re st nev erth ele ss are carrie d w ith th e pers o n w ho fu nctio ns as an

ad m in is tr a to r d urin g w ork in g h ours .

It is im porta n t to e m phasiz e th at th e d if fe re n t k in ds o f c o nflic t d is c u sse d

here are n ot cla ssif ie d acco rd in g to so m e u niv ers a lly accep te d cate g orie s

in here n t in th e n atu re o f th in gs. I n ste ad , th ey a re s im ply w ay s o f p erc eiv in g

an d ex perie n cin g a co nflic t th at hav e em erg ed fro m peo ple 's pre v io us

ex perie n ce a n d p artic u la r c o gnitiv e s ty le .

Thre e o f th e m ost c o m mon c o nflic ts o f a d m in is tr a tiv e re sp onsib ility th at

we ex perie n ce are co nflic ts of au th ority , ro le co nflic ts , an d co nflic ts of

in te re st. W e w ill c o nsid er e ach o f t h ese a n d i llu str a te t h e f ir s t t w o w ith c ase s.

Becau se c o nflic t o f i n te re st i n clu des a n um ber o f l e g ally d efin ed t y pes, i t w ill

not b e p ossib le to p ro vid e a s in gle e x te n ded c ase illu str a tio n; b rie f e x am ple s

must s u ffic e f o r t h at c ate g ory .

Con flic ts o f A uth orit y

In th e p re v io us c h ap te r w e d is c u sse d th e d if fe re n ce b etw een o bje ctiv e a n d

su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . H ere w e a re e x am in in g c o nflic ts b etw een tw o o r

more o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s im pose d o n a d m in is tr a to rs b y tw o o r m ore

so urc es of au th ority , su ch as th e la w , org an iz atio nal su perio rs , ele cte d offic ia ls , a n d t h e p ublic . I n t h ese s itu atio ns y ou f e el t o rn b etw een t w o s o urc es

of a u th ority th at d em an d in co m patib le a ctio ns fro m y ou. T he la w m an date s

one c o urs e o f a ctio n, b ut th e b oss o rd ers y ou to d o s o m eth in g e ls e ; th e b oss

in str u cts you to m ove in one dir e ctio n, but an ele cte d offic ia l te lls you

oth erw is e ; o r y our su perio r g iv es y ou a n o rd er th at c o nflic ts w ith o ne y ou

hav e re ceiv ed fro m h er b oss. L et u s lo ok a t a c ase in w hic h th is k in d o f

eth ic al d ile m ma i s c o nfro nte d .

“T he M ajo r, t h e C ap ta in , a n d C orp ora l M on ta gu e”

You are a fir s t lie u te n an t in a m ilita ry org an iz atio n re sp onsib le fo r

main ta in in g a n d p ro vid in g a w id e ra n ge o f su pplie s fo r th e la rg er u nit o f

whic h y ou a re a p art. Y ou re p ort to a c ap ta in , w ho re p orts to a m ajo r. Y ou

hav e b een in th is jo b fo r a b out a y ear a n d h av e d ev elo ped p ositiv e w ork in g

re la tio nsh ip s w ith b oth o f t h ese s e n io r o ffic ers .

An o ffic e m an ag er p ositio n, in volv in g th e su perv is io n o f tw o se cre ta rie s

an d th re e c le rk s, o pen s u p in y our o ffic e. B oth th e c ap ta in a n d th e m ajo r

co m e to y ou in dep en den tly a n d e n co ura g e y ou to re q uest th at a p artic u la r

wom an , C orp ora l M onta g ue, b e tr a n sfe rre d f ro m h er p re se n t p ost to f ill y our

open positio n. T hey both ack now le d ge th at alth ough th is positio n w ould

norm ally b e fille d b y so m eo ne a t th e ra n k o f se rg ean t, th ey b elie v e sh e is

very c o m pete n t a n d w ould s e rv e y our o ffic e w ell.

You d o n ot k now C orp ora l M onta g ue, b ut a fte r re v ie w in g h er p ers o nnel

re co rd s an d co nductin g an in te rv ie w , you are not im pre sse d . She has

perfo rm ed a d eq uate ly a s a s e n io r s e cre ta ry , b ut th ere is n o in dic atio n o f th e

le v el o f e x celle n ce r e p orte d b y th e c ap ta in a n d th e m ajo r. Y our in te rv ie w le ft

you fe elin g th at sh e se em s unm otiv ate d an d so m ew hat la ck in g in th e

co m munic atio n a n d i n te rp ers o nal s k ills n eed ed f o r a s u perv is o ry p ositio n.

Afte r t h in kin g i t o ver y ou d ecid e t o p ut i n a r e q uest f o r C orp ora l M onta g ue.

Alth ough y ou se e n o e v id en ce o f a le v el o f c o m pete n ce th at w ould ju stif y

hir in g a c o rp ora l fo r th is jo b, y ou d ecid e to tr u st y our tw o su perio rs , w ho

hav e a lw ay s d em onstr a te d g ood ju dgm en t in th e p ast, e sp ecia lly c o ncern in g

pers o nnel m atte rs .

Afte r C orp ora l M onta g ue h as b een o n t h e j o b f o r a m onth , i t i s c le ar t o y ou

th at y our o w n ju dgm en t w as c o rre ct a n d y our tw o s u perio rs w ere w ro ng. H er

pro ductiv ity is ad eq uate b ut certa in ly n ot ex cep tio nal. T he q uality o f h er work is g en era lly a ccep ta b le b ut h ig hly u nev en . A lth ough s h e is d ev elo pin g

bette r s u perv is o ry s k ills , s h e p re cip ita te d s o m e p ro ble m s in th e o ffic e a t th e

beg in nin g b y h er in ep t tr e atm en t o f th e cle rk s an d se cre ta rie s u nder h er

su perv is io n, a n d th e a tm osp here is s till a b it c h illy . Y ou s e e h er a s s o m eo ne

who w as p ro m ote d to o s o on b ut w ho c an n ow p ro bab ly d ev elo p h er s k ills ,

giv en so m e tim e in th e posit io n, so m e co ach in g, an d fo rm al in -s e rv ic e

tr a in in g.

How ev er, th e situ atio n h as b eco m e e x tr e m ely c o m plic ate d in u nex pecte d

way s. S oon a fte r t h e c o rp ora l c am e t o w ork i n y our o ffic e, y ou r e ceiv ed s o m e

ala rm in g in fo rm atio n: C orp ora l M onta g ue has been hav in g sim ulta n eo us

affa ir s w ith th e cap ta in an d th e m ajo r, but neith er know s of th e oth er's

in volv em en t w ith h er. T o m ak e m atte rs w ors e , y ou h av e n ow le arn ed th at

Corp ora l M onta g ue a n d y our im med ia te b oss, th e c ap ta in , h av e h ad a lo vers '

quarre l a n d h av e b ro ken u p. S he i s s till s e ein g t h e m ajo r.

Even m ore d is tu rb in g, th e cap ta in an d th e m ajo r are n ow se n din g y ou

co nflic tin g sig nals . The cap ta in re cen tly has co m men te d th at C orp ora l

Monta g ue d oes n ot se em to b e w ork in g o ut in h er n ew jo b afte r all an d

str o ngly s u ggests th at y ou r e v ie w h er p erfo rm an ce e arly a n d tr a n sfe r h er o ut.

The m ajo r, f o r h is p art, h as u rg ed y ou s e v era l tim es to w rite a n e arly , h ig hly

positiv e perfo rm an ce ev alu atio n fo r Corp ora l M onta g ue. This would ,

acco rd in g to th e m ajo r, p ro vid e a b asis f o r th en a p ply in g f o r a p ro m otio n to

th e ra n k o f s e rg ean t fo r h er. It s e em s lik ely to y ou th at C orp ora l M onta g ue

has b een e n co ura g in g h er r e m ain in g lo ver, th e m ajo r, to o ffe r th is s u ggestio n

on h er b eh alf . F in ally , b ecau se y ou h av e n ot y et a cte d o n t h eir “ su ggestio ns,”

both se n io r o ffic ers h av e is su ed o ra l o rd ers to m ove a h ead w ith C orp ora l

Monta g ue's e v alu atio n a n d t h en t o t a k e t h e a ctio n t h ey r e co m men ded .

As w ith o th er c ase s w e h av e c o nsid ere d , th e p oin t h ere is n ot to a rriv e a t a

so lu tio n b ut to s tim ula te th ought a b out th e n atu re o f o ne k in d o f c o nflic t o f

re sp onsib ility . W e a re a tte m ptin g to c u ltiv ate a w ay o f th in kin g a b out th e

co nflic t o f a u th ority t h at t h is c ase r e p re se n ts .

When y ou b eg in to r e fle ct o n y our d ile m ma o ver C orp ora l M onta g ue, y ou

re aliz e th at y ou a re f a ced w ith a c o nflic t a m ong th re e a u th oritie s: y our b oss,

his boss, an d th e pers o nnel re g ula tio ns. The re g ula tio ns sp ecif y a

perfo rm an ce e v alu atio n a t th e e n d o f t h e f ir s t t h re e m onth s i n a n ew p ositio n,

but C orp ora l M onta g ue has been in your offic e fo r only one m onth . Furth erm ore th e re g ula tio ns re q uir e you to pro vid e re g ula r ev alu ativ e

co m men ts an d co nstr u ctiv e ad vic e durin g th e pro batio nary perio d an d

obje ctiv ely ev alu ate h er p erfo rm an ce o n th e v ario us asp ects o f h er w ork

sp ecif ie d in th e jo b d esc rip tio n at th e en d o f th e p erio d. If sh e is to b e

re ta in ed , you are to re co m men d ste p s to im pro ve her sk ills w here v er

necessa ry . If y ou c o m ply w ith th e re q uir e m en ts o f th is s o urc e o f a u th ority ,

you will underta k e an ev en han ded re v ie w of Corp ora l M onta g ue's

perfo rm an ce t w o m onth s f ro m n ow , n ot n ow a s y our s u perio rs a re u rg in g.

Hir in g C orp ora l M onta g ue w as a m is ta k e, b ut y ou w an t t o t r y t o r e d eem t h e

erro r. Y ou hope th at w ith your co unse l an d guid an ce, sh e w ill hav e

dev elo ped h er sk ills sig nif ic an tly b y th e tim e o f th e sc h ed ule d re v ie w a n d

th at h er m otiv atio n w ill h av e im pro ved a s s h e fe els m ore c o m pete n t in th e

positio n. Y ou a n tic ip ate a r e p ort th at w ill f in d h er a ccep ta b le f o r th e jo b b ut

need in g tr a in in g in su perv is o ry sk ills an d tim e m an ag em en t an d als o

ad van ced t r a in in g i n t h e u se o f c o m pute rs .

You a ls o k now th at c o m plia n ce w ith th e p ers o nnel re g ula tio ns w ill p la ce

you i n c o nflic t w ith t h e a u th ority o f y our t w o s u perio r o ffic ers . G en era lly y ou

are r e q uir e d b y b asic m ilita ry r u le s t o c arry o ut t h e o rd ers o f s u perio rs , b ut i n

th is c ase , if y ou o bey o ne, y ou w ill d is o bey th e o th er. A nd if y ou f o llo w th e

ord ers o f e ith er th e c ap ta in o r th e m ajo r, y ou w ill b e v io la tin g th e p ers o nnel

re g ula tio ns b ecau se n eith er w an ts to w ait o ut th e p ro batio nary p erio d a n d

neith er w an ts a n o bje ctiv e e v alu atio n.

As y ou c o nsid er p ossib le c o urs e s o f a ctio n, y ou d efin e t h ese a lte rn ativ es:

1.

D is c u ss t h is p ro ble m w ith t h e p ers o nnel o ffic er, a n d a sk h er t o i n te rv en e.

2.

C onfro nt th e cap ta in w ith your know le d ge, an d tr y to get him to

with dra w h is o rd er.

3.

C onfro nt th e m ajo r w ith y our k now le d ge, a n d tr y to g et h im to w ith dra w

his o rd er.

4.

I n fo rm C orp ora l M onta g ue o f y our k now le d ge, e x pla in th e p ro ble m , a n d

ask h er t o r e q uest a t r a n sfe r.

5.

G o to th e co lo nel, nex t up th e ch ain of co m man d, an d ask him to

in te rv en e.

6.

A sk b oth t h e c ap ta in a n d t h e m ajo r t o p ut t h eir o rd ers i n w ritin g.

7.

S im ply re fu se , in w ritin g, th e ord ers of both su perio r offic ers , w ith

re fe re n ces t o C orp ora l M onta g ue's p erfo rm an ce, p ro gre ss, a n d p ro m is e , a n d to a p pro pria te s e ctio ns o f t h e p ers o nnel r e g ula tio ns a n d p ro ced ure s.

You a re p ain fu lly a w are th at e ac h a lte rn ativ e w ill a lm ost c erta in ly p ro duce

in te n se c o nflic t, w ith p ote n tia lly d ir e c o nse q uen ces f o r y our o w n f u tu re .

Faced w ith th is k in d o f c o nflic t o f a u th oritie s, w hic h in volv es o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ilitie s, you re aliz e th at you m ust cla rif y your ow n su bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ility a n d a ls o c o nsid er a n y b ro ad er o r m ore fu ndam en ta l o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ilitie s. B ecau se y ou can not esc ap e co nflic t in th is situ atio n, y ou

must fir s t tu rn to y our o w n b elie fs , v alu es, a n d p rin cip le s to d ecid e w hic h

co nflic t to e n gag e, w hic h c o urs e o f a ctio n w ould b e b est, a n d h ow y ou c o uld

ju stif y y our c o nduct.

As y ou d o s o it is c le ar th at a lth ough y ou a re a cco unta b le to y our s u perio r

offic ers , y ou d o n ot fe el re sp onsib le fo r fo llo w in g th e o rd ers o f eith er o f

th em . T he s o urc es o f th at f e elin g r e q uir e s o m e r e fle ctio n, w hic h le ad s y ou to

th oughts ab out y our d eep se n se o f lo yalty to th e m ilita ry se rv ic e, to th e

natio n, a n d m ore c o ncre te ly to th e C onstitu tio n. Y ou to ok a n o ath to u phold

an d d efe n d t h e C onstitu tio n. T o y ou, t a k in g t h at o ath m ean t m ore t h an s im ply

meetin g a le g al re q uir e m en t to jo in th e m ilita ry se rv ic e. It w as an o vert

man if e sta tio n o f th e v alu e o f p ublic se rv ic e y ou h ad g ro w n u p w ith . Y our

pare n ts had alw ay s in volv ed th em se lv es in se rv ic e activ itie s fo r th e

co m munity a n d h ad e n co ura g ed y ou t o d o s o .

Tak in g t h at o ath r e fle cte d n ot o nly y our c o m mitm en t t o s e rv e t h e n atio n b ut

als o your belie f in th e fu ndam en ta l im porta n ce of th e ru le of la w . T he

Constitu tio n is th e b asic la w o f th e la n d, a n d a n yone w ho v ow s to u phold it

must a ls o u phold s p ecif ic l a w s t h at p ro ceed f ro m i t a n d a re c o nsis te n t w ith i t.

It is tr u e, h ow ev er, th at y ou b elie v e th ere a re s o m e r a re c ir c u m sta n ces w hen

sp ecif ic la w s m ust b e b ro ken in o rd er to c h alle n ge th eir c o nsis te n cy w ith th e

Constitu tio n a n d f u ndam en ta l e th ic al p rin cip le s. B ut th at d oes n ot s e em to b e

th e case here ; th e pers o nnel re g ula tio ns se em fa ir an d co nsis te n t w ith

co nstitu tio nal v alu es lik e d ue p ro cess a n d e q ual p ro te ctio n u nder th e la w , a s

well a s w ith b asic e th ic al p rin cip le s l ik e j u stic e.

As y ou c o nsid er y our d ev otio n to th e r u le o f la w , it o ccu rs to y ou th at th e

le g al s tr u ctu re o f th e n atio n, in clu din g m ilita ry la w s, ru le s, a n d re g ula tio ns,

re p re se n ts a s o urc e o f a u th ority a n d o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility th at s u pers e d es

th e a u th ority o f y our s u perio r o ffic ers . In fa ct n o m em ber o f th e m ilita ry is

le g ally re q uir e d to o bey a n ille g al o rd er; th e a u th ority o f la w is h ig her th an th e a u th ority o f a n y m ilita ry o ffic er.

You re fle ct o n th e im porta n ce o f b ein g fa ir w ith y our su bord in ate s. Y ou

re call y our m ilita ry a cad em y tr a in in g: o ne o f y our in str u cto rs in le ad ers h ip

str e sse d th e c ard in al im porta n ce o f o ffic ers ' “ ta k in g c are o f th eir tr o ops.” H e

use d to a rg ue p assio nate ly th at th e a u th ority d ele g ate d to a n o ffic er m ust n ot

be a b use d b y u sin g it to e x plo it a n d m an ip ula te s u bord in ate s f o r th e o ffic er's

ow n e n ds.

Als o , you th in k ab out w hat is best fo r your org an iz atio n. B ecau se its

man ag em en t is y our re sp onsib ility , y ou fe el th e n eed to d o th at w hic h w ill

mak e it fu nctio n m ost effe ctiv ely . T hat is w hat giv es you pro fe ssio nal

sa tis fa ctio n a n d m ean in g. I f C orp ora l M onta g ue is tr a n sfe rre d f o r o th er th an

jo b-re la te d re aso ns o r u nju stif ia b ly p ro m ote d b efo re sh e h as e arn ed it, w ill

th at se rv e th e org an iz atio n's best in te re sts , or w ill it hav e destr u ctiv e

co nse q uen ces? W hat if y ou k eep h er fo r th e fu ll th re e m onth s a n d s h e d oes

not i m pro ve o r e v en b eco m es i n cre asin gly u nev en a n d i n ep t i n h er w ork ?

Thro ugh th is kin d of asse ssm en t of your su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility an d

id en tif ic atio n of partic u la rly fu ndam en ta l obje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s, you

atte m pt to m ove to w ard an alte rn ativ e th at w ill fu lf ill b oth o bje ctiv e an d

su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s. F ollo w in g th e lin e o f re aso nin g d ev elo ped h ere ,

th is w ill n ecessa rily re q uir e su bord in atin g, a lth ough n ot a b an donin g, so m e

obje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s to o th ers . Y ou w ill p ro bab ly h av e to ra n k y our

re sp onsib ility to s u perio rs b elo w y our re sp onsib ility to th e re g ula tio ns, a n d

lik ely a ls o s u bord in ate y our o bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility to y our s u perio rs to y our

su bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ilitie s r o ote d i n y our l o ng-s ta n din g b elie fs .

You m ay r e so lv e th e e th ic al c o nflic t th ro ugh th is p ro cess, b ut it s h ould b e

cle ar th at e th ic al re so lu tio n d oes n ot re so lv e th e p ra ctic al p ro ble m s. It o nly

help s you id en tif y your prim ary oblig atio ns an d esta b lis h a basis fo r

ex pla in in g y our b eh av io r t o y ours e lf a n d o th ers . I n o th er w ord s, i t i s a w ay o f

esta b lis h in g a p ers p ectiv e o n t h e p ro ble m , a p la ce t o s ta n d i n d ealin g w ith t h e

cap ta in , th e m ajo r, C orp ora l M onta g ue, o r o th er h ig her au th oritie s in th e

govern m en t.

In s itu atio ns s u ch a s th is y ou a re lik ely to s u ffe r in o ne w ay o r a n oth er, b ut

it is s till im porta n t to b e c le ar a b out w hat y ou w ill s u ffe r f o r, a n d w hy. I t is

im porta n t to h av e a m ean s f o r m ain ta in in g a cco unta b ility f o r y ours e lf in th e

mid st o f in te n se a n d h azard ous c o nflic t. I n th e m ost b asic s e n se , it is th ro ugh th is k in d o f a n aly tic al a n d n orm ativ e r e fle ctio n th at w e c re ate a n o pera tio nal

eth ic , d ev elo p i n te g rity , a n d m ain ta in r e sp onsib le b eh av io r.

Role C on flic ts

The k ey is su e in r o le c o nflic ts in r e sp onsib ility is th e c o ncep t o f r o le . H ere , a

public ad m in is tr a to r ex perie n ces v alu es asso cia te d w ith p artic u la r ro le s as

in co m patib le o r m utu ally e x clu siv e in a g iv en s itu atio n. G en era lly , h ow ev er,

we d o n ot sim ply ex perie n ce th e v alu es th em se lv es. R ath er, w e fe el th e

co llis io n of th e ro le s govern ed by th ose valu es. A t tim es w e m ay be

co nfro nte d w ith a n e x pecta tio n i n o ur w ork t h at w e b elie v e t o b e i n co nsis te n t

with bein g a good m oth er, a good C ath olic , or a good m em ber of th e

Am eric an S ocie ty fo r P ublic A dm in is tr a tio n. In th ese c ase s th e c o nflic t is

betw een t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le a n d o ne o r m ore o f o ur r o le s o uts id e t h e w ork

org an iz atio n.

At o th er tim es w e m ay fe el th at w e a re b ein g a sk ed to d o s o m eth in g a s a

fis c al m an ag er th at d oes v io le n ce to o ur a b ility to fu nctio n e ffe ctiv ely a s a

su perv is o r, o r a sk ed to b eh av e a s a s u bord in ate in a w ay th at je o pard iz es o ur

ab ility t o b e a g ood f is c al m an ag er. T hese a re e x am ple s o f c o nflic t a m ong o ur

ro le s in sid e th e o rg an iz atio n. T o b e m ore p re cis e w e m ig ht re fe r to th ese a s

co nflic ts a m ong s u bro le s o f th e la rg er a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le o r c o nflic ts a m ong

co m ponen ts o f t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le .

In sid e R ole s V ersu s O uts id e R ole s: “ P olit ic s a n d

Toile ts ”

Im ag in e th at you are th e public health offic er fo r th e m unic ip al health

dep artm en t o f th e c ity o f M ic ro . Y our p ro fe ssio nal tr a in in g w as in p ublic

health , b ut y ou h av e b een in a d m in is tr a tiv e p ositio ns fo r th e p ast te n y ears .

You a re n ow a t th e s e co nd le v el o f th e d ep artm en t, re p ortin g d ir e ctly to th e

dir e cto r. Y ou s u perv is e e ig ht p ro fe ssio nals a n d a n o ffic e s ta ff o f s ix . M ost o f

your unit's w ork in volv es in sp ectin g re sta u ra n ts , fo od m ark ets , fo od-

pro cessin g p la n ts , a n d s a n ita ry f a cilitie s f o r l a rg e p ublic b uild in gs.

The c ity o f M ic ro h as b een e x perie n cin g se v ere fin an cia l p re ssu re fo r a

num ber o f y ears a s a re su lt o f a ta x lim ita tio n m easu re a d opte d b y th e s ta te more th an a d ecad e a g o. S om e tr a d itio nal s o urc es o f r e v en ue h av e b een lo st,

an d th e c ity c o uncil is h av in g to c u t th e b udget w here v er p ossib le , a s w ell a s

se arc h f o r n ew r e v en ue. O ne o f th e m ore p ro gre ssiv e m em bers o f th e c o uncil

obse rv es th at ro ck c o ncerts o fte n a ttr a ct la rg e c ro w ds w illin g to p ay h ig h

pric es f o r w ell- k now n e n te rta in ers . H e a rg ues p ers u asiv ely th at M ic ro m ig ht

be a b le to r a is e m uch o f its lo st r e v en ue b y s p onso rin g o ne b ig e v en t o f th is

kin d each year. T he co uncil deb ate s th is pro posa l over se v era l co uncil

se ssio ns; th en a c o alitio n o f c itiz en s f o rm s in s u pport o f it. F or th e m ost p art

th ey a re c o nsu m ers o f s e rv ic es t h re ate n ed b y t h e l o ss o f r e v en ue a n d p ro perty

ow ners w ho f e ar n ew f o rm s o f ta x atio n s u ch a s g arb ag e c o lle ctio n a n d s e w er

fe es.

The c o uncil fin ally a p pro ves th e id ea a n d s ig ns a c o ntr a ct w ith a c o ncert

pro m ote r. H e arriv es in to w n an d beg in s m eetin g w ith ap pro pria te city

offic ia ls to m ak e th e n ecessa ry a rra n gem en ts . H e c o nta cts y ou to d is c u ss th e

re q uir e m en ts f o r p ublic h ealth s e rv ic es: to ile t f a cilitie s, w ate r, f o od v en dors ,

an d e m erg en cy m ed ic al c are . B ecau se th e c o ncert is to ta k e p la ce in a c ity -

ow ned f ie ld o n th e e d ge o f to w n a n d th ere a re n o u tilitie s o f a n y k in d a t th e

site , te m pora ry , p orta b le e q uip m en t m ust b e p ro vid ed . A ls o , b ecau se th ere

are n o ex is tin g city o r sta te la w s esta b lis h in g p ublic h ealth sta n dard s fo r

ev en ts o f th is ty pe, y ou h av e b een g iv en th e re sp onsib ility fo r d ete rm in in g

what s h ould b e r e q uir e d .

When y ou m eet w ith R ip le y , th e p ro m ote r, y ou a re a sto nis h ed to le arn th at

he e x pects a c ro w d o f a b out f iv e h undre d t h ousa n d p eo ple f o r a f o urte en -h our

co ncert. A s y ou b eg in to ta lk w ith h im a b out th e n ecessa ry p ublic h ealth

se rv ic es fo r s u ch a la rg e n um ber o f p eo ple , it s o on b eco m es c le ar th at y our

sta n dard s are m uch hig her th an he ex pecte d . In th e ab se n ce of le g al

re q uir e m en ts , y ou h av e re so rte d to th e re co m men datio ns fo r la rg e o utd oor

ev en ts a p pro ved b y th e N atio nal P ublic H ealth A sso cia tio n (N PH A) so m e

years ag o. A fte r W oodsto ck an d se v era l atte m pts by oth er pro m ote rs at

im ita tin g th at c o ncert, th e N PH A h ad a p poin te d a c o m mitte e, o f w hic h y ou

were a m em ber, t o s tu dy p ublic h ealth c o nditio ns a t t h ese e v en ts a n d p ro pose

a s e t o f g uid elin es f o r s a n ita tio n, w ate r, f o od, s a fe ty , a n d m ed ic al s ta n dard s.

The fu rth er you go in dis c u ssin g th e pla n s, th e m ore in cen se d R ip le y

beco m es. H e a rg ues l o udly t h at o ne t o ile t f o r e v ery f if ty p eo ple i s a b su rd a n d

im possib le . H e in sis ts th at if h e p ro vid es te n th ousa n d p orta b le to ile ts f o r th e an tic ip ate d h alf a m illio n p eo ple , th e re n ta l c o sts w ould b e p ro hib itiv e, a n d

sp ace f o r p aid a tte n dees w ould b e r e d uced . T he r a tio h e h as in m in d is m ore

lik e o ne to ile t p er th re e h undre d p eo ple . R ip le y 's re actio n is m uch th e s a m e

fo r th e n um ber o f m ed ic al te n ts a n d p ers o nnel, th e a m ount o f f o od, a n d “ all

of t h ose d am ned ta n k t r u ck s f u ll o f w ate r.” H e f in ally r e fu se s to c o m ply w ith

your sta n dard s, in fo rm s y ou th at h e w ill ta k e th e m atte r u p w ith th e city

co uncil, a n d s to rm s o ut o f y our o ffic e.

Late r th at sa m e day your boss, H arle y , th e dir e cto r of th e city health

dep artm en t, a sk s y ou to c o m e to h is o ffic e. It s e em s th at h e h as re ceiv ed a

call fro m th e p re sid en t o f th e c ity c o uncil re m in din g h im o f th e fin an cia l

ex ig en cy th at M ic ro fa ces. T he c o uncil p re sid en t h ad s u ggeste d th at H arle y

hav e a c h at w ith y ou a b out th e im porta n ce o f th e r o ck c o ncert a n d th en s e n d

you o ver to m eet w ith tw o m em bers o f th e c o uncil th e n ex t m orn in g. T he

co uncil p re sid en t h ad a ls o e x pre sse d c o nfid en ce t h at r e aso nab le r e q uir e m en ts

co uld b e w ork ed o ut t o t h e s a tis fa ctio n o f a ll p artie s i n volv ed . F in ally , h e h ad

obse rv ed t h at “ it w ould b e d etr im en ta l t o a ll o f u s i f w e f rig hte n ed M r. R ip le y

aw ay .”

Afte r r e la tin g th is c o nvers a tio n, H arle y u rg es y ou to b e c o opera tiv e a n d to

ack now le d ge th e pra ctic alitie s of th e situ atio n. There are no le g ally

pre sc rib ed s ta n dard s, a n d th is is o nly a o ne-d ay e v en t, w hic h s h ould m ak e it

possib le f o r y ou to liv e w ith le ss s tr in gen t r e q uir e m en ts . H arle y r e m in ds y ou

th at th ere is a lo t o f s u pport f o r th e c o ncert a m ong th e c itiz en s o f M ic ro a n d

th at an yone o r an y ag en cy th at co m plic ate s th e su ccess o f th is im porta n t

ev en t m ig ht “ fe el th e w ra th o f a n u nfo rg iv in g p ublic .” H e a ssu re s y ou th at a s

an N PH A m em ber in g ood s ta n din g h e to o is c o ncern ed a b out m ain ta in in g

public h ealth s ta n dard s, a n d h e b elie v es in s u pportin g th e re co m men datio ns

of th e a sso cia tio n. “ H ow ev er,” a rg ues H arle y , “ w e m ustn 't b e r ig id o r f o olis h

ab out s u ch t h in gs.”

He assu re s y ou th at h e w ill n ot re so lv e th e m atte r b ure au cra tic ally b y

ex erc is in g his au th ority as your su perio r, but he hopes you w ill keep

upperm ost in y our th in kin g w hat is b est fo r th e d ep artm en t a n d th e c ity o f

Mic ro . H e re sp ects your pro fe ssio nal ju dgm en t an d au to nom y, but he

re m in ds y ou th at y our r e sp onsib ility a s a n e m plo yee o f th e h ealth d ep artm en t

an d t h e c ity i s t o s u pport t h e e ffo rts t o s o lv e t h e s e rio us f is c al p ro ble m s.

You l e av e t h e b oss's o ffic e a n d r e tu rn t o y our o w n. Y ou a re u ncerta in a b out your r e sp onsib ility i n t h is m atte r a n d n eed t o t h in k i t t h ro ugh.

Fir s t, you are acco unta b le to H arle y , your su perio r in th e ch ain of

co m man d. U ltim ate ly h e is to b e h eld a cco unta b le b y th e c ity c o uncil fo r

acco m plis h in g th e m is sio n o f th e d ep artm en t. H ow ev er, h e is n ot th re ate n in g

you w ith h is a u th ority a s y our s u perio r; h e h as i n dic ate d h is w illin gness t o l e t

you d o w hat y ou fe el m ust b e d one. B ut h e h as re q ueste d y ou to c o opera te

with R ip le y an d th e co uncil b y re la x in g th e sta n dard s fo r th is b rie f an d

unusu al a ffa ir . A nd y ou k now f ro m f iv e y ears o f a sso cia tio n w ith H arle y th at

he h as b oth p ers o nal a n d p ro fe ssio nal in te g rity . H e h as b ack ed y ou o n s o m e

to ugh c ase s, su ch a s th e o ne in volv in g a m ark et c h ain w ith a filth y m eat

dep artm en t a n d a c o uncil m em ber w ho w as a p artn er in th e c o rp ora tio n th at

ra n t h at c h ain . H arle y w ith sto od a l o t o f h eat o n t h at o ne.

Furth erm ore , H arle y is rig ht a b out th e s ta n dard s: th ey a re n ot re q uir e d b y

la w . T heir o nly a u th ority c o m es f ro m th e p ro fe ssio nal p re stig e o f th e N PH A.

May be th e m ost im porta n t c o nsid era tio n is th e lo ng-te rm e ffe ctiv en ess o f th e

dep artm en t an d your positio n w ith in it. If you in sis t on m ain ta in in g th e

sta n dard s, t h e c o uncil m ay h old a f o rm al h earin g o n t h e i s su e a n d i n fla m e t h e

public . Y ou, H arle y , a n d th e d ep artm en t c o uld g et h urt if th at h ap pen ed . Y ou

mig ht be fir e d or ease d in to a dead -e n d jo b. Y our re p uta tio n m ig ht be

ir re p ara b ly d am ag ed if th ey m ad e y ou th e b utt o f a jo ke a b out te n th ousa n d

to ile ts . T he h ead lin es w ould b e b ru ta l. B esid es, y ou m ig ht a t le ast b e a b le to

neg otia te R ip le y d ow n fro m h is p ositio n o f o ne to ile t p er th re e h undre d

pers o ns if y ou a re w illin g to b e fle x ib le . B ut if y ou a re d is c re d ite d o r fir e d ,

th e c o uncil w ill p ro bab ly g iv e R ip le y a f re e r e in t o d o a s h e p le ase s.

Even if y ou a re n ot a tta ck ed , th e d ep artm en t c o uld lo se th e s u pport o f th e

public a n d th e g oodw ill o f th e c o uncil. T he n ex t b udget c y cle b eg in s s o on,

th ere is en orm ous fin an cia l pre ssu re , an d th e dep artm en t is re q uestin g

ap pro val fo r a b ond is su e to e x pan d its fa cilitie s. D oes n ot th e d aily ro utin e

work o f th e d ep artm en t c o ntr ib ute fa r m ore to e n han cin g p ublic h ealth th an

your g ettin g y our w ay o n t h is t r a n sie n t r o ck c o ncert i s su e?

Your r o le w ith in t h e M ic ro H ealth D ep artm en t g iv es r is e t o t h ese c o ncern s.

Loyalty to H arle y , b ase d o n y our e ste em fo r h im p ers o nally a s w ell a s o n

your p ro fe ssio nal e ste em , h as c re ate d a b ond w ith h im . T he w ay h e c arrie s

out h is j o b p ro vid es a m odel t h at g iv es d efin itio n a n d i n te g rity t o y our r o le a s

a m em ber o f t h e d ep artm en t. A noth er f a cto r i s t r u st i n h is g ood j u dgm en t a n d se n se o f p ro portio n. F urth erm ore , y ou v alu e th e w ell- b ein g o f th e p eo ple o f

Mic ro ; y our r o le is to p ro te ct a n d e n han ce th eir h ealth . A ls o , th e d ep artm en t

has a n i n str u m en ta l v alu e i n s e rv in g t h at g oal; i ts l o ng-te rm e ffe ctiv en ess a n d

co ntin uity are im porta n t to y ou. A s an ad m in is tr a to r y ou h av e le arn ed to

valu e th e e ffic ie n t o pera tio n o f y our u nit. O ne a sp ect o f y our r o le is to s e ek

more e ffic ie n t w ay s o f fu lf illin g y our m is sio n, p artic u la rly w ith th e re cen t

decre ase s in re v en ue. T hese are so m e of th e valu es th at co nstitu te your

in te rn al co de, or su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility , fo r your ro le in sid e th e

org an iz atio n.

How ev er, your ro le as an N PH A m em ber is in flu en ced by a dif fe re n t

clu ste r o f v alu es. B ecau se y ou h av e b een in volv ed in th at o rg an iz atio n fo r

ab out fo urte en years an d re cen tly se rv ed as a m em ber of th e natio nal

ex ecu tiv e b oard f o r f o ur y ears , y ou a re w ell k now n a s a n a ctiv e l e ad er w ith in

its r a n ks. Y ou g re atly v alu e t h e r e sp ect a n d e ste em o f y our N PH A c o lle ag ues.

Becau se y ou w ere a m em ber o f th e c o m mitte e th at d ev elo ped th e g uid elin es

fo r th ese u nusu ally la rg e o utd oor e v en ts a n d a rg ued f o r th eir a p pro val a t th e

an nual m eetin g, you are partic u la rly co ncern ed ab out how you w ill be

perc eiv ed b y th e m em bers o f th e N PH A. Y our p ro fe ssio nal in te g rity is a t

sta k e.

Als o , y ou h av e t a k en u npopula r p ositio ns o n i s su es b efo re t h e N PH A i n t h e

past a n d h av e i n sis te d t h at c o ura g e a n d c o m mitm en t t o h ig h s ta n dard s f o r t h e

health o f s o cie ty a re e sse n tia l f o r p ublic h ealth p ro fe ssio nals . T here w as th e

tim e a la rg e fa st- fo od ch ain vio la te d a num ber of gen era lly accep te d

re q uir e m en ts fo r sa n ita ry fo od han dlin g. S om e of your co lle ag ues w ere

re lu cta n t to open ly su pport a re so lu tio n callin g fo r actio n ag ain st th is

co m pan y, f o r f e ar o f p olitic al r e p erc u ssio ns. Y ou to ld th em th at a n e ffe ctiv e

public ad m in is tr a to r “can nev er ben d to politic al pre ssu re on th in gs th at

co unt.”

Now h ow w ill y ou lo ok if y ou d o n ot u phold th e a sso cia tio n's g uid elin es

th at y ou h elp ed to w rite ? W hat if y ou g iv e in to th e p re ssu re fro m th e c ity

co uncil a n d th ere is a n o utb re ak o f b otu lis m ? O r in flu en za? O r s o m e o th er

co nta g io us d is e ase a m ong fiv e h undre d th ousa n d p eo ple ? W hat if th ere is a

rio t a n d h undre d s o f p eo ple r e q uir e e m erg en cy m ed ic al c are in a r e m ote a re a

su ch a s t h is ?

Rip le y h as d is m is se d su ch sp ecte rs a s th e “ fa n ta sie s o f a n a ll to o fe rtile im ag in atio n.” H e h as p oin te d o ut re p eate d ly th at th is is a o ne-d ay ev en t,

ask in g rh eto ric ally , “ W hat is lik ely to h ap pen in o ne lo usy d ay ?” B ut y ou

now re aliz e th at it is n ot re ally a o ne-d ay e v en t. T he p olic e d ep artm en t h as

estim ate d t h at i t w ill t a k e a f u ll t w en ty -fo ur h ours j u st t o p ark t h e c ars f o r t h at

man y p eo ple . T hey i n dic ate t h at y ou c an e x pect a rriv als d urin g t h e t h re e d ay s

befo re th e c o ncert, a n d h an gers -o n w ho w ill b e a ro und f o r a d ay o r tw o a fte r

it f o rm ally c o nclu des. T hat a m ounts to a f iv e-d ay s p an d urin g w hic h c o ncert

goers w ill p ose a p ublic h ealth co ncern fo r th e city o f M ic ro . Y ou m ust

pro vid e f o r v ery la rg e n um bers o f p eo ple f o r a p pro xim ate ly th re e o f th e f iv e

day s. A l o t c an h ap pen i n t h at a m ount o f t im e.

If th is th in g b lo w s u p in y our f a ce a n d it g ets in to th e p re ss, w ill y ou e v er

be e ffe ctiv e a g ain in c allin g f o r p ro gre ssiv e a ctio n b y th e N PH A? Y ou h av e

alw ay s fe lt th at it w as im porta n t to be an ag en t fo r ch an ge w ith in an y

org an iz atio n, a n d y ou h av e e sp ecia lly v alu ed th at im ag e o f y ours e lf in th e

asso cia tio n. W hat w ill h ap pen to th at im ag e? W ill a n yone ta k e y our c ru sa d es

se rio usly i n t h e f u tu re ? W ill y ou?

Your r o le w ith in th e N PH A h as b een s h ap ed a n d d efin ed b y th ese v alu es.

Your c o lle ag ues in th e N PH A h av e c o m e to e x pect y ou to b eh av e in c erta in

way s. T hey k now y ou v alu e y our p ers o nal i n te g rity a n d t h e r e sp ect i t e v okes.

They th in k o f y ou as o ne o f th e co ura g eo us ad m in is tr a to rs in th e p ublic

health p ro fe ssio n. W hen ev er th e q uestio n o f p ublic h ealth sta n dard s a ris e s,

th ey k now t h ey c an c o unt o n y ou t o p ush f o r w hat's n ecessa ry t o b e e ffe ctiv e.

Sim ila rly , t h ey e x pect y ou t o b e o ne o f t h ose p eo ple i n t h e a sso cia tio n w ho i s

nev er w illin g to sta y w ith th e sta tu s q uo ju st b ecau se “ it h as a lw ay s b een

done th at w ay ”; th ey lo ok to y ou to m ak e th e c ase f o r s h ak in g th in gs u p a n d

ex perim en tin g w ith n ew id eas, te ch niq ues, a n d p ro ced ure s. T he m em bers o f

th e N PH A e x pect y ou to b e th is k in d o f p ers o n, b ut it is n ot th ey a lo ne w ho

hav e c ast y ou in th is r o le . Y ou h av e c u ltiv ate d th ese e x pecta tio ns. Y ou h av e

carv ed o ut th is k in d o f r o le f o r y ours e lf b ecau se y ou h av e w an te d to b e th is

kin d o f p ers o n. T hese a re so m e o f th e e le m en ts th at c o nstitu te y our in ner

co de, o r s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility , f o r y our r o le a s a m em ber o f t h e N PH A.

This is an ex tr e m e case of te n sio n betw een a ro le in sid e th e public

org an iz atio n f o r w hic h y ou w ork a n d a n o uts id e r o le — in th is c ase , b etw een

tw o k in ds o f s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility . T he v alu es th at s h ap e a n d d ir e ct th e

en actm en t o f e ach r o le a re p ullin g y ou in tw o d if fe re n t d ir e ctio ns, m otiv atin g you t o w ard t w o m utu ally e x clu siv e a lte rn ativ es. Y ou a re c o nfro nte d w ith o ne

kin d o f e th ic al d ile m ma r o ote d in th e r o le s w e o ccu py. L et u s n ow lo ok a t a

case i n w hic h y ou e x perie n ce t h e o th er c o m mon k in d o f r o le c o nflic t.

In sid e R ole s V ersu s I n sid e R ole s: “ R ais in g S ala rie s

or R ais in g H ell? ”

The R an co r C ounty s h erif f's d ep artm en t is a la rg e la w e n fo rc em en t a g en cy

with a b out t h re e t h ousa n d s w orn d ep utie s. Y ou a re t h e l ie u te n an t i n c h arg e o f

th e re se arc h a n d p la n nin g u nit (R PU ); y ou w ere a p poin te d to th e p ositio n

th re e m onth s ag o afte r tw o years of se rv ic e in th e org an iz atio n. Y ou

pre v io usly w ork ed a lo ngsid e fo ur o f th e fiv e d ep utie s in th e u nit a n d k now

th em w ell; i n f a ct y ou h av e o fte n s o cia liz ed w ith t h em . Y ou d o n ot k now w ell

th e w om an w ho w as ju st a ssig ned to th e R PU to r e p la ce a d ep artin g d ep uty ,

nor a re y ou w ell a cq uain te d w ith th e n ew c iv ilia n s ta tis tic ia n y ou h av e ju st

hir e d .

You a re i n t h e m id st o f y our f ir s t s a la ry r e v ie w p ro cess a s s u perv is o r o f t h e

unit. A ll th e s u perv is o rs a re m eetin g w ith A ssis ta n t S herif f D utto n, w ho is in

ch arg e o f th e p ers o nnel an d tr a in in g d iv is io n. D utto n b rie fs th e g ro up o n

dep artm en ta l pro ced ure , th e re q uir e d fo rm s, an d th e tim e sc h ed ule fo r

co m ple tin g th e p ro cess. T he d ep artm en t, a lo ng w ith a ll o th er d ep artm en ts in

Ran co r C ounty , c o nducts m erit r e v ie w s f o r s te p in cre ase s a n d p ro m otio ns a t

th e s a m e tim e e ach y ear th at th e a cro ss-th e-b oard c o st- o f-liv in g in cre ase is

neg otia te d w ith th e c o unty b oard o f su perv is o rs . D utto n re m in ds y ou th at

your ro le in th e p ro cess h as to d o o nly w ith th e m erit re v ie w . T he c o st- o f-

liv in g r a is e w ill b e d is c u sse d a n d n eg otia te d b y t h e s h erif f a n d h is s ta ff; i t i s a

giv en o ver w hic h y ou h av e n o c o ntr o l.

Som eo ne a sk s D utto n w hat th e a cro ss-th e-b oard p erc en ta g e is lik ely to b e

fo r th e c o m in g y ear; th e d ep artm en t g ra p ev in e is b eg in nin g to flo at ru m ors

ab out a lo w f ig ure . H e is e v asiv e a t f ir s t, b ut f in ally a d m its th at it is lik ely to

be lo w er th an re cen t y ears — pro bab ly a b out 2 p erc en t. B efo re th e s c atte re d

mum ble s c an e ru pt i n to d is o rd er, D utto n r u sh es o n t o e x pla in .

Sev era l m em bers o f th e b oard o f s u perv is o rs a re r u nnin g f o r r e ele ctio n a n d

are fa cin g stif f o ppositio n fro m a sla te o f “ cu t th e fa t o ut o f g overn m en t”

can did ate s. T hey r e aliz e th at a n y n ew ta x m easu re s a d opte d th is y ear to f u nd th e c o unty b udget w ould b e e x tr e m ely r is k y f o r th eir p olitic al f u tu re s. A fte r

co nsu lta tio n w ith th e c o unty a d m in is tr a tiv e o ffic er, th e b oard m em bers h av e

in dic ate d th ey w ill n ot s u pport a cro ss-th e-b oard w ag e in cre ase s o f m ore th an

2 p erc en t. M erit ra is e s m ust c o m e fro m d ep artm en t fu nds a lr e ad y b udgete d

fo r t h at p urp ose .

Afte r h earin g th is , a c ap ta in f ro m th e ju ven ile d iv is io n a sk s h ow th e b oard

can g et a w ay w ith o nly 2 p erc en t w hen th ere is a c la u se in th e c o unty c h arte r

esta b lis h in g pay le v els fo r la w en fo rc em en t an d fir e se rv ic e em plo yees

co m para b le to th ose p aid to th e sta te tr o opers an d to em plo yees o f o th er

co untie s o f s im ila r s iz e. T he c ap ta in p oin ts o ut th at a s tu dy c o nducte d b y th e

lo cal unit of th e Law Enfo rc em en t Pro fe ssio nal Asso cia tio n (L EPA )

co nclu ded t h at 5 p erc en t w ould b e n ecessa ry t o m eet t h at c h arte r r e q uir e m en t.

Dutto n's r e sp onse is th at s ta tis tic s a re e asy to m an ip ula te . H e f ir m ly s u ggests

th at a ll o f y ou sta y o ut o f th is m atte r a n d p ay a tte n tio n to y our p artic u la r

dutie s. W hen a lie u te n an t a sk s h ow to h an dle a n y c o m pla in ts fro m th e ra n k

an d f ile , D utto n r e m in ds h im t h at h e i s t o s u pport t h e s h erif f a n d d em onstr a te

lo yalty to h is p ositio n a t a ll tim es. H e te rm in ate s th e d is c u ssio n b y s a y in g,

“S om e o f y ou are g oin g to h av e to ab so rb a little fla k o ver th is , so b e

pre p are d t o p ut s o m e i r o n i n y our s p in es.”

You le av e th e m eetin g f e elin g p erp le x ed . T here h av e a lr e ad y b een s e v era l

bull s e ssio ns a ro und t h e R PU o ffic es a b out t h e s a la ry s itu atio n. Y ou k now t h e

peo ple on your sta ff are ex pectin g m ore th an 2 perc en t an d hav e been

ex pre ssin g th eir fe elin gs a b out th e “ g utle ss b ra ss in th is d ep artm en t,” w ho

th ey fe ar w ill not sta n d up to th e politic ia n s. T w o of th em hav e been

mem bers o f L EPA fo r a y ear n ow ; y ou k now it is n ot a d ocile p ro fe ssio nal

asso cia tio n b ut a m ilita n t p olic e u nio n. If th e d ep artm en t g ets s tu ck w ith a

lo w p erc en ta g e fo r s a la rie s, L EPA w ill g ain a fe w m ore re cru its fro m y our

unit. Y ou re aliz e th e s h erif f p ay s a tte n tio n to u nits in th e d ep artm en t w here

LEPA is g ro w in g in p ow er. H e te n ds to v ie w in cre ase s in u nio n m em bers h ip

in a u nit a s a s ig n o f w eak o r i n ep t m an ag em en t.

The m erit re v ie w p ro cess w ill n ot h elp th is h ig hly v ola tile s itu atio n. Y ou

re call y our o w n fe elin gs ab out th e sm all 2 o r 3 p erc en t ra is e s fo r g ood

perfo rm an ce. W hen th e b la n ket c o st- o f-liv in g in cre ase w as d ecen t, th e m erit

ra is e ev oked a fe elin g o f sa tis fa ctio n, ev en th ough it w as n ot v ery la rg e.

How ev er, it s e em ed to h av e th e o pposite e ffe ct w hen th e b asic in cre ase w as in ad eq uate . Y ou t e n ded t o r e se n t s o m eth in g c alle d a “ m erit i n cre ase ” w hen i n

fa ct th e to ta l a m ount h ard ly m et th e ris e in th e c o st o f liv in g. W ith o nly 2

perc en t a cro ss th e b oard th is tim e, y ou a n tic ip ate s o m e b itte r fe elin gs fro m

th e d ep utie s in th e R PU , w ho h av e a h ig her le v el o f ed ucatio n th an th e

med ia n f o r t h e d ep artm en t a n d v ie w t h em se lv es a s g en era lly u nderp aid .

You fe el cau ght betw een your sta ff an d th e dep artm en ta l hie ra rc h y.

Becau se y ou a re n ew to th e su perv is o ry p ositio n, y ou a re still e sta b lis h in g

your c re d ib ility a s a n a d m in is tr a to r. T he m em bers o f th e R PU fe el th at y ou

are o ne o f t h em , b ut y ou h av e s e n se d a d eg re e o f b en ig n s u sp ic io n a b out h ow

lo ng y ou w ill r e m ain s o . Y ou a re a tte m ptin g t o o verc o m e t h ose f e elin gs w hile

at th e sa m e tim e re d efin in g y our ro le . Y ou d o n ot w an t y our sta ff to sto p

tr u stin g y ou o r f e elin g f rie n dly w ith y ou, b ut y our d utie s h av e c h an ged . Y ou

wan t to b e a ccep te d a s th e su perv is o r o f th e u nit, b ut y ou d o n ot w an t to

cre ate a g ulf b etw een y ours e lf a n d t h e s ta ff.

Still, y ou n eed th e tr u st a n d s u pport o f th e s h erif f a n d h is s ta ff. A t th e tim e

of y our p ro m otio n D utto n e x pre sse d c o ncern a b out y our a b ility to m eet th e

dem an ds o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r o le a fte r h av in g w ork ed s o c lo se ly w ith f o ur

of th e f iv e R PU m em bers . H e f e are d th at th is m ig ht c re ate p ro ble m s f o r b oth

you a n d th e R PU s ta ff. T he s h erif f h ad d is c u sse d th is p ote n tia l p itf a ll w ith

you an d en co ura g ed y ou to p ay atte n tio n to it. H e h ad to ld y ou th at h e

ex pecte d lo yalty to th e c h ain o f c o m man d a n d h ad r e m in ded y ou th at a s th e

RPU su perv is o r y ou w ould b eco m e a m em ber o f th e m an ag em en t te am ,

acco unta b le f o r c arry in g o ut t h e p olic ie s o f t h e d ep artm en t.

You are still b ein g w atc h ed an d siz ed u p. Y ou d o w an t to su pport th e

sh erif f. H e is th e b oss, a n d h is n eg otia tio ns w ith th e b oard o f s u perv is o rs a re

to o se n sitiv e to to le ra te dis se n sio n in th e ra n ks. H e w ill ex pect you to

ex erc is e your au th ority , as he w ill ex erc is e his . Y ou hav e to tr u st his

ju dgm en t a b out w hat c an b e g ain ed in th e sh ort ru n a g ain st th e lo ng-te rm

fu tu re o f t h e d ep artm en t. H e i s t h e o nly o ne w ith t h e i n fo rm atio n a n d p ositio n

to d eal w ith t h at k in d o f d ecis io n.

And y et y ou fe el th e n eed to le t th e d ep artm en t b ra ss k now h ow it lo oks

fro m y our v an ta g e p oin t. T he c o unty c h arte r p ro vis io n d oes s e em to c all f o r

more th an a 2 p erc en t ra is e . If th e ra is e is n ot la rg er, th e d ep artm en t m ay

win d u p w ith f a r m ore m em bers i n a v ery t o ugh u nio n. C an y ou p re se n t t h ese

co ncern s w ith out a p pearin g to a b an don y our m an ag em en t re sp onsib ilitie s? Will th is c o nfir m th e s u sp ic io n th at y ou c o uld n ot m ak e th e tr a n sitio n fro m

ra n k a n d f ile t o s u perv is o r?

You fe el c au ght b ecau se th is s a la ry is su e c o uld d estr o y y our re la tio nsh ip

with b oth y our s ta ff a n d th e h ie ra rc h y o f th e d ep artm en t. T his is n ot ju st a

pra ctic al m an ag em en t p ro ble m . It is als o an eth ic al d ile m ma in volv in g a

co nflic t betw een obje ctiv e an d su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s. You are

ex perie n cin g c o nflic t b etw een t h e s u bje ctiv e r e sp onsib ility o f y our r o le a s t h e

su perv is o r o f a u nit o n th e o ne h an d a n d b oth th e o bje ctiv e a n d s u bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ilitie s o f y our r o le a s a m em ber o f t h e s h erif f's m an ag em en t t e am o n

th e o th er. E ach ro le e v okes fe elin gs o f o blig atio n ro ote d in se ts o f v alu es

(s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s) th at in flu en ce y our b eh av io r, a n d y ou a re b ein g

fo rm ally held acco unta b le (o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility ) by th e sh erif f fo r

fu lf illin g y our o blig atio n t o s ta n d b eh in d h is d ecis io ns.

If w e e x am in e y our r o le a s th e s u perv is o r o f th e R PU , w e s e e th at y ou a re

vie w ed b y y our s ta ff a s th eir c h an nel to th e h ie ra rc h y. T hey e x pect y ou to

ta k e c are o f th eir in te re sts a n d to lo ok o ut f o r th eir n eed s. T hey c an not h old

you f o rm ally a cco unta b le , b ut in a tig ht c h ain o f c o m man d, s u ch a s in a la w

en fo rc em en t a g en cy , t h e i m plic it b arg ain i s a ccep ta n ce o f t h e h ie ra rc h y a s t h e

mean s fo r co m munic atin g with th e org an iz atio n in ex ch an ge fo r an

accep ta n ce o f re sp onsib ility b y th e h ie ra rc h y fo r th ose b elo w . T he m em bers

of y our u nit s e e y ou a s th eir s p okesp ers o n, th eir v oic e, to th ose a b ove. T hey

ex pect y ou t o s ta n d u p f o r t h em w hen t h eir i n te re sts a re a t s ta k e. T hey p ro je ct

th ese e x pecta tio ns o n y ou, a n d y our r o le a s s u perv is o r in th e u nit is p artia lly

str u ctu re d b y th em . Y ou e m path iz e re ad ily w ith th ese e x pecta tio ns b ecau se

you r e call h av in g s h are d t h em s o r e cen tly .

A s e t o f v alu es e m erg es in re sp onse to th ese ro le d em an ds. T hese v alu es

are i n te rn aliz atio ns o f e x pecta tio ns. Y ou f in d y ours e lf v alu in g t h e l o yalty a n d

tr u st o f y our sta ff b ecau se b oth are n ecessa ry fo r y our fu nctio n as th eir

sp okesp ers o n. If th ey d o n ot fe el b ound to e x pre ss th eir c o ncern s to y ou,

belie v in g th at y ou w ill n ot ta k e th em s e rio usly , y our ro le w ill b e tr u ncate d .

You w ill b e s e v ere d f ro m y our s u bord in ate s. A void in g th is p uts p re ssu re o n

you to valu e th e narro w in te re sts of th e unit ab ove th ose of th e w hole

dep artm en t. L oyalty to th e R PU m ean s to y our s ta ff th at y ou s u pport th eir

need s a n d p re fe re n ces a b ove t h ose o f o th ers .

Furth erm ore , y ou v alu e b ein g p erc eiv ed a s a f a ir p ers o n b y y our s ta ff, o ne who w ill h ear th em o ut a n d s p eak o n th eir b eh alf in a n h onest, e v en -h an ded

fa sh io n. Y ou a ls o v alu e c re d ib ility a s a s p okesp ers o n. Y ou w an t t o b e v ie w ed

as o ne w ho c o nvey s th eir v ie w s a ccu ra te ly to th ose a b ove. A noth er re la te d

valu e i s i n te g rity . Y our s ta ff e x pects y ou t o b eh av e w ith c o nsis te n cy a n d w ith

so m e deg re e of in dep en den ce an d co ura g e in dealin g w ith m an ag em en t.

Resp onsiv en ess is a n oth er v alu e th at y ou d ra w f ro m th eir e x pecta tio ns. T hey

not only w an t you to lis te n , but th ey als o ex pect you to do so m eth in g

co nsis te n t w ith t h eir w is h es.

Those a b ove y ou in th e c h ain o f c o m man d g iv e p rim ary d efin itio n to y our

oth er ro le as an ad m in is tr a to r. In your cap acity as a m em ber of th e

man ag em en t te am , th ey e x pect y ou to c o m munic ate th e w is h es o f to p-le v el

man ag em en t to your sta ff. M ore im porta n t, th ey ex pect you to gain

co m plia n ce fro m th e m em bers o f y our u nit, a n d th ey h old y ou a cco unta b le

fo r d oin g so (o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility ). B eh in d th ese e x pecta tio ns th ere a re

als o v alu es t h at y ou m ust i n te rn aliz e i n o rd er t o c o nduct y our m an ag eria l r o le

(s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility ). C oopera tiv en ess, fo r ex am ple , is lik ely to b e a

sig nif ic an t v alu e fo r th is ro le . T hose a b ove y ou in th e c h ain o f c o m man d

ex pect th at y ou w ill g en era lly g o a lo ng w ith th eir d ecis io ns. I n o th er w ord s,

th ey e x pect c o m plia n ce fro m y ou in th e s a m e w ay th at y ou e x pect it fro m

your sta ff. In re sp onse to th is ex pecta tio n you are lik ely to valu e bein g

perc eiv ed a s a c o opera tiv e p ers o n.

Prim ary id en tif ic atio n w ith th e m an ag em en t te am is p ro bab ly v ie w ed a s a

necessa ry c o nco m ita n t o f c o opera tiv en ess. C oopera tio n is s tr e n gth en ed a n d

en han ced w hen p eo ple in te rn aliz e a b elie f in th e im porta n ce o f m an ag em en t

so lid arity . Y ou a re e n co ura g ed to s e e y our in te re sts a s id en tic al w ith th ose o f

th e d ep artm en ta l h ie ra rc h y.

Main te n an ce o f au th ority is , in all p ro bab ility , an oth er v alu e asso cia te d

with th is r o le . Y our a b ility to d ir e ct a n d, u ltim ate ly , to c o m man d is lik ely to

be h ig hly v alu ed . B ein g c o opera tiv e a n d v ie w in g y ours e lf a s a m em ber o f

man ag em en t w ill c o m e to n au ght if y ou a re u nab le to c o ntr o l th e b eh av io r o f

th ose i n y our u nit. T his r e q uir e s t h e a b ility t o e x erc is e a u th ority i n i ts v ario us

man if e sta tio ns. C om pre h en siv en ess is a n oth er m an ag em en t v alu e. Y ou a re

ex pecte d to ta k e in to acco unt th e need s an d in te re sts of th e en tir e

org an iz atio n, n ot ju st th ose o f y our u nit a lo ne. Y ou le arn to v alu e th e w ell-

bein g o f th e w hole a n d n ot ju st o f a p art. Y ou v alu e th e la rg er p ers p ectiv e o f th e o rg an iz atio n a n d l e arn t o p la ce y our u nit's n eed s w ith in t h at p ers p ectiv e.

The v alu e su bsy ste m s a sso cia te d w ith th ese tw o ro le s a re n ot a lw ay s in

co nflic t. In fa ct, valu es su ch as tr u st, cre d ib ility , an d re sp onsiv en ess are

gen era lly v ie w ed a s n ecessa ry a ttr ib ute s o f a n e ffe ctiv e m an ag er b y th ose

ab ove as w ell as th ose belo w in th e hie ra rc h y. H ow ev er, in sp ecif ic

situ atio ns, s u ch a s th is m atte r o f s a la ry in cre ase s, th ere m ay b e c o nflic t. In

th is case you are to rn betw een lo yalty to sta ff an d so lid arity with

man ag em en t, betw een re sp onsiv en ess to sta ff an d th e au th ority of

man ag em en t, betw een th e in te re sts of th e R PU an d th e in te re sts of th e

dep artm en t as a w hole . T he im pen din g co nflic t betw een em plo yees an d

man ag em en t c re ate s te n sio n b etw een tw o o f y our o rg an iz atio nal r o le s, w hic h

are s tr u ctu re d a ro und r e sp onsib ility

to

o ne o f th ese g ro ups a n d r e sp onsib ility

fo r

th e o th er. Y ou fa ce th e ris k o f n eg le ctin g o ne ro le fo r th e sa k e o f th e

oth er, o r f a ilin g i n a n a tte m pt t o s e rv e b oth .

The m em bers o f y our u nit w ill n ot b e s a tis fie d w hen y ou e x pla in th at th e

matte r i s o ut o f y our h an ds. T hey w ill w an t y ou t o b e l o yal t o t h em ; t h ey w ill

ap peal to y our a b ility to id en tif y w ith th eir p oin t o f v ie w . Y our sta ff w ill

ex pect you to re sp ond to th eir in te re sts an d sta n d up to th e sh erif f an d

Assis ta n t S herif f D utto n. T hey w ill w an t y ou to in sis t o n m ore th an a 2

perc en t r a is e . B ut i t i s c le ar t h at D utto n e x pects y ou t o r e p re se n t m an ag em en t

an d su pport th e sh erif f's positio n. H e w ill ex pect you to ex erc is e your

au th ority i n d ealin g w ith t h e d is se n sio n o f y our s ta ff. D utto n w ill w an t y ou t o

defe n d th e in te re sts o f th e o rg an iz atio n a s a w hole a n d n ot c ap itu la te to th e

sh ort- ra n ge im med ia te n eed s f o r a la rg er r a is e . F urth erm ore , h e w ill e v alu ate

your p erfo rm an ce a n d y our r e te n tio n i n t h e r o le o f s u perv is o r a cco rd in gly . H e

will q uite s p ecif ic ally h old y ou a cco unta b le f o r m ain ta in in g t h at r o le .

We e x perie n ce e th ic al d ile m mas in w ay s p ortr a y ed in th ese tw o c ase s— as

co nflic ts b etw een th e r o le s th at p re se n t u s w ith f o rm al o blig atio ns ( o bje ctiv e

re sp onsib ilitie s) a n d th e u nderly in g v alu es (s u bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s) th at

te n d to m otiv ate u s in in co m patib le d ir e ctio ns. B arn ard (1 964) a rg ues th at

th ese co nflic ts beco m e m ore fre q uen t as our arra y of in ner co des, or

su bje ctiv e re sp onsib ilitie s, in cre ase s. T he m ore o f th ese c o des w e h av e to

re sp ond to , th e m ore lik ely it is th at situ atio ns w ill o ccu r in w hic h tw o o f

th em p ull u s in d if fe re n t d ir e ctio ns. F urth erm ore , h e n ote s, w e a re lik ely to

hav e m ore o f th ese u nw ritte n in ner c o des if w e a re a sso cia te d w ith m an y org an iz atio ns.

Anoth er w ay o f e x pla in in g th e s a m e p hen om en on is to s u ggest th at v alu e

su bsy ste m s e m erg e a ro und o ur r o le s; th ere fo re th e m ore r o le s w e a d opt, th e

more v alu e s u bsy ste m s w e n eed to m ain ta in . B ecau se th e m ultip lic atio n o f

ro le s is in here n t in m odern ity , so is th e m an ag em en t of m ultip le valu e

su bsy ste m s. A cco rd in g t o B an to n ( 1 965), p eo ple i n m odern u rb an s o cie ty a re

fa r m ore lik ely to e x perie n ce c o nflic tin g in ner c o des th an th ose w ho liv e in

tr a d itio nal s e ttin gs.

This p ers p ectiv e is h elp fu l in u nders ta n din g B arn ard 's c la im th at e x ecu tiv e

positio ns in volv e a c o m ple x m ora lity . I t is th e r o le c o m ple x ity o f h ig h-le v el

ex ecu tiv e p ositio ns th at le ad s to a c o m ple x in te ra ctio n o f o fte n c o nflic tin g

valu es. A s w e m ove u p th e o rg an iz atio nal la d der, it b eco m es in cre asin gly

dif fic u lt t o b eh av e r e sp onsib ly , t o r e sp ond c o nsis te n tly a n d d ep en dab ly t o t h e

multif a rio us d em an ds o f t h e m an y r o le s i n volv ed .

In th e f a ce o f s u ch c o nflic ts , w hat d o w e d o? B arn ard ( 1 964, p p. 2 71–272)

su ggests s e v era l p ossib le c o nse q uen ces:

1.

G en era l m ora l d ete rio ra tio n a s m an if e ste d in fru str a tio n a n d in ab ility to

mak e d ecis io ns

2.

A d im in utio n o f t h e s e n se o f r e sp onsib ility d em onstr a te d b y a t e n den cy t o

allo w in cid en ta l o r ex te rn al p re ssu re s an d ch an ce d ete rm in an ts to m ak e

decis io ns f o r u s

3.

W ith dra w al fro m a ctiv e in volv em en t in th e a re n a o f d ecis io n m ak in g,

su ch a s r e sig natio n, a l e av e o f a b se n ce, o r r e tir e m en t

4.

D ev elo pm en t o f a n a b ility to a v oid re sp onsib ility b y ste erin g c le ar o f

co nflic t s itu atio ns t h at m ay r e q uir e d if fic u lt d ecis io ns

5.

D ev elo pm en t o f th e a b ility to c o nstr u ct a lte rn ativ e m easu re s th at s a tis fy

im med ia te d esir e s o r r e q uir e m en ts w ith out v io la tin g a n y c o des

It is c le ar th at B arn ard p re fe rs th e f if th a lte rn ativ e. H e b elie v es th at a n y o f

th e o th ers in volv es a n eg le ct o r s a crif ic e o f o ne o r m ore c o des. T his a m ounts

not o nly t o d ere lic tio n o f d uty b ut a ls o t o a d eg ra d atio n o f c h ara cte r. A f a ilu re

to re sp ond p ositiv ely to a ro le a n d its v alu e s u bsy ste m w eak en s b oth ro le s

an d v alu es. T heir p ow er to d ete rm in e b eh av io r in th e fu tu re is th ere fo re

dim in is h ed . B eh av io r beco m es le ss co nsis te n t w ith esp ouse d valu es, le ss

dep en dab le , le ss re sp onsib le . B ecau se B arn ard re g ard s re sp onsib ility as

esse n tia l to e ffe ctiv e e x ecu tiv e le ad ers h ip , h e v ie w s its e ro sio n a s a s e rio us matte r i n deed .

Alth ough B arn ard d oes n ot d w ell a t l e n gth o n h ow w e a cq uir e t h e a b ility t o

dev elo p a lte rn ativ es t h at d o n ot v io la te a n y o f o ur c o des, i t s e em s c erta in t h at

he h ad i n m in d a q uality c alle d

mora l c re a tiv ity

, s o m eth in g h e e x perie n ced i n

him se lf a n d o th ers b ut d oes n ot d is c u ss in a n y d eta il. M ora l c re ativ en ess is

unders ta n dab ly d if fic u lt to e x pla in o r te ach , b ut o ne o f th e a ssu m ptio ns o f

th is b ook is th at, lik e a n y o th er a cq uir e d s k ill, it c an b e c u ltiv ate d a s p art o f

th e d esig n a p pro ach to a d m in is tr a tiv e e th ic s. T he th esis in th is b ook is th at

mora l c re ativ ity r e q uir e s t h e f o llo w in g:

1.

A c le ar u nders ta n din g o f t h e o bta in ab le f a cts r e le v an t t o t h e s itu atio n

2.

A n u nders ta n din g o f th e ro le s in volv ed , in clu din g th e c o des, o r v alu e

su bsy ste m s, t h at g uid e e ach r o le 's e n actm en t

3.

A c o nsid era tio n o f a ll p ossib le a lte rn ativ es

4.

A w id e-ra n gin g a n d im ag in ativ e p ro je ctio n o f th e c o nse q uen ces o f e ach

alte rn ativ e; th at is , o f th e w ay s in w hic h y our ro le a n d th e ro le s o f o th ers

would b e a ffe cte d

5.

A n atte m pt to an tic ip ate how you w ould fe el ab out yours e lf if you

ad opte d e ach a lte rn ativ e

6.

A c o nsid era tio n o f h ow y ou w ould ju stif y e ach a lte rn ativ e to a b ro ad

public a u die n ce, o f th e m ora l r u le s a n d p rin cip le s o n w hic h y ou w ould b ase

a c h oic e o f e ach a lte rn ativ e a n d i ts c o nse q uen ces

As w e p urs u e th is re fle ctiv e p ro cess in volv in g m ora l im ag in atio n, it is

so m etim es p ossib le to c o nceiv e o f w ay s o f in ven tin g w hat B arn ard (1 964)

calls a “ m ora l b asis fo r th e s o lu tio n o f m ora l c o nflic ts ” (p . 2 79). T his m ay

in volv e re d efin in g th e v alu es th at g overn a ro le 's e n actm en t, it m ay c all fo r

re n eg otia tin g th e e x pecta tio ns a n d o blig atio ns th at g iv e a r o le s tr u ctu re , o r it

may n ecessita te “ a b arg ain in g p ro cess w hic h d ecid es h ow m uch a tte n tio n”

will b e g iv en to a n y o ne ro le (B an to n, 1 965, p . 2 09). In sh ort it re q uir e s

th in kin g a b out h ow o ne d esig ns o r r e d esig ns r o le s, r e la tio nsh ip s a m ong r o le s,

an d o rg an iz atio nal s tr u ctu re s a n d c u ltu re s— all w ith in g iv en c o nstr a in ts a n d

opportu nitie s.

For e x am ple , in th e c ase o f th e c ity o f M ic ro a n d th e ro ck c o ncert, y ou

mig ht d ecid e t o a d opt a s o m ew hat f le x ib le a ttitu de t h at w ould s till p erm it y ou

to neg otia te arra n gem en ts th at are as clo se to th e N PH A guid elin es as

possib le . O ne o f th e c o nditio ns f o r s u ch f le x ib ility m ig ht b e a f o rm al w ritte n ag re em en t w ith th e c ity c o uncil th at w ould p hase in th e N PH A sta n dard s

th ro ugh a s e rie s o f c ity o rd in an ces d urin g th e fo llo w in g tw o y ears . B ecau se

th ere is n o s u ch le g is la tio n a t p re se n t, th is w ould b e a c h an ce to in itia te it.

This would als o giv e th e co uncil en ough ad van ce notic e ab out th e

re co m men ded sta n dard s to allo w an in fo rm ed decis io n on w heth er to

co ntin ue h old in g s u ch e v en ts i n t h e f u tu re .

Usin g th is s tr a te g y y ou w ould n ot s u bvert y our r o le a s a p ro gre ssiv e p ublic

health p ro fe ssio nal, b ut n eith er w ould y ou m ain ta in a p ositio n th at w ould

je o pard iz e y our r o le w ith th e M ic ro m unic ip al h ealth d ep artm en t. Y ou w ould

hav e an opportu nity to te st th e effe ctiv en ess an d pra ctic ality of N PH A's

guid elin es, w hic h y ou m ig ht c o nsid er w ritin g u p f o r th e a sso cia tio n's jo urn al.

You m ig ht be ab le to re co m men d ch an ges th at would im pro ve th e

asso cia tio n's g uid elin es, a n d y ou c o uld o ffe r s u ggestio ns a b out th e p olitic s o f

im ple m en tin g t h em . A c ritic al c ase s tu dy o f y our o w n e ffo rts w ould b e a w ay

of m ain ta in in g y our b arg ain w ith t h e N PH A.

In t h e R an co r C ounty s h erif f's d ep artm en t c ase , y ou m ig ht n eed t o t a k e t h is

opportu nity to d efin e y our ro le fu rth er— fo r y our sta ff, y our su perio rs , a n d

yours e lf . M eetin g w ith y our s ta ff m em bers t o c la rif y t h e l im its o f y our r o le a s

th eir re p re se n ta tiv e to th e h ie ra rc h y m ig ht b e in o rd er. P erh ap s y ou w ould

wan t to a ssu re th em o f y our w illin gness to g o to b at fo r th em in s itu atio ns

where y ou b elie v e th ey h av e a le g itim ate c ase a n d y ou h av e a r e al c h an ce to

in flu en ce decis io ns on th eir beh alf . Y ou m ay w an t to be su re th at th ey

unders ta n d, h ow ev er, th at y ou h av e n o in te n tio n o f g oin g d ow n in fla m es

over b attle s y ou c an not w in . T he 2 p erc en t s a la ry in cre m en t fo r th e c o st- o f-

liv in g r a is e a p pears t o b e o ne o f t h e l a tte r i n sta n ces. I n d ealin g w ith y our s ta ff

in th is w ay , y ou r e in fo rc e y our r o le w ith th em a n d a d d to it th e n ecessity f o r

so m e d eg re e o f a u to nom y i n d ealin g w ith t h e h ie ra rc h y.

As fo r your ro le in th e dep artm en t, you m ay w an t to pre p are a w ell-

th ought- o ut m em ora n dum a ssu rin g t h e s h erif f a n d A ssis ta n t S herif f D utto n o f

your l o yalty b ut s u ggestin g a b ro ad er d efin itio n o f l o yal b eh av io r. Y ou m ig ht

in dic ate th at y our u nders ta n din g o f lo yalty in clu des th e o blig atio n to in fo rm

your s u perio rs o f th e im pact o f c erta in d ecis io ns. Y ou m ig ht f e el o blig ate d to

ex pre ss y our c o ncern a b out th e e ffe cts o f a s m all r a is e o n th e u nio niz atio n o f

th e d ep artm en t. Y ou m ig ht a ls o i n clu de y our o w n a n aly sis o f t h e L EPA s tu dy

of t h e c o m para b le s a la rie s i n clu ded i n t h e c o unty c h arte r p ro vis io n. The kin ds of re sp onse s su ggeste d here are atte m pts to ra tio nally an d

activ ely m ain ta in re sp onsib le co nduct in co nflic tin g ro le situ atio ns. T hey

se ek to co nfir m an d pre se rv e th e valu es asso cia te d w ith th ese ro le s.

Som etim es y ou w ill b e su ccessfu l a t th is , a n d a t o th er tim es y ou w ill fa il

mis e ra b ly , b ut b ein g a w are o f th e d ynam ic s in volv ed a n d d ealin g w ith th em

in te n tio nally an d sy ste m atic ally is lik ely to en han ce your overa ll

ad m in is tr a tiv e r e sp onsib ility .

It i s d if fic u lt e n ough t o m an ag e y our o w n r o le c o nflic ts i n t h is w ay , b ut t h e

ad m in is tr a tiv e ro le o fte n c alls fo r m ore . B arn ard (1 964) o bse rv ed th at th ose

with ex ecu tiv e positio ns are ex pecte d to assis t oth ers w ith th eir eth ic al

dile m mas. B orro w in g la n guag e fro m ju ris p ru den ce, h e d esc rib ed th is a s th e

“ju dic ia l fu nctio n,” “th e ap pella te fu nctio n,” o r “h an dlin g th e ex cep tio nal

case s.” O ne o f t h e t a sk s o f m an ag em en t i s t h is “ in ven tin g o f a m ora l b asis f o r

th e s o lu tio n o f m ora l c o nflic ts ” ( p . 2 79).

When o ne o f y our s u bord in ate s is fa ced w ith a d ecis io n th at s e em s rig ht

fro m o ne p ers p ectiv e b ut w ro ng fro m a n oth er, y ou sh ould ta k e th e m atte r

with th e u tm ost se rio usn ess a n d n ot d is m is s h is o r h er c o ncern a s o nly a

mora l is su e th at is ir re le v an t to th e b usin ess a t h an d. T he e m plo yee w an ts to

main ta in c o ngru en ce b etw een v alu es a n d c o nduct— to m ain ta in a h ig h le v el

of r e sp onsib ility . T hat im puls e s h ould b e r e in fo rc ed . H elp th e p ers o n c la rif y

th e o bje ctiv e co nditio ns, an d se ek alte rn ativ e co urs e s o f actio n. Y ou m ay

ev en need to re d efin e th e co de to acco unt fo r sp ecia l cir c u m sta n ces.

Acco rd in g to B arn ard (1 964), th is c re ativ e ju dic ia l fu nctio n is th e “ h ig hest

ex em plif ic atio n o f r e sp onsib ility ” a n d “ th e e sse n ce o f l e ad ers h ip ”:

It is th e h ig hest te st o f e x ecu tiv e re sp onsib ility b ecau se it re q uir e s fo r

su ccessfu l acco m plis h m en t th at ele m en t of “co nvic tio n” th at m ean s

id en tif ic atio n o f p ers o nal c o des a n d o rg an iz atio n c o des in th e v ie w o f th e

le ad er. T his is th e c o ale sc en ce th at c arrie s “ co nvic tio n” to th e p ers o nnel

of th e o rg an iz atio n, to th at in fo rm al o rg an iz atio n u nderly in g a ll fo rm al

org an iz atio n t h at s e n se s n oth in g m ore q uic k ly t h an i n sin cerity . W ith out i t

all org an iz atio n is dyin g, becau se it is th e in dis p en sa b le ele m en t in

cre atin g th at d esir e f o r a d here n ce— fo r w hic h n o in cen tiv e is a s u bstitu te

—on th e part of th ose w hose effo rts w illin gly co ntr ib ute d co nstitu te

org an iz atio n [ p p. 2 81–282].

Dealin g w ith th ese c o nflic tin g r o le d em an ds a n d th e v alu es a sso cia te d w ith th em is a m atte r of eth ic s th at, if not ju stif ie d by our philo so phic al or

re lig io us vie w s, is m ost certa in ly esse n tia l to m ain ta in in g an effe ctiv e

org an iz atio n. Ord ers , ed ic ts , re w ard s, hum an re la tio ns tr a in in g, an d

org an iz atio nal d ev elo pm en t str a te g ie s a re n ot lik ely to a cco m plis h m uch if

we d o n ot e n co ura g e a n d s y ste m atic ally d ev elo p r e sp onsib ility b y a d dre ssin g

eth ic al d ile m mas th at a ris e f ro m r o le c o nflic ts . I t is u nfo rtu nate b ut tr u e th at

man y m em bers o f p ublic o rg an iz atio ns h av e n ev er le arn ed to u nders ta n d

th ese c o nflic ts a n d c o pe w ith th em e ffe ctiv ely , w here as o th ers h av e b eco m e

so i n ure d t o t h e p re ssu re t o b e p ra ctic al a n d p olitic al t h at t h ey n o l o nger t h in k

ab out t h ese e x perie n ces v ery s e rio usly .

Con flic ts o f I n te rest

Anoth er w ay w e ex perie n ce co nflic ts in re sp onsib ility in volv es situ atio ns

where o ur p ers o nal in te re sts are at o dds w ith o ur o blig atio ns as a p ublic

offic ia l or our pro fe ssio nal valu es. W e m ay en co unte r co m bin atio ns of

co nflic tin g ro le s an d te n sio ns betw een so urc es of au th ority , but m ore

ty pic ally th ese o ccasio ns p re se n t u s w ith o pportu nitie s to u se o ur p ublic

offic e fo r th e s a k e o f o ur p riv ate g ain o r th e p riv ate g ain o f o ur frie n ds o r

re la tiv es. T hey re p re se n t c o nflic ts b etw een th e p ublic ro le a n d se lf -in te re st

an d b etw een o bje ctiv e re sp onsib ility a n d th e p ossib ility o f p ers o nal g ain o r

ad van ta g e.

As w e sh all se e in m ore d eta il la te r, in th is b ook w e are d ealin g w ith

so m eth in g b ro ad er th an th e le g al d efin itio n o f co nflic t o f in te re st. In th is

la rg er v ie w

in te re st

in clu des, a s M ic h ael D av is (1 982) su ggests , “ all th ose

in flu en ces, lo yaltie s, co ncern s, em otio ns, or th e lik e” th at can m ak e

co m pete n t ju dgm en t “le ss re lia b le th an it m ig ht oth erw is e be” (p . 23).

Conflic ts of in te re st in volv e co llis io ns betw een th ese vario us kin ds of

in flu en ces a n d t h e i n te re sts o f t h e p ublic w e s e rv e.

The e th ic al p ro ble m p re se n te d b y t h ese c o nflic ts i s t h at o ur f id ucia ry r o le a s

tr u ste es o f th e p ublic in te re st m ay b e je o pard iz ed if o th ers lo se tr u st in o ur

pro fe ssio nal ju dgm en t. If s o m e p riv ate p ers o nal in te re st is a b le to in flu en ce

our re aso n an d co nduct, w e m ay se rv e it ra th er th an th e in te re sts o f th e

citiz en ry , o r a t le ast w e m ay b e p erc eiv ed a s d oin g s o . O ur ju dgm en t m ay b e

im pair e d in th is w ay o r m ay a p pear to b e; e ith er w ill c all in to q uestio n o ur tr u stw orth in ess a s r e p re se n ta tiv es o f t h e p ublic i n te re st.

Tussm an ( 1 960) l o cate s t h e r o ots o f t h ese c o nflic ts i n t h e W este rn “ sp ir it o f

in div id ualis m .” W ith th e e m erg en ce o f th e in div id ual a s th e lo cu s o f p olitic al

an d so cia l rig hts an d oblig atio ns co m es a te n den cy to se e each pers o n

“ch ie fly a s a c o m ple x o f v alu es, d esir e s, d riv es, o r in te re sts ” (p . 1 7). G iv en

th is p ers p ectiv e, it se em s q uite n atu ra l fo r in div id uals to p urs u e th eir o w n

in te re sts . S atis fy in g p ers o nal d esir e s a n d e n han cin g o ne's o w n l if e a re v ie w ed

as le g itim ate fo rm s o f c o nduct. T ussm an p oin ts o ut th at a ck now le d gin g th e

rig ht to b eh av e in th is w ay is g en era lly w hat w e m ean b y th e p hra se “ re sp ect

fo r t h e i n div id ual.”

Nev erth ele ss, a s T ussm an h aste n s to o bse rv e, w e d o s e ek to im pose d utie s

to s e rv e th e c o lle ctiv e in te re st o f th e p ublic o n th ese le g itim ate ly s e lf -s e ek in g

in div id uals . C erta in in div id uals a ssu m e e x te n siv e d utie s a s p ublic a g en ts o n

beh alf o f th e c itiz en ry , g en era lly a s e m plo yees (e le cte d o r a p poin te d ) o f a

public j u ris d ic tio n. M ore o ver, t h e r o le o f c itiz en i s t h e m ost u niv ers a l f o rm o f

th is c o lle ctiv e o blig atio n. C itiz en sh ip re q uir e s a ll s e lf -in te re ste d in div id uals

who a re m em bers o f th e p olity to a ct, in th eir p ublic ro le , o n b eh alf o f th e

public g ood.

These c la im s o f th e c o lle ctiv ity o n th e in div id ual a re a ck now le d ged b ut

with re lu cta n ce a n d a m biv ale n ce. O ur W este rn lib era l h erita g e c au se s u s to

vie w an y co nstr a in ts on in div id ual se lf -re aliz atio n w ith su sp ic io n an d

uneasin ess. N ev erth ele ss th e fa ct th at w e d o u ltim ate ly s u pport th ese p ublic

cla im s is “ev id en ced by th e in dig natio n w e fe el w hen a public tr u st is

betr a y ed by se lf -in te re st. T he public ag en t,” asse rts T ussm an (1 960), “is

ex pecte d t o d o h is d uty ” ( p . 1 8).

In co nflic ts of in te re sts w e are , at base , co nfro ntin g th is “in esc ap ab le

te n sio n b etw een in te re st a n d d uty , b etw een th e in clin atio ns o f th e p riv ate lif e

an d t h e o blig atio ns o f t h e p ublic r o le ” ( T ussm an , 1 960, p . 1 8). T his t e n sio n i s

in esc ap ab le b ecau se th e id eal o f in div id ualis m h as lo ng d om in ate d in th e

Weste rn w orld yet re sp onsib ilitie s an d oblig atio ns are in here n t in th e

str u ctu re an d d ynam ic s o f m odern so cie ty . In o th er w ord s, m odern iz atio n

pla ces th is e x alte d in div id ual in to a n etw ork o f c o m ple x in te rre la tio nsh ip s

an d in te rd ep en den cie s th at co nsta n tly im pose co lle ctiv e dem an ds. U rb an

in dustr ia l so cie ty th us in te n sif ie s th e te n sio n th at T ussm an id en tif ie s, an d

postm odern c o nditio ns e ro de a n y c le ar n orm ativ e fo undatio ns to w hic h o ne mig ht tu rn f o r h elp in f in din g r e so lu tio n. I t is n ot s u rp ris in g th en th at p eo ple

em plo yed as public se rv an ts , partic u la rly th ose with ele cte d an d

ad m in is tr a tiv e r o le s, e x perie n ce f re q uen t te n sio n b etw een p ublic a n d p riv ate

in te re sts a n d q uan darie s o ver h ow t o m an ag e t h ese i n te re sts .

Doro th y E m met ( 1 967) h elp s u s f o cu s o n th e p artic u la r p ro ble m f o r p ublic

ad m in is tr a to rs b y n otin g th e d is c re p an cy b etw een tw o d im en sio ns o f m odern

co m ple x o rg an iz atio ns. S he c o nte n ds th at a n o rg an iz atio n m ust b e v ie w ed a s

both “a co m munity w ith a co m mon p urp ose ” an d “a fie ld w ith in w hic h

peo ple h ope to h av e a care er” (p . 1 96). F or p ublic ad m in is tr a to rs , p ublic

org an iz atio ns are n ot o nly co lle ctiv itie s esta b lis h ed to se rv e so m e p ublic

in te re st b ut a ls o th e a re n as w ith in w hic h in div id uals a tte m pt to re aliz e th eir

se lf -in te re sts th ro ugh th e d ev elo pm en t o f c are ers . I f th is is s o , th e p lu ra lis tic

natu re o f m odern so cie ty , re in fo rc ed b y th e a sse rtiv en ess o f th is d iv ers ity

in stig ate d b y p ostm odern c o nditio ns, s u ggests im med ia te ly th at c o nflic ts w ill

em erg e b etw een i n div id ual i n te re sts a n d o rg an iz atio nal i n te re sts .

Pre su m ab ly t h e w ay t h is t e n sio n i s r e so lv ed d ep en ds t o a g re at e x te n t o n t h e

re la tiv e v alu es in div id uals a ttr ib ute to th e p riv ate a n d p ublic s p here s o f th eir

liv es. R ic h ard S en nett ( 1 974) h as c o nclu ded th at th e tr e n d o ver th e p ast tw o

hundre d y ears h as b een to w ard d ev alu in g th e p ublic s p here fo r th e s a k e o f

cu ltiv atin g th e p riv ate . H e a rg ues th at a n arc is sis tic p re o ccu patio n w ith in ner

fe elin gs a s th e b asis fo r p ers o nal id en tity in m odern so cie ty h as le d u s to

belie v e th at th e im pers o nal world of public affa ir s is of se co ndary

im porta n ce. I f h e is c o rre ct, w e s h ould n ot b e s u rp ris e d to f in d a te n den cy to

re so lv e t h e t e n sio n i n f a v or o f p ers o nal a n d p riv ate i n te re sts .

Sm all (1 976), in his su rv ey of th e pro ble m of co nflic t of in te re st in

Am eric an g overn m en t, p ro duced fin din gs th at su pport th e co nclu sio n th at

th is te n den cy h as b een o n th e in cre ase in m odern s o cie ty . H e w rite s th at “ in

th e l a te T w en tie th C en tu ry i t b eco m es m ore a n d m ore d if fic u lt t o s e p ara te t h e

sim plis tic , co m ple te ly pers o nal in te re st fro m th e public in te re st. B ecau se

th ese in te re sts a re o verla p pin g a n d n o lo nger s e p ara b le , o ld er n orm s o f r ig ht

an d w ro ng, d esir a b le o r u ndesir a b le a re in ad eq uate ” (p . 5 54). H e c o nclu des

th at i t i s “ p art o f t h e h um an c o nditio n” t o s e ek m oney a n d p ow er f ro m p ublic

so urc es f o r t h e s a k e o f p riv ate g ain .

If th is k in d o f c o nduct c an b e a ttr ib ute d to th e h um an c o nditio n, it m ay b e

becau se th e p ublic s p here o f lif e h as c o m e to b e n o d if fe re n t f ro m a n y o th er co m mon p ro perty re so urc e. If th e affa ir s o f g overn m en t an d th e co m mon

re so urc es o f th e c itiz en ry a re , a s S en nett (1 974) s u ggests , v ie w ed a s h av in g

le sse r im porta n ce th an p riv ate in div id ual in te re sts , th en it s e em s q uite lik ely

th at t h ey w ill b e e x plo ite d . G arre tt H ard in 's a n aly sis ( 1 977) o f t h e “ tr a g ed y o f

th e c o m mons” m ay h elp u s t o u nders ta n d w hy t h is o ccu rs .

Hard in a sk s u s to im ag in e a p astu re th at is o pen to a ll th e v illa g e h erd sm en

fo r g ra zin g liv esto ck . E ach h erd sm an q uite ra tio nally s e ek s to m ax im iz e h is

gain ; th is is th e lo gic al co nse q uen ce of in div id ualis m . In atte m ptin g to

acq uir e th e g re ate st b en efit fo r h im se lf , e ach h erd sm an c o nsid ers , m ore o r

le ss c o nsc io usly , w hat th e u tility w ould b e o f a d din g o ne m ore a n im al to h is

herd . H ard in n ote s th at th is u tility h as tw o c o m ponen ts , o ne p ositiv e a n d o ne

neg ativ e. T he p ositiv e c o m ponen t is a fu nctio n o f a d din g o ne m ore a n im al;

th e h erd sm an r e ceiv es a ll t h e p ro ceed s f ro m t h e s a le o f t h is a d ditio nal a n im al.

The n eg ativ e co m ponen t is a fu nctio n o f th e o verg ra zin g cre ate d b y th e

ad ditio nal a n im al. H ow ev er, b ecau se t h e e ffe cts o f t h is o verg ra zin g a re b orn e

by a ll t h e h erd sm en , t h e n eg ativ e u tility f o r t h e in div id ual h erd sm an is o nly a

fra ctio n o f t h ese e ffe cts .

The re su lt is th at w hen th e p ositiv e u tility a n d n eg ativ e p artia l u tility a re

ad ded t o geth er, t h ere i s a c le ar n et g ain , a n d “ th e r a tio nal h erd sm an c o nclu des

th at t h e o nly s e n sib le c o urs e f o r h im t o p urs u e i s t o a d d a n oth er a n im al t o h is

herd . A nd a n oth er… ” (H ard in , 1 977, p . 2 0). T he p ro ble m o f c o urs e is th at

ev ery oth er herd sm an is dra w in g th e sa m e co nclu sio n. E ach one fe els

co m pelle d t o i n cre ase h is h erd w ith out l im it u ntil t h e p astu re i s o verg ra zed t o

th e p oin t o f b ein g u se le ss fo r a ll. H ard in o bse rv es fro m th is sc en ario th at

“ru in is th e d estin atio n to w ard w hic h a ll m en ru sh , e ach p urs u in g h is o w n

best in te re st in a so cie ty th at belie v es in th e fre ed om of th e co m mons.

Fre ed om i n a c o m mons b rin gs r u in t o a ll” ( p . 2 0).

It m ay b e t h at t h e p ublic s p here i s a c o m mons s u bje ct t o t h is k in d o f a b use .

It m ay h av e b eco m e s o s e co ndary t o t h e p urs u it o f i n div id ual i n te re sts t h at w e

are c o nsta n tly t e m pte d t o o verg ra ze i t. I n t h e s h ort r u n w e s e em t o e x perie n ce

pers o nal g ain b y re so lv in g c o nflic ts b etw een p riv ate a n d p ublic in te re st in

fa v or o f o urs e lv es. H ow ev er, th e lo ng-te rm re su lt o f th at c o urs e o f c o nduct

by m illio ns o f i n div id ual c itiz en s a n d c itiz en –public s e rv an ts , e ach s e ek in g t o

max im iz e pers o nal gain , is th e ru in atio n of th at co m mons we call

govern m en t. Conflic t of in te re st can th ere fo re be an in sid io usly dif fic u lt pro ble m ,

esp ecia lly fo r public ad m in is tr a to rs . Citiz en s in public ad m in is tr a tiv e

positio ns h av e s p ecia l a ccess to th e g overn m en t c o m mons th at m ost o rd in ary

citiz en s d o n ot. T his access p re se n ts u nusu al o pportu nitie s, an d th ere fo re

te m pta tio ns, to e x plo it g overn m en t r e so