You are here
The Kingdom of Individuals IV: Ethics and Power
Saturday, September 4th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
One of the problems in talking about conflicts of interest is that we
tend to assume that people with conflicts analyze their situations
before acting. We think that, for example, they balance acting in their
personal interest, or in the interest of a family member or business
associate, against the consequences of getting caught. Or we think that
the principal ethical considerations they bring to bear on their
situation arise from their local code of ethics or their spiritual or
philosophical beliefs.
But, as Bailey points out, “behavioral economists [have] pointed out that most decisions are taken without rigorous calculation; out of habit, or copying the next person, or taking someone's advice. People do not optimize; they merely satisfice.” Even when we calculate, he says, our calculations "are handed to us in the form of precepts, of preconceived opinions, rather than as the demonstrated results of some experiment."
Right up front in his preface, Bailey describes the conscience as consisting essentially of conventions, including the conventions of the organizations in which an individual works. In effect, an organization's ethical environment works on officials and employees in two ways. One, from the inside, in the form of accepted conventions, such as it's okay (or not) to hire your son or give a contract to your business partner. And two, from the outside, in the form of power being exercised over you by superiors, often in the form of expectations placed on you, such as participating in a political campaign or keeping quiet about what you might consider unethical conduct.
Bailey sees the exercise of power as a form of exploitation. People are usually aware of how power is exercised on them directly, but often unaware that their values are often instilled from those in power. Bailey concludes, using the first person, "I follow my conscience and collude unknowingly in my own subjection." A good example of this, which I don't believe Bailey gave, is the prohibition on snitching (see my blog post on this).
Later in the book, he makes a valuable comment about exploitation that certainly applies to local governments: “exploitation is a secondary, if necessary, endeavor; the game that matters for the exploiters is the one that they play against each other." In other words, the principal game is not leader vs. community or leader vs. subordinates, but leader vs. leader. When the rest of us are hurt by their actions, it is effectively collateral damage.
When this is the most important game in town, it skews the local government's ethical environment. Conflicts of interest become political footballs, and preferential treatment is the norm. If you don't do it, you'll lose your supporters to a leader who does. Sometimes the political football has to clear the goalposts many times in order for the other team to win. Then the ethics laws change a bit, and new varieties of preferential treatment become the norm. It is very hard to truly change a local government's ethical environment.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But, as Bailey points out, “behavioral economists [have] pointed out that most decisions are taken without rigorous calculation; out of habit, or copying the next person, or taking someone's advice. People do not optimize; they merely satisfice.” Even when we calculate, he says, our calculations "are handed to us in the form of precepts, of preconceived opinions, rather than as the demonstrated results of some experiment."
Right up front in his preface, Bailey describes the conscience as consisting essentially of conventions, including the conventions of the organizations in which an individual works. In effect, an organization's ethical environment works on officials and employees in two ways. One, from the inside, in the form of accepted conventions, such as it's okay (or not) to hire your son or give a contract to your business partner. And two, from the outside, in the form of power being exercised over you by superiors, often in the form of expectations placed on you, such as participating in a political campaign or keeping quiet about what you might consider unethical conduct.
Bailey sees the exercise of power as a form of exploitation. People are usually aware of how power is exercised on them directly, but often unaware that their values are often instilled from those in power. Bailey concludes, using the first person, "I follow my conscience and collude unknowingly in my own subjection." A good example of this, which I don't believe Bailey gave, is the prohibition on snitching (see my blog post on this).
Later in the book, he makes a valuable comment about exploitation that certainly applies to local governments: “exploitation is a secondary, if necessary, endeavor; the game that matters for the exploiters is the one that they play against each other." In other words, the principal game is not leader vs. community or leader vs. subordinates, but leader vs. leader. When the rest of us are hurt by their actions, it is effectively collateral damage.
When this is the most important game in town, it skews the local government's ethical environment. Conflicts of interest become political footballs, and preferential treatment is the norm. If you don't do it, you'll lose your supporters to a leader who does. Sometimes the political football has to clear the goalposts many times in order for the other team to win. Then the ethics laws change a bit, and new varieties of preferential treatment become the norm. It is very hard to truly change a local government's ethical environment.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
