Now, the average PA TIMES reader may well shout out at this point that this is an oversimplification. I agree but the aim here is to establish a beachhead for exploration-- a start. However, I do note to workshop participants that this initial framework can be modified if the group finds it useful to do so during the course of the session.

Fleshing Out the Three Obligation Sources

We briefly consider the nature of each of these three obligation sources. Participants are asked to consider what each source entails. Facets of self-interest frequently mentioned include: income sufficiency, job security & advancement, individual prestige and/or power, and self-actualization/fulfillment. Facets of organizational interest are harder to elicit from the participants (perhaps because they have generally not taken courses in organizational/managerial theory). Expanding upon group feedback, I suggest that this includes overlapping facets such as budget growth(e.g., to both expand service to clientele and provide expanded benefits to agency personnel), territorial health(e.g., ability to keep other agencies from cutting into one's core service areas or territory), autonomy(e.g., the right to do things the way the organization thinks it should be done), external legitimacy (e.g., acceptance by key stakeholders and funding sources that the agency operates competently and properly), survival, and mission achievement. To develop some idea of the nature of public interest, I ask participants for common synonyms for this concept. Generally, I have gotten items such as common good and general welfare. The idea is that public interest involves at a minimum serious consideration of consequences for parties external to the organization's leadership and personnel.

To summarize the above discussion, I suggest the following regarding discerning and assessing alternative courses of action in terms of self-interest, organizational interest, and public interest:

• Self-interest involves asking what are the direct consequences for me individually (my job security, my personal prestige, etc.)
• Organizational interest involves asking what are the consequences for my agency (my agency's budget growth, my agency's external legitimacy, etc.)
• Public interest involves earnestly accounting for the well-being of affected parties both within and outside of the organization.

I also provide for the group's consideration several additional propositions. First, to some degree these interests overlap and to some degree these interests may conflict (and need to be reconciled if at all possible). Second, reconciliation often involves being political since doing the right thing can be risky to one's self-interest (e.g., job security). Overall, managing ethically may require one to be political (e.g., using certain strategies to "allow" one to do the right thing without losing ones' job, etc.).

Using Mini-Cases From "An Ethics Moment" In PA TIMES

To illustrate the above, I ask the group to review at least one mini-case from "An Ethics Moment" in PA TIMES. A very useful mini-case is "When the Chief Asks You to Lie" from the February 1999 issue:

"Chuck is the captain of one of the city's fire stations. The fire station is in serious need of repairs as a critical portion of the station has settled, causing it to become unusable. A tropical storm has blown across the city causing heavy damage and flooding. The area in and around the city has been declared a disaster area and both state and federal disaster officials are assessing the damage for emergency relief. The Fire Chief has advised federal/ state officials that the damage to the station was caused by the storm. Prior to relief officials arriving at the station, the Fire Chief calls Chuck to advise him of their impending arrival and tells Chuck to inform the relief officials that the damage is a result of the storm.

While not stated, annual evaluations are due next month and the Chief is known to use the evaluations to reward loyalty and punish those who do not follow his wishes. Due to previous illness in the family, Chuck is very dependent upon his annual evaluation to keep up with inflation."

So, I ask the workshop participants to take Chuck's role and assess two general options (lie vs. tell the truth) in terms of self-interest, organizational interest, and public interest. Drawing on the group's comments, I end up with something like the following.

	Lie	Tell the Truth
Self-interest	If officials catch him in a lie perhaps through inconsistency with what firefighters may say to visiting officials), Capt. Chuc would get into trouble. May be left hanging to take the blame.	Fire Chief likely to not give Capt. Chuck his raise that helps support him and his family; long-run relations with Fire Chief likely to be strained.
Organizational Interests	Department may get a new or renovated station.	Apparently, no new or renovated station.
	If lies and gets caught, organization's credibility (part of legitimacy) will suffer.	Avoid two potential pitfalls listed adjacently.
	Even if get away with it, implicit message that is okay to lie and coverup conveyed to line personnel.
Public Interest	Community may save the expense of renovating or replacing the fire station (especially important if a low to moderate wealth community). "Savings" could be used for other pressing community needs	Would be upholding (rather than undermining) democracy; i.e., the will of the popularly elected U.S. Congress and state legislature that have appropriated funds for disaster relief and not for ongoing maintenance/ replacement of facilities

Workshop participants generally agree that the right thing for Chuck to do is to pursue the public interest and to tell the truth to the visiting officials. Basically, as a rule-of-thumb, public administrators should not undermine the democratic process by lying to elected officials (or their agency representatives). Moreover, lying may convey a message to others in the department that covering up mistakes is okay. This also may well compromise the public interest and certain organizational interests in future situations.

However, I remind workshop participants that Captain Chuck is faced with the very real problem of trying to do the right thing without adversely affecting his livelihood. It is one thing to abstractly say what the right thing is to do; it is another to actually confront the situation and grapple with consequences such as losing one's job or a raise needed to support one's family if one does the right thing.

Political Strategies and Managing Ethically

Generally, workshop participants are not quite sure what to recommend to Captain Chuck. It is at this point when I suggest that Captain Chuck may want to consider using one of a number of political strategies to reconcile or balance competing self and public interests. One general strategy is that of "partisan analysis" as presented by Charles Lindblom in his classic book The Policymaking Process (1968). As Lindblom notes, partisan analysis involves showing other parties how one's policy preference squares with their philosophy, values, principles, and/or material interests. It often involves showing other parties that what they initially prefer to be done to address a situation does not actually serve their interests as well as the alternative approach. Notice that the user of partisan analysis does not have to share in the values of the other parties (he/she may even be repulsed by some of those values). The user of partisan analysis needs to convince those other parties that an alternative approach better squares with their values however lofty or basic they might be.

In this case, Captain Chuck might indicate sympathy for the Chief's desire for a renovated/new station. However, he might then indicate that "unfortunately" it is unlikely that the Federal/state officials will believe that the storm caused the damage.

This is because of the nature of the damage and the real possibility of inconsistency with accounts given to officials by line level firefighters. Given the impending site visit, it would be difficult to line up everyone and try to get everyone's story straight prior to arrival of the Federal/state officials. Captain Chuck might add that if the tale is not believed then future credibility and acceptance of funding requests by local, state, or federal authorities may well be jeopardized.

Notice that the argumentation here is not one of high moral suasion or appeal to public interest principles. Partisan analysis could involve appealing to higher facets of public interest but may also appeal to the listener's self and organizational interests. In this case, the Fire Chief may well value a new fire station, resource expansion, and personal prestige more than the abstraction of not undermining the democratic process. Thus, in this case, Captain Chuck needs to convince the Chief that telling the truth better squares with his concerns than lying. As workshop participants have pointed out, the Chief might save face by telling the officials that because of the storm he misunderstood the communications from the field regarding the station's physical status.

There are other political strategies that Captain Chuck might consider (e.g., as one fire official suggested in a later edition of PA TIMES, tell the Chief that he will not lie and provide a written memo that reflects the conversation on the matter). The larger point here is that to do the right thing often requires one to be political.

To promote further exploration, a number of participants have asked about additional reading and sources of mini-cases. I note that my discussion of obligation sources draws on Dwight Waldo's The Enterprise of Public Administration, Chpt. 7, 1981; and Montgomery Van Wart's article in Public Administration Review, "The Sources of Ethical Decision Making for Individuals in the Public Sector" (Nov/Dec. 1996). My discussion of political strategy is really a subset of considerations more comprehensively covered in J. Dobel's article in Public Administration Review, "Political Prudence and Leadership" (Jan/Feb. 1998). For mini-cases, I suggest looking at "An Ethics Moment" in back issues of PA TIMES.