Spring Reading: Dennis Moberg on Frames of Perception in Organizations

I thought that I had covered all the blind spots that wreak such havoc on local government ethics (see the section in my book Local Government Ethics Programs). But Dennis J. Moberg's essay, "Ethics Blind Spots in Organizations: How Systematic Errors in Person Perception Undermine Moral Agency" (Organization Studies 27(3):413–428 (2006)), raises some I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else.

Moberg's principal contribution to the area of ethics blind spots is his original use of the term "framing." While most talk about framing involves the communication of ideas to others, Moberg's frames are perceptual frames, that is, they involve the way we see rather than the way we communicate (although perceptual frames do also affect the way we communicate, since our perceptual limitations limit what we say to others).

Moberg's frames consist of "well-learned sets of associations that focus people's attention on and label some aspects of a situation to the exclusion of others." They involve both perception and interpretation. The blind spots that Moberg discusses occur because frames narrow our view of situations, leading us to interpret the situations in limited ways, often leading to erroneous conclusions or preventing us from taking appropriate action.

Competence and Character
Moberg's focuses on two of the principal frames by which people view each other:  competence and character.

The common tendency is to look at others through the frame of character rather than competence. We do this out of self-interest, that is, to prevent ourselves being victimized by others' ethical misconduct. Thus, our emphasis tends to be on others' negative character traits.

With respect to ourselves, however, we tend to look through the frame of competence, because we believe we are people of high character. Our self-esteem is primarily based on our competence. Moberg asks, "can a person be expected to display genuine moral agency when they are occupied in an intrapsychic process … that distracts them from the process of being or becoming moral?" For example, someone who values cleverness, a form of intellectual competence, will be "distracted" by the opportunity to be clever and will, therefore, "be prone to exemplify cleverness even when it is morally inappropriate." In government, especially when lawyers are involved, this is a very common problem.

Frames in Organizations
Things are a bit different within organizations. Superiors tend to view subordinates through the frame of competence, while subordinates tend to view superiors, as well as their peers, through the more common frame of character. Since superiors do not generally recognize this difference, they tend to underestimate the importance not only of acting ethically, but also of appearing ethical.

Failing to be interested in appearing ethical, they fail to send the right messages to their subordinates, who are more sensitive to superiors' ethical conduct than superiors are to theirs. Moberg says that subordinates want this sort of moral information, but that it is hard for them to find it. He writes, "This tendency undermines the development of a viable moral community. Moreover, without publicly salient moral role models, moral development opportunities are squandered."

Moberg provides a valuable example from Arthur  Andersen. When, in 1998, this accounting firm decided to develop a plan to deal with the risk that fraud at some of its clients would affect the firm, its chief ethics officer "urged that the plan be communicated in attention-grabbing form, and that the plan should go beyond the symptoms of the problem." Instead, the CEO sent out a low-key memo framed in competence terms. Soon the firm got into serious ethical trouble and was dissolved.

What this means is that ethical misconduct does not require a poor ethics environment led by unethical officials. It can occur just because high-level officials don't believe it's important to ensure that subordinates act ethically, as long as they get things done and bring in the bacon.

Moberg argues that the most serious problems arise because superiors focus on subordinates' competence and, therefore, fail to identify employees who are "prone to moral lapses." This focus also leads superiors to ignore whistleblowers when they point out ethical misconduct. Moberg says that whistleblowers are more successful when they frame their complaints in terms of competence rather than in terms of morality.

When whistleblowers are ignored, subordinates see this as "a sign that ethics is simply not a priority in the organization."

Moberg's essay is limited to business organizations. In government, there is another group to consider:  citizens. They look at government officials through both frames, but feel more strongly about the character frame. They have even less information about officials' ethics than subordinates have. Therefore, even minor scandals can make a big difference in their perception of government leaders. This is why it is so important for even minor conflict situations to be prevented or, when handled poorly, dealt with swiftly, publicly, and with the full cooperation of all officials involved.

Correcting Blind Spots
Moberg argues that "moral agency ultimately requires intrinsic motivation." I disagree with this, at least with respect to conflicts of interest, but first I will look at Moberg's suggestions. He suggests that the best way to correct blind spots is for each of us to "reframe," that is, to change our perspective on ourselves and on others. We need to ask why we should be moral. Those who want approval for acting ethically will, he says, be disappointed. Therefore, we need to recognize that we do it for ourselves and for the good of the organization. With respect to local government, officials need to recognize further that it is their fiduciary obligation, as managers of the community and spenders of the community's funds, to act ethically.

Moberg also suggests that we seek role models from outside our organization, either famous ones (e.g., Gandhi or Mother Teresa) or external administrators, and that peers and subordinates are better sources of feedback on one's moral conduct than are supervisors, due to supervisors' focus on competence.

As for managers, he suggests that they make "special effort to communicate their moral standards publicly and indicate how the standards factor into the choices they make." This is great advice, but it is a very hard thing for most people to do. With respect to government ethics, most high-level officials do not really understand conflicts of interest (unless they have instituted an effective ethics training program) and, therefore, cannot guide others with respect to ethics standards.

Moberg also suggests that managers give recognition to desirable employee conduct. This is an important suggestion. This sort of recognition is too rarely provided.

Moberg acknowledges that an organization's ethics environment can exacerbate blind spots, and that it is difficult for ethical conduct to occur consistently in a poor ethics environment. This is why "intrinsic motivation" is not enough. It is much easier for individuals to act ethically when their ethics environment is healthy, that is, when it is characterized by clear ethics rules and a lack of pressure to conform to unwritten rules and be loyal to superiors no matter what they do; when independent ethics advice (rather than the advice of superiors and government attorneys who work for them) is made available; and when high-level officials make it clear that ethics rules and formal processes must be followed.

In other words, it is very difficult for subordinates to reframe when their superiors fail to do so or make it dangerous for subordinates to put their ethics into action. And it is hard for high-level officials to consider anything but competence and political success when there is no government ethics program to train them and to keep reminding them about their fiduciary duties.

Ethics Training and Advice
I believe that "intrinsic motivation" is not enough to offset blind spots. Ethics training and advice are necessary. The most important, and overlooked, aspect of ethics training is getting individuals to recognize their blind spots, to realize that they are not personal to them, and to understand that the best way to get around blind spots is not "intrinsic motivation," but rather the advice of independent individuals who they trust and who are not affected by the individual's blind spots, by the blind spots of the individual's superiors, or by the organization's unwritten rules or pressures. The best person to provide this advice is someone who works for an independent citizen body that is not appointed by the individual's superiors, is not part of the organization, and is not subject to its unwritten rules and pressures. In other words, a government ethics officer.

Moberg notes that "blind spots are similar to those that afflict drivers of motor vehicles. Once one is aware that they exist, it is possible to develop alternative interpretive and action strategies." But changing one's frames and having the courage to act are two very difficult things. Far easier is seeking advice from an ethics adviser because one recognizes that he has blind spots and because one knows he will be held accountable for failing to do so.

Moberg identifies a serious problem that arises from our focus on our competence and makes it that much more necessary not to depend on an individual learning to both recognize his blind spots and handle them effectively. He argues that, due to our focus on competence, many of us are often not open to ethics education and mentally disengage from it. If we do not see such training as relevant to our competence, we reject it. Similarly, if we see ourselves as moral, morality as something we learned as children, and character as immutable, we consider ethics training a waste of time, especially for us.

This is why it is so important to present ethics training not as about morality or about changing one's frames of perception, but rather as about the improvement of one's professional handling of conflicts of interest, one's recognition of one's blind spots, one's fulfillment of one's fiduciary duties, and one's understanding of the laws that govern this area. Action requires no more than a call to the ethics officer when one is too busy, or does not feel competent enough, to check out the laws and advisory opinions on the ethics program website.

Needless to say, this does not solve all ethical problems in an organization. But quality ethics training, the formation of trusting relationships with an ethics officer, and the open discussion of ethics issues can go a long way to making it much easier for government officials and employees to recognize and handle their ethical quandaries. The institutionalization of government ethics in a visible and effective program can also change a government's ethics environment for the better, which can have broad, beneficial ramifications.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---