|
|
American Society for Public Administration - Vol. 28 No. 7 - July 2005 |
|
Making Ethical Decision-making Count
Christine Gibbs Springer
It is one thing to talk about ethical behaviorŠquite another to make it happen organization wide. Regardless of the professional, statutory or organizational code of ethics that applies, the degree to which standards are operationalized depends upon the degree to which an individual employee and leader in the organization are free of a fear and a pre-occupation that they will be held responsible for harmful behaviors--often making failure the inevitable outcome.
More often than not, appointive or elected leaders take on more responsibility than they can handle due to a conviction that those below them cannot handle it. Passive followers sense that responsibility by them is taken away so they withdraw from being accountable for their actions.
It is only through the re-definition of this responsibility to one of collaborative accountability for agreed-upon behavior that true ethical decision-making in public service occurs. As an example, for elected officials, often the most effective short-term implementation of an ethical code depends on an understanding of their leadership role and also peer enforcement.
Fear of failure is personal and also universal. Individuals want to win and lose in interactions, maintain control, avoid embarrassment and to stay rational. Over time, we become skilled in designing our interactions to avoid violating these governing values, even if the cost may be outcomes we don't like. Those governing values are really fears--fears of losing, not being in control, being humiliated and of becoming irrational or overly emotional. These fears drive us toward primitive responses of "flight or flight."
If we choose flight, we reject responsibility. If we choose fight, we seize total control for the situation and shut everyone else out. The costs of making individuals fear failure when contemplating ethical behavior, is a diminished capacity for genuine, productive collaboration; the development of mistrust and misunderstanding; and the atrophy of choice-making.
In order to turn-around such organizational inclinations, it is important to first set out some values--like accountability, excellence, innovation, integrity, transparency and respect--that are important for all to follow. It is then important to generate robust and compelling choices and to do so without violating governing values and codes of ethics. There are several tools to do so.
One tool is to structure choices. First and foremost, elected and appointed leaders must fully declare their personal allegiances and potential conflicts-of-interest. They must be willing to convey the message that the decision will be the group's within the operational context of codes and applicable statutes. Often, many members will not believe that--yet.
From there, coming to decisions involves:
Sometimes, this choice process is not possible due to misunderstandings and mistrust undermining collaboration. Then it is necessary to ask key decision-makers to reframe. We all frame reality as a way to make sense of the world. As conditions grow worse, our frames grow more extreme. Reframing asks participants to understand what assumptions they are operating under and to adjust them from knowing the answer to having data and experience but not seeing and understanding everything so that the door is open for movement given others' input and intelligence so as to make a better choice.
Sometimes it is necessary to structure conversations that will yield a better distribution of responsibilities and a better decision. This option is usually pursued because it is recognized that there is a fundamental lack of communication and productive conversations about decision responsibility distribution.
The purpose of a responsibility conversation is to divide tasks so that responsibility assigned matches capabilities and maximizes individual choice-making, as well as building internal commitment and accountability. These conversations also create a sense of collaboration and feeling of mutual support. Typically these discussions move up a responsibility ladder--from having no responsibility, to being willing to watch and learnŠto generating options and asking for decisionsŠto considering options, making the decision and informing stakeholders.
The goals of group members should be to move up the responsibility ladder over time while helping others to do the same and to create a common language for future conversations.
When entering into these conversations, I find it helpful to remember six Key-C's:
Sometimes it is necessary to reframe structures of leadership and followership by restating or splitting responsibility through dialogueŠapportioning responsibility in keeping with capabilities rather than allowing the leaders to be tempted to take on more than a proportionate share of responsibility or rejecting responsibility outrightŠmaking the apportionment discussable; and subjecting performance to public testing rather than a private assessment.
For every person in an organization who feels mired in under-responsibility and accountability, there is someone who also feels trapped and burdened by over-responsibility. Sometimes, this means taking on harder and trickier tasks than one feels capable of, but more often it means loading oneself up with everyone else's responsibilities until one collapses under the weight.
All of this can be resolved through choice-structuring, collaborative decision-making, analysis and focus. As an example, too often, chief appointive officials look to their elected boards as just another constituency to be satisfied and from whom, control is to be seized.
Today, given the concern of the public regarding transparency and accountability and their concern about ethical dilemmas, there is a greater need to develop relationships based on collaboration and partnerships as well as the organization-wide understanding that there is no single level of responsibility that is right for all choices. Everyone is accountable. Levels of responsibility and accountability can be set collaboratively based upon organizational principles and each individual's responsibilities and abilities and can be followed with less fear on everyone's part.
ASPA member Christine Gibbs Springer is principal with Red Tape Limited in Las Vegas, NV, and former ASPA president. Email: cggs@aol.com
|