CHAPTER 9 ________________________________
Fostering Ethics and Accountability in the Public-Sector Workplace

On May 3, 1987, the Miami Herald published a story alleging an affair between presidential candidate Gary Hart and a 29-year-old model named Donna Rice. Shortly thereafter, the National Enquirer published a now infamous photograph of the two. Less than a week later, polls in New Hampshire showed that Hart’s support had been cut in half, dropping from 32 to 17 percent. Suddenly, he was 10 points behind Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. On May 8, 1987, Hart dropped out of the race.

More than 10 years later, in January 1998, President Bill Clinton was accused of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. In the three months that followed this breaking story, President Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent approval rating, the highest of his eight-year administration. What happened during this 10-year period is uncertain. We might argue that what used to be unacceptable was now acceptable. America had changed. More recently, the American public has been subjected to an increasing number of ethical scandals, including those involving governors Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, and Mark Sanford; evangelist Ted Haggard; and investor Bernie Madoff. Within the past two years, the federal government has bailed out financial institutions such as Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG and allowed others, such as Lehman Brothers, to fail.

What happened to “right” and “wrong”? Why was “wrong” now becoming “right”? Why do people wait until after their secret lives are revealed to the public to change their behavior? Why did the federal government follow one standard to bail out some organizations and another to allow similarly situated entities to fail? Where is the consistency?

Public Trust

Public trust is the glue that holds our democracy together, but right now it seems to be at an all-time low. The roots of public trust are established in the soil of integrity and accountability. It cannot grow and thrive in the current fallow ground. Public trust cannot be generated from feel-good statements because many of these statements lack moral validity.

Great American leaders have acknowledged the need for public trust for decades. Before James Madison became president of the United States, he said, “The circulation of confidence is more important than the circulation of money.”¹ Other former presidents have made similar statements:

Accountability and the Subcomponents of Morals: Ethics, Values, and Principles

Accountability is defined in Webster’s American Dictionary as “the quality or state of being accountable; especially an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.” It is defined in Answers Dictionary as “[t]he state of being accountable; liability to be called on to render an account; the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected.”

The key components of accountability are (1) an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility, (2) an obligation or willingness to account for one’s actions, and (3) answerability. Webster’s American Dictionary aptly indicates, by omission of a synonym for the word, there are no substitutes for accountability.

Ethics has been defined as “a branch of philosophy that is the systematic study of reflective choice, of the standards of right and wrong by which it is to be guided, and of the goods toward which it may ultimately be directed.”³ Principles are “the means of analysis (ways of thinking about moral problems).”⁴ Values are the “criteria for ‘good and evil.’”⁵

Webster’s defines morals as:

The broader definition of morals includes ethics (“ethical”), principles (“principles of right and wrong”), and values (“standard of right behavior”) (see Figure 9-1.)

Subjective Standards vs. Objective Standards

Understanding the difference between subjective standards and objective standards is not difficult. You need only watch America’s most popular television show, American Idol. At the beginning of every season, thousands of people who sincerely, subjectively believe they can sing and hope to become the new American Idol winner audition for the show. Most of the contestantsare sincerelywrongab outt hefrk vel of talent, which they discover when they are confronted with the more objective scrutiny of Simon Cowell and his Seamofjudges.

And anyone who has attempted to lose weight can tell you that true success is defined only by objective standards. One may not subjectively feel overweight. But a tape measure or a bathroom scale is an objective, and far better, indicator of whether one needs to lose weight.

Ethics in American government are no different. Subjective standards are illusory; they can be used to rationalize almost any behavior. Objective standards promote fair and equitable enforcement. Also, subjective standards are susceptible to change without notice, while objective standards are clear and can be measured. In moral and ethical decision-making, if the standard employed cannot be measured, that standard is subjective.

Strategically, the key to addressing ethical and moral issues in the public sector should be prevention, not merely after-the-fact enforcement. Effective prevention necessitates hiring and maintaining (1) ethical supervisors who model the appropriate behavior, (2) employees who understand the objective standards that management clearly communicates to them, and (3) supervisors who keep their eye on the ball, ensuring fair and equitable enforcement even in the face of compelling subjective rationalizations. But a good ethics policy is not enough.

Integrity

The Great Wall of China is one of the greatest construction feats in human history. It was built to keep the invading armies from the north at bay. It is 4,163 miles long, 15 to 30 feet thick at every point, and 25 feet tall. Centuries ago, it was guarded by more than one million soldiers at a time—or one soldier every 22 feet.

The wall is too long to go around, too high to go over, and too thick to drill through. So how did three invading armies get past it in the first 150 years of its existence, when it was guarded by more than one million soldiers? They bribed the guards at the gate. Picture the invading armies marching through the gates of a seemingly impenetrable wall—right in front of thousands of soldiers whose sole mission was to prevent those armies from doing exactly what they were doing.

Good policies are only as good as the integrity of those who enforce them—much like the Great Wall of China was only as strong as the integrity of the guards at the gates. Programs are good. Audit plans, work plans, investigative plans, strategic plans, resources, and people to carry out those plans are all good, but they are not the answer. These are what public administrators typically focus on when the conversation turns to integrity and accountability. They are all important bricks in the wall, but they are only as strong as the personal integrity of the people who use them and report the results.

Decision-Making on Ethical and Moral Issues

Non-moral decisions include the following:

• Should I wear brown socks or black socks today?

• Should I break up with my boyfriend (or girlfriend)?

• Should I go to a public or private university?

Moral issues involve absolutes, principles, values, and ethics and include questions like these:

• Should I take something that does not belong to me?

• Should I cheat on my income tax return?

• Can I lie about X and get by with it? Should I ignore this injustice?

• Should I cheat on my spouse or significant other?

Moral Decisions

Moral decisions are the decisions that shape the courses of our lives. They also affect the lives of others. Moral decisions are like the rudder on a large ship—seemingly small and unnoticeable, yet guiding the direction of the entire ship.

What we see, we think about. What we think about, we meditate on. What we meditate on, we eventually act on. Our actions form the foundation for our habits. Our habits shape our character, and our character determines our destiny. For example, if five years from now, I weigh 600 pounds, I would be responsible for that weight gain. There would be no one else to blame because I made the decisions that put me there. If I allow myself to look too frequently at the wrong foods, it will be only a matter of time before I think, meditate, and act upon those thoughts. Eating the wrong foods could turn into a habit—and could triple my weight. Remember, we are all responsible for our actions.

Character Formation

The formation of our character and our accompanying destinies is an iterative process. Briefly, the process is (1) look →(2) think→(3) meditate→(4) actions→(5) habits→(6) character→(7) destiny. True, lasting transformation requires an acknowledgement of this process. The genesis of true transformation occurs within, not externally. Real transformation begins with the renewing of your minds, but this truth alone will not set you free to change your destiny. You have to know this truth first. For example, I have a lock on the fence that leads to our backyard. A combination is required to open the lock. The mere truth that a combination for the lock exists will not let you into our backyard; you have to know the combination before you can be “set free” into our backyard. Truth never set anyone free until he or she took the time to know that truth.

The same holds true for the process of character formation. Creating true, lasting change necessitates that we look and think differently. We have to look at certain things we may not have looked at before and refuse to look at others. We have to decide to think about what is good and refuse to think about what we should not ponder. For example, you cannot keep fleeting thoughts from your mind any more than you can keep birds from flying over your head. However, you can prevent birds from building a nest on your head. True transformation requires that we keep any nestbuilding from occurring in our thoughts. We have the free will to look and think about whatever we choose. The way we exercise this free will is inextricably woven into our character. There is a nexus between our thoughts and our current reality. If we want to change our current reality, we must focus our eyes on something different and meditate on those new thoughts. We cannot think the same thoughts and expect different results.

In public administration, we must acknowledge that moral decisions affect the lives of people who work and live with us. The moral decisions we make at home and at work will affect our professional lives. The road to changing our destiny is a mere thought away. We have to accept the fact that our current state of affairs is directly attributable to character and habits we corporately exhibit. Those habits are composed of actions which originated within our thoughts. This is precisely what makes changing a corporate culture so difficult. No one person can change it all. It requires change on a much broader level.

Consistently making the “right” decisions, not just talking about making the right decisions, results in an invisible attribute with the power to influence others—moral authority.

Moral Authority

Moral authority is defined as a parallel congruence between one’s beliefs and actions. When we have moral authority, we have influence and the power to make change happen. When moral authority is missing, we do not have the ability to influence others, nor do we have the power to make change. This is important, because moral authority is required to create an environment in which integrity, accountability, and moral decisionmaking can grow. Moral authority, then, functions as the first domino in a lineup. If it does not exist, the other dominos will not fall.

What would you think if Timothy Leary—a well-known proponent of the alleged benefits of LSD, an illegal drug—said, “Do not take illegal narcotics; they are bad for you”? You would probably respond by saying, “Who are you to lecture others about drugs?” How would you react if Jon Brower Minnoch, who, according to the Guinness Book of Records, was the world’s heaviest person at 1,400 pounds, said, “A healthy diet and a good exercise routine are good for you”? You might say, “Who are you to lecture on healthy habits?”

The point is that people are not influenced by those who do not practice what they preach. People pay attention to whether your actions parallel your beliefs. If you talk the talk, you had better walk the walk—assuming you desire to make a difference with your life. Actions speak louder than words. In fact, people will remember what you did long after they have forgotten what you said.

Corporately speaking, in the context of public administration, moral authority means acting in alignment with your enabling legislation and fulfilling your statutorily required mandates. It means tracking your progress with objectively verifiable standards and reporting those activity measures on a regular basis. It means telling members of the legislative branch and executive branch the truth—not a watered-down version of the truth, but the truth as it appears in the morning before mascara and lipstick are applied.

Individually, moral authority means treating your employees equitably and serving the public faithfully. It means submitting to the authority of those in your chain of command. It means conducting audits and investigations with no preconceived expectations, following recognized standards, and reporting the results of those activities. It means silencing lies and misinformation by merely doing good and not retaliating. It means creating an environment at work in which employees will tell you the truth without fear of reprisal, and then rewarding those who do just that. It means accepting your responsibility as a leader to draw the line between “right” and “wrong” and clearly communicating the difference to your employees.

Conclusion

The question remains, how can we boost public trust? How do we as a country get back on track? Public trust is a necessity. It binds our democracy. Public trust naturally grows in an environment in which government leaders nurture integrity and accountability. Public trust will not grow when integrity and accountability are mere catchphrases that are not backed up by actions consistent with those precepts.

The often overlapping concepts of ethics, principles, and values are all component parts of morals. Within government, the morals we hold and the decisions we make pertaining to those morals will shape our future more than any other type of decision. In public administration, we can make moral decisions if we consistently rely on objective standards. Objective standards clearly differentiate right from wrong. Objective standards must also be employed to measure our progress, our production, and what we did with the resources we were allocated. Then we must communicate these objective standards in a manner the public can understand and by which it can hold government accountable.

Notes

1. Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison 1787-1790 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904).

2. Benson John Lossing, A Biography of James A. Garfield (New York: Henry S. Goodspeed & Co., 1882).

3. Philip Wheelwright, A Critical Introduction to Ethics (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2005).

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

Recommended Resources

Denhardt, Robert B. Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning, 2008.

Kaufman, George G. “Banking and Currency Crisis and Systemic Risk: Lessons from Recent Events.” Economic Perspectives Q III (2000).