Session 4 - Synthesis

During the 1980s and 1990s, local government authorities experienced a turbulent environment. Successive Conservative governments reduced the powers of local authorities by introducing a series of initiatives including compulsory competitive tendering, self-governing status for schools and greater powers to housing tenants. The Conservatives gained control of a metropolitan district Council in the north of England in 1988. At that time, the district covered a population of approximately 470,000 people (15-17 percent of whom were from ethnic minorities) and employed the equivalent of 20,000 full-time staff.

The new ruling Conservative group sought to affect a revolution in how the council delivered its services. They introduced a new strategy to change the culture to create an ‘enabling Council’ with the focus firmly placed on the service receiver as the customer. To achieve this turnaround the group placed an emphasis on management autonomy with responsibilities devolved to those closer to the point of delivering council services. It introduced a structural overhaul creating separate service departments known as directorates. It also dissolved the existing personnel department of 140 posts and devolved powers to the directorates. A residual advisory group of 15 in ‘strategic personnel’ remained at the centre. Each directorate contained a director of personnel who could turn to the central group for advice. The Conservative group gave managers within the directorates wide-ranging powers to drive through changes to make the organisation more customer responsive. There was a shift in emphasis away from a set of rules common to all departments towards an established framework of standards to guide the activities of managers. Rather than bringing about change through collective bargaining with the trade unions, the new emphasis was on management development within the devolved culture. Radical plans to erase the council wide grievance and disciplinary procedures had been drawn up. The role of the personnel directors had changed from ‘making rules and checking managers followed them’, towards becoming ‘supporters, helpers and advisers’ to the directorates. Within the directorates themselves managers responded with enthusiasm to their new-found freedom. The council ran a high profile series of seminars for managers aimed at developing a customer orientation. The works of management gurus flourished on the bookshelves in the offices of managers as they identified themselves as change agents and a new breed of local government managers.

Beneath this optimistic picture there were signs things were not all going as planned. Employees brought 63 race discrimination cases against the council between 1988 and January 1993. The council had faced a hefty legal bill and paid out over £100,000 in compensation. In one case alone, the tribunal found a council's record so reprehensible that the settlement included an award of £2,000 and aggravated damages. Although the council had a formal equal opportunities policy since 1981, the commission for racial equality considered its record so poor it sought an injunction against further acts of discrimination under section 62 of the Race Relations Act 1976, alleging that the council was a persistent discriminator.

After an industrial tribunal found the council had unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of race for the fifth time in six years the council commissioned a report by an independent consultant. In making the report, the consultant highlighted the absence of an adequate corporate framework and the failure to discipline employees responsible for discrimination despite the results from industrial tribunals. Interviews with council employees revealed widespread dissatisfaction and, among ethnic minority staff, a lack of confidence in the internal systems to deal with complaints. An investigation into the operation of the equal opportunities policy revealed that the council had not approached the issue corporately. In the rush to devolve management responsibilities many managers were making decisions on staff recruitment, selection and promotion without having attended relevant training courses in managing a multiracial workforce. The consultant could find no accurate council wide data on recruitment and selection according to ethnic origin. In the large social services department managers had not recorded the ethnic origin of all staff. In sum, the independent report called for sweeping changes.

Is there an inevitable tension between the goals of customer responsiveness and flexibility on the one hand, and procedural fairness on the other?

What would be the implications of pursuing a quota system, to ensure the demographics of the workforce reflected the demographics of the local population? Could this be justified?

Could one justify discrimination against employees in terms of the interests of other stakeholders?

In order to demonstrate providing equal opportunity, is it enough to keep within the letter of the law? Explain your answer.

Top

In developing a decision-making model that avoids the shortcomings of each traditional theory and can be practically applied to common problems, the Josephson Institute has combined features of each and added the stakeholder concept. Acknowledging its primary influences, this hybrid theory might (humorously) be called "Golden Kantian Consequentialism." There are three steps:

1. All decisions must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well being of all stakeholders.

The first principle of the JI model is the underlying principle of the Golden Rule. It embodies both the affirmative and negative dimensions of the Rule — help when you can, avoid harm when you can. It also utilizes the stakeholder concept.

2. Ethical values and principles always take precedence over nonethical ones.

Like Kant’s absolute duty theory, the second principle asserts that ethical values are superior to nonethical ones and that when faced with a clear choice between such values, the ethical person should always choose to follow ethical principles. This principle operates only when the decision maker perceives the conflict as one between an ethical value, such as honesty, and a nonethical value, such as money or power. Perceiving the difference between ethical and nonethical values can be difficult. Faced with this sort of dilemma, people rarely see choices as being between ethical and nonethical values. Instead, they see ethical dilemmas arising from the clash between what they want or "need" and ethical principles that might deny them their desires. A rationalization process then kicks in, transforming self-interested, nonethical motives into others-centered, ethical ones.

3. It is ethically proper to violate an ethical principle only when it is clearly necessary to advance another true ethical principle, which, according to the decision maker’s conscience, will produce the greatest balance of good in the long run.

Many ethical dilemmas pit honesty against fidelity or fairness against promise-keeping or loyalty to one person against commitment to another. In such cases, it is difficult to evaluate the problem objectively and not allow self-interest and nonethical values to unduly affect the process.

1. Clarify

Determine precisely what must be decided. Formulate and devise the full range of alternatives (i.e., things you could do). Eliminate patently impractical, illegal and improper alternatives. Force yourself to develop at least three ethically justifiable options. Examine each option to determine which ethical principles and values are involved.

2. Evaluate

If any of the options require the sacrifice of any ethical principle, evaluate the facts and assumptions carefully. Distinguish solid facts from beliefs, desires, theories, suppositions, unsupported conclusions and opinions that might generate rationalizations. Take into account the credibility of the sources of information and the fact that self-interest, bias and ideological commitments tend to obscure objectivity and affect perceptions about what is true. With regard to each alternative, carefully consider the benefits, burdens and risks to each stakeholder.

3. Decide

After evaluating the information, make a judgment about what is or is not true and about what consequences are most likely to occur. If there is an ethical dilemma, evaluate the viable alternatives according to personal conscience, prioritize the values so that you can choose which values to advance and which to subordinate and determine who will be helped the most and harmed the least. It is sometimes helpful to consider the worst case scenario. In addition, consider whether ethically questionable conduct can be avoided by modifying goals or methods or by consulting with those likely to be affected in order to get their input or consent. Finally, you may want to rely on three "ethics guides":

GOLDEN RULE — Are you treating others as you would want to be treated?

PUBLICITY — Would you be comfortable if your reasoning and decision were to be publicized? How would feel about seeing it on the front page of tomorrow’s papers?

KID-ON-YOUR-SHOULDER — Would you be comfortable if your children were observing you? Are you practicing what you preach?

4. Implement

Once you decide what to do, develop a plan to implement the decision in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs and risks. Remember that any decision or act, however ethical, is bound to be weakened by a sanctimonious, pious, judgmental or self-righteous attitude.

5. Monitor and Modify

An ethical decision maker should monitor the effects of decisions and be prepared and willing to revise a plan, or take a different course of action, based on new information. Since most decisions are based on imperfect information and "best effort" predictions, it is inevitable that some will be wrong. Those decisions will either fail to produce the consequences anticipated or they will produce unintended and/or unforeseen consequences. The ethical decision maker is willing to adjust to new information.

Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship — these six core ethical values, which the Josephson Institute dubs "Pillars of Character," provide objective criteria to guide our choices. The standards of conduct that arise out of those values constitute the ground rules of ethics, and therefore of ethical decision making.

Why is a common lexicon necessary? So that people can see what unites our diverse and fractured society. So that the challenge of ethical relativism can be tackled. So that ethical decisions, while not necessarily made any easier, can nevertheless become more consistent and defensible.

1. TRUSTWORTHINESS

When we’re trusted we’re given greater leeway by others because they don’t feel they need contracts to assure that we’ll meet our obligations. They believe in us. That’s satisfying. But there’s a downside: we must constantly live up to the expectations of others and refrain from competitive, self-serving behavior that tarnishes if not destroys relationships, both professional and personal.

Simply refraining from lies and deception is not enough. Trustworthiness is the most complicated of the six core ethical values and concerns a variety of behavioral qualities — qualities like honesty, integrity, reliability and loyalty [these are discussed at length].

2. RESPECT

The way one shows respect varies, but its essence is the display of regard for the worth of people, including oneself. We have no ethical duty to hold all people in high esteem or admire them, but we are morally obligated to treat everyone with respect, regardless of who they are and what they have done. We have a responsibility to be the best we can be in all situations, even when dealing with unpleasant people.

Respect focuses on the moral obligation to honor the essential worth and dignity of the individual. Respect prohibits violence, humiliation, manipulation and exploitation. It reflects notions such as civility, courtesy, dignity, autonomy, tolerance and acceptance [these are briefly discussed].

3. RESPONSIBILITY

Life is full of choices. Being responsible means being in charge of our choices and, thus, our lives. It means being accountable for what we do and who we are. It also means recognizing that what we do, and what we don’t do, matters and we are morally on the hook for the consequences. Responsibility makes demands on us. It imposes duties to do what we can, not because we are being paid or because we will suffer if we don’t, but simply because it is our obligation to do so. The essence of responsibility is continuous awareness that our capacity to reason and our freedom to choose make us morally autonomous and, therefore, answerable for how we use our autonomy and whether we honor or degrade the ethical principles that give life meaning and purpose.

Beyond having the responsibility to be trustworthy, respectful, fair, and caring, ethical people show responsibility by being accountable, pursuing excellence and exercising self-restraint. They exhibit the ability to respond to expectations [these are discussed in some detail].

4. FAIRNESS

Most would agree that fairness and justice involve issues of equality, impartiality, proportionality, openness and due process. Most would agree that it is unfair to handle similar matters inconsistently. Most would agree that it is unfair to impose punishment that is not commensurate with the offense. Beyond that, there is little agreement. Fairness is another tricky concept, probably more subject to legitimate debate and interpretation than any other ethical value. Disagreeing parties tend to maintain that there is only one fair position (their own, naturally). But while some situations and decisions are clearly unfair, fairness usually refers to a range of morally justifiable outcomes rather than discovery of one fair answer.

Process: In settling disputes or dividing resources, how one proceeds to judgment is crucial, for someone is bound to be disappointed with the result. A fair person scrupulously employs open and impartial processes for gathering and evaluating information necessary to make decisions. Fair people do not wait for the truth to come to them; they seek out relevant information and conflicting perspectives before making important judgments.

Impartiality: Decisions should be made without favoritism or prejudice.

Equity: Fairness requires that an individual, company, or society correct mistakes, promptly and voluntarily. It is improper to take advantage of the weakness or ignorance of others.

5. CARING

Caring is the heart of ethics. It is scarcely possible to be truly ethical and not genuinely concerned with the welfare others. That is because ethics is ultimately about our responsibilities toward other people. If you existed alone in the universe, there would be no need for ethics and your heart could be a cold, hard stone without consequence to anyone or anything.

It is easier to love "humanity" than it is to love people. People who consider themselves ethical and yet lack a caring attitude toward individuals tend to treat others as instruments of their will. They rarely feel an obligation to be honest, loyal, fair or respectful except insofar as it is prudent for them to do so, a disposition which itself hints at duplicity and a lack of integrity.

A person who really cares feels an emotional response to both the pain and pleasure of others. Oddly enough, though, it is not uncommon for people to be remarkably ungracious, intolerant, and unforgiving toward those they love — while at the same time showing a generous spirit toward strangers and business associates. Go figure.

Of course, sometimes we must hurt those we truly care for and some decisions, while quite ethical, do cause pain. But one should consciously cause no more harm than is reasonably necessary to perform one’s duties.

The highest form of caring is the honest expression of benevolence. This is sometimes referred to as altruism, not to be confused with strategic charity. Gifts to charities to advance personal interests are a fraud. That is, they aren’t gifts at all. They’re investments or tax write-offs.

6. CITIZENSHIP

The concept of citizenship includes civic virtues and duties that prescribe how we ought to behave as part of a community. The good citizen knows the laws and obeys them, yes, but that’s not all [there is more on citizenship I have omitted].

In making tough decisions, don’t be distracted by rationalizations. Here are some of the most common.

If It’s Necessary, It’s Ethical

This rationalization is based on the false assumption that necessity breeds propriety. The approach often leads to ends-justify-the-means reasoning and treating tasks or goals as moral imperatives.

The False Necessity Trap

As Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "necessity is an interpretation, not a fact." We tend to fall into the "false necessity trap" because we overestimate the cost of doing the right thing and underestimate the cost of failing to do so.

If It’s Legal and Permissible, It’s Proper

This substitutes legal requirements (which establish minimal standards of behavior) for personal moral judgment. This alternative does not embrace the full range of ethical obligations, especially for those involved in upholding the public trust. Ethical people often choose to do less than the maximally allowable, and more than the minimally acceptable.

I Was Just Doing It for You

This is a primary justification for committing "little white lies" or withholding important information in personal or professional relationships, such as performance reviews. This rationalization pits the values of honesty and respect against the value of caring. An individual deserves the truth because he has a moral right to make decisions about his own life based on accurate information. This rationalization overestimates other people’s desire to be "protected" from the truth, when in fact most people would rather know unpleasant information than believe soothing falsehoods. Consider the perspective of people lied to: If they discovered the lie, would they thank you for being considerate or would they feel betrayed, patronized or manipulated?

I’m Just Fighting Fire With Fire

This is the false assumption that promise-breaking, lying and deceit are justified if they are routinely engaged in by those with whom you are dealing.

It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone

Used to excuse misconduct, this rationalization falsely holds that one can violate ethical principles so long as there is no clear and immediate harm to others. It treats ethical obligations simply as factors to be considered in decision making, rather than as ground rules. Problem areas: Asking for or giving special favors to family, friends or public officials, disclosing nonpublic information to benefit others, using one’s position for personal advantage.

Everyone’s Doing It

This is a false, "safety in numbers" rationale fed by the tendency to uncritically treat cultural, organizational or occupational behaviors as if they were ethical norms, just because they are norms.

It’s OK If I Don’t Gain Personally

This justifies improper conduct done for others or for institutional purposes on the false assumption that personal gain is the only test of impropriety. A related, but more narrow excuse, is that only behavior resulting in improper financial gain warrants ethical criticism.

I’ve Got It Coming

People who feel they are overworked or underpaid rationalize that minor "perks" — such as acceptance of favors, discounts or gratuities — are nothing more than fair compensation for services rendered. This is also used as an excuse to abuse sick time, insurance claims, overtime, personal phone calls and personal use of office supplies.

I Can Still Be Objective

This rationalization ignores the fact that a loss of objectivity always prevents perception of the loss of objectivity. It also underestimates the subtle ways in which gratitude, friendship, anticipation of future favors and the like affect judgment. Does the person providing you with the benefit believe that it will in no way affect your judgment? Would the person still provide the benefit if you were in no position to help?

Identify sections of this Model that are relevant to the following:

a) Utilitarianism

b) Justice

c) Rights

d) Ethics of Care

e) Virtue Ethics

Can any ethical system claim access to moral truths?

Would this work for you (why / why not)?

Does this overcome the limitations in the way we make decisions?

Is this merely a useful list, or is it a programme for ethical decision making?

Would following this system guarantee consensus?

Top