You are here
Blind Spots V — Informal Norms
Friday, April 8th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Government ethics involves itself primarily with the formal norms set
forth in ethics codes. But as the authors of the new book Blind
Spots:
Why
We
Fail
to
Do
What's
Right
and
What to Do about It (Princeton University
Press), point out, "It is through informal mechanisms that
employees learn the 'true values' of the organization."
The authors note that formal ethics systems "are the weakest link in an organization's ethical infrastructure and are typically far eclipsed by their informal counterparts." Sometimes they are weak because that's how they were designed to be, either intentionally or not. Weak ethics codes and commissions are often attempts to convince outsiders that something is being done. An important question is whether local government leaders consistently act as if the formal ethics program reflects the organization's culture, and whether they apply its restrictions to themselves. Only when the informal and formal are the same, will the formal be truly effective.
For outsiders, it is very difficult to know an organization's informal ethical norms. They are "embedded in the stories employees tell, the euphemisms they use, the socialization methods they encounter, and the informal enforcement of norms."
I think the best way to see a local government's informal ethical norms is not through what officials say or do, but how others respond to what they say and do. If an official blasts into a citizen at a public meeting, and there is silence, the ethical culture is likely to rest on intimidation. Its principal socialization method is demanding loyalty. Its stories are about betrayal.
If a citizen asks a question and does not get an answer, and that is fine with other officials, then everything is not fine. In such a local government, it is understood that citizens are at best pests, and at worst might jeopardize the status quo. Its stories are about how dangerous gadflies can be.
Three years ago, I wrote a blog post called "Apology — The Canary in the Mine of Local Government Organizations." When you do not hear complete and honest apologies, you probably have a poor ethics environment, that is, an organization with informal norms that put self-interest (that is, the true leaders' self-interest; these "true leaders" are not always the ostensible leaders) over the public interest.
The authors focus on another indicator, the use of euphemism. "Disguising the brutality of harmful behavior with soft language makes the unacceptable permissible and allows unethical practices to abound. In addition to perpetuating unethical behavior, euphemisms send a powerful informal signal about an organization's values to its employees: as long as you disguise and hide ethical behavior, we will accept it, and indeed even encourage it."
Changing Informal Norms
Leadership is the principal element in changing informal norms. Formal ethics reforms need to be accompanied by new stories, new language, new priorities in hiring and promoting, and new conduct, including the encouragement of open, honest discussions about ethical matters and about the fears that come from an environment of intimidation.
The authors suggest that leaders should inventory the informal systems that exist and work to understand the underlying pressures that are put on employees. In a local government, these pressures include goal and reward systems, partisan and union pressures, internal competition (e.g., among agencies), lobbying, and demands for loyalty. "Unless leaders take individuals' actual decision processes into account," government officials and employees will largely ignore formal systems.
Leaders can also tell stories that make a difference. The authors give the example of a company that produced a video of stories told by four employees who went over their bosses' heads on ethics issues. What is important is the ending of the stories. All four whistleblowers went on to senior positions. This is the sort of story that can make a big difference to an organization's ethics environment.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The authors note that formal ethics systems "are the weakest link in an organization's ethical infrastructure and are typically far eclipsed by their informal counterparts." Sometimes they are weak because that's how they were designed to be, either intentionally or not. Weak ethics codes and commissions are often attempts to convince outsiders that something is being done. An important question is whether local government leaders consistently act as if the formal ethics program reflects the organization's culture, and whether they apply its restrictions to themselves. Only when the informal and formal are the same, will the formal be truly effective.
For outsiders, it is very difficult to know an organization's informal ethical norms. They are "embedded in the stories employees tell, the euphemisms they use, the socialization methods they encounter, and the informal enforcement of norms."
I think the best way to see a local government's informal ethical norms is not through what officials say or do, but how others respond to what they say and do. If an official blasts into a citizen at a public meeting, and there is silence, the ethical culture is likely to rest on intimidation. Its principal socialization method is demanding loyalty. Its stories are about betrayal.
If a citizen asks a question and does not get an answer, and that is fine with other officials, then everything is not fine. In such a local government, it is understood that citizens are at best pests, and at worst might jeopardize the status quo. Its stories are about how dangerous gadflies can be.
Three years ago, I wrote a blog post called "Apology — The Canary in the Mine of Local Government Organizations." When you do not hear complete and honest apologies, you probably have a poor ethics environment, that is, an organization with informal norms that put self-interest (that is, the true leaders' self-interest; these "true leaders" are not always the ostensible leaders) over the public interest.
The authors focus on another indicator, the use of euphemism. "Disguising the brutality of harmful behavior with soft language makes the unacceptable permissible and allows unethical practices to abound. In addition to perpetuating unethical behavior, euphemisms send a powerful informal signal about an organization's values to its employees: as long as you disguise and hide ethical behavior, we will accept it, and indeed even encourage it."
Changing Informal Norms
Leadership is the principal element in changing informal norms. Formal ethics reforms need to be accompanied by new stories, new language, new priorities in hiring and promoting, and new conduct, including the encouragement of open, honest discussions about ethical matters and about the fears that come from an environment of intimidation.
The authors suggest that leaders should inventory the informal systems that exist and work to understand the underlying pressures that are put on employees. In a local government, these pressures include goal and reward systems, partisan and union pressures, internal competition (e.g., among agencies), lobbying, and demands for loyalty. "Unless leaders take individuals' actual decision processes into account," government officials and employees will largely ignore formal systems.
Leaders can also tell stories that make a difference. The authors give the example of a company that produced a video of stories told by four employees who went over their bosses' heads on ethics issues. What is important is the ending of the stories. All four whistleblowers went on to senior positions. This is the sort of story that can make a big difference to an organization's ethics environment.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
