Managing in the Public Sector

A Casebook in Ethics and Leadership

Brett Sharp, Grant Aguirre, Kenneth Kickham

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781134853328
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Affairs & Administration
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Casebooks in public administration have become intensely sophisticated with complex scenarios, richly detailed multi-step simulations, and demanding role playing requirements. While these types of cases and exercises have their place, Managing in the Public Sector is a casebook designed with maximum instructor flexibility and student engagement in mind. Featuring cases brief enough to be covered in the last few minutes of a class as well as those substantive enough to last the entire hour, this book allows instructors to illustrate theoretical concepts, encourage active student participation, to make a transition between topics, or to integrate different approaches to administrative study.

Retaining the first edition's use of focused, real-life-inspired cases to help elucidate the application of concepts for students, the second edition has been updated and revised throughout to include:

• 
  
  

• An expanded chapter on ethical analysis

• 
  
  

• A new section on how to make logical arguments

• 
  
  

• Thoroughly updated cases as well as many new contemporary cases

• 
  
  

• New chapter introductions featuring overviews of major leadership and ethical theories to provide students with the context they need

• 
  
  

• Discussion questions at the end of each case to facilitate critical analysis and classroom discussion

• 
  
  

• A cross-listing of all cases and subject matter in an appendix for quick topical reference.

Now even more enmeshed in the literature of ethics, leadership, and public administration, Managing in the Public Sector, 2e provides authentic, hands-on experience of the decisions public administrators must face. It is an ideal casebook to supplement undergraduate and graduate public administration, leadership, human resource management, or administrative ethics courses.

CHAPTER 1

A Primer on Ethics in Public Administration

WHY STUDY ETHICS?

All of us who have taught ethics for any length of time at one point have had a student who asks the question “Why should I study ethics in public administration?” As degree programs have become more specialized and technical skills are more highly valued, it is a fair question to ask.

The study of philosophical ethics seems to present the student and practitioner of public administration with more confusion than clarity. Students in our courses often feel that they leave with more questions than when they began the course. We have had students question what relevance a bunch of Greeks (or even some of the more modern thinkers) who lived more than 2,000 years ago could have in today’s world. Courses in public finance and accounting, human resources management, public policy implementation, and statistics seem more relevant in the modern world than the obscure and seemingly subjective field of ethics. Finally, many students and practitioners of public administration believe that the law is an adequate minimal standard of behavior—if one simply follows the letter of the law, that should be sufficient.

These are fair and difficult questions and challenges to answer. However, we believe that a basic understanding of philosophical ethics is relevant today. There are, quite simply, what we term “perennial issues” that have faced societies from the earliest times. These “perennial issues” are the question of knowledge, the question of conduct, and the question of governance. These are the issues that philosophy attempts to answer. Surely, these issues are as important for both the student and practitioner of public administration today as they were for societies throughout history.

Philosophy is an activity that allows the individual to think critically about what we can know, how we should act, and what type of governance is best for us. To this end, philosophy allows students and practitioners of public administration the opportunity to evaluate competing options and arrive at the best decision.

With regard to the claim that we need only follow the law, we can say that certainly the law is important. Law and ethics are closely related. However, they are not mutually inclusive. For example, what should we do if the law is silent on an issue? Or worse yet, what if the law itself is immoral? Again, the study of ethics provides us with a framework to deal with these gaps between the law and what is morally right.

Finally, we would point out that public administrators face a host of ethical issues every day whether they admit it or not. Surely, some understanding of ethics is, therefore, important in dealing with these situations. Since we have begun by making an argument that the study of ethics is relevant to today’s public administrators, we would be remiss in not acknowledging and dealing with a number of philosophical challenges to the study of ethics.

SUBJECTIVISM

Subjectivism is the belief that there are no “universal truths.” This view can be seen most clearly in the philosophical concept of solipsism. Solipsism is the theory that says that the self is all one can really know.

Subjectivism is attractive because this seems to be true. We can never really know what it is like to be someone else. Ethics often seems to be merely a matter of opinion. There don’t seem to be “proofs” in ethics the way we have formulas and proofs in science and mathematics. However, we would argue that there are proofs in ethics. One can give good reasons based on rational argumentation for why one choice or solution is better than another. Let’s look at an example.

Several years ago, one of us was teaching a course in ethics when he handed back the grades on the first essay exam.

After class a student approached the professor and inquired about the grade she had received. She said that she had worked very hard and believed that she deserved a better grade. She followed that observation up with the statement, “Look, this is all really just your opinion anyway. I have always made As in high school.”

Now, suppose that the professor was unable to articulate any reason for the grade he assigned. If the professor said simply that it was his prerogative to assign grades and could not point to specific reasons, you would surely conclude that the professor’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and not “fair.”

However, what if the professor could say something like this:

I asked you to make a decision in this exam based on a set of hypothetical facts. I asked you to make an argument in support of your decision. Further, the instructions on the exam stated that you should have a clear and concise thesis statement. That from that thesis statement you should provide substantive premises in support of the thesis in order to reach a logical conclusion. In your paper you told me how you felt, but you failed to support your feelings with a rational set of arguments.

Now further suppose that the professor was accurate in his assessment, and that he was able to provide the student with a model answer that used the method he described above. Would you not say that the professor had acted in a rational and logical manner? Is this not a “proof?” Of course, the student could continue to protest, but such protest would not be rational without support.

Although proofs in ethics may not seem as concrete as they are in mathematics, it’s important to remember that there are areas of disagreement in the fields of math and science. It’s important that we not employ an incorrect standard. So, we think that we can safely argue that so long as we have an appropriate standard in mind, there are in fact proofs in ethics.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Cultural relativism differs from subjectivism in that this theory holds that ethics are not individually based, but rather depend on the culture of a given society. This theory again appears attractive because societies do vary widely in their practice.

For example, the practice of bribing elected officials and public administrators in order to secure government contracts and benefits has long been illegal in the developed world. In fact, in response to the “spoils system” of government employment that began largely with the presidency of Andrew Jackson in the United States, modern governments have moved towards an ever-increasingly professional and technically skilled public work force. Today, at all levels of government across most industrialized democracies, public administrators are largely selected on the basis of merit rather than political connection.

In many places around in the world, the bureaucracy remains grossly underpaid, under-skilled, unprofessional, and corrupt. In many developing and “newly industrialized” nations, the acceptance and expectation of bribery is commonplace. Many executives in multinational corporations argue that such behavior is culturally accepted, and therefore, necessary in order to do business in those countries.

Further, in many of these countries the status of women is greatly undervalued. In many places in the world, women are not given the same opportunities in either the public or private sector that men enjoy. Again, many people argue that these differences are cultural and we should respect other people’s cultural mores and traditions.

Given the evolving respect for diversity and cultural sensitivity, this challenge to ethics is particularly attractive. Further, it seems that it is supported by the anthropological and sociological record. In fact, we can even see evidence of this in American politics and public administration. Although, as a nation, the U.S. has certain national cultural values, it also has regional subcultural values and traditions. The American states differ from each other in many respects. Even rules such as those that prohibit nepotism are subtly different from state to state. In fact, one of the “advantages” of a federal system of government is that it allows for differences among various regions within a nation.

Although we generally agree that diversity and respect for differing cultures is a good thing, this does not mean that we cannot judge a practice to be unethical. Respect for diversity and ethical reasoning are not mutually exclusive categories.

First, with regard to the claim that there are no universally accepted ideas among various cultures, upon further inspection this claim turns out to be false. It is true that cultures vary widely. However, the claim is categorical in that it claims that there are no a priori universal truths among all societies in the world. We need only find one exception to this categorical statement and we have disproved the claim. In fact, we can find two prohibitions that apply in all societies. The first is a prohibition against the unjustified killing of a member of one’s own group. No society could be formed or sustained that allows the indiscriminate killing of members of the society itself. As civilizations have become more advanced, we have extended this any many other moral duties to individuals from outside the society as well.

The second moral prohibition that can be found even among the most primitive societies is a prohibition against bearing false witness against a member of one’s own group. Some level of trust and cooperation is necessary for any society to be sustained. A society that did not have such a prohibition would surely fail, as members would not be able to trust one another and cooperation would be nearly impossible. Again, all modern societies extend this even to individuals from outside the society.

So, we have disproved the claim that there are no “universal truths” that have applied to all societies, but is this all we can say? The answer is no. In fact, if this were all we could say, we would be on very shaky ground. Although we can only identify two “universal truths” that have applied to all societies at all times, we can find many more that have been or are becoming accepted by the vast majority of nations and communities. For example, almost every nation now subscribes (at least in theory) to the ideas that slave labor, unregulated child labor, torture, and genocide are morally reprehensible acts that must not be done, and if they are committed, must be punished.

Further, we must emphasize that there is a difference between what is actually done and how these societies actually feel about such practices. As Socrates points out in Plato’s Republic, you don’t need the philosopher to tell you what is happening, but rather you need the philosopher to tell you what is the best we can become. We believe that although bribery and corruption in the bureaucracies of many countries may occur and even be tolerated, one should not confuse tolerance with moral acceptance. If one were to ask people in those nations if they approve of such practices, we would speculate that they would probably answer in the negative. In those societies in which women are oppressed, we believe that they would say that they wish it were different.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

Psychological egoism is a major challenge to ethics in that it is a deterministic theory. By “deterministic,” we mean that it posits that people cannot really help the way they act. If this is true, it presents a major problem for ethics, because it would be unfair to judge someone for behavior over which he or she has absolutely no control.

Individuals who subscribe to deterministic theories of behavior believe that by either nature, nurture, or a combination of both people are programmed and cannot really help but act or react in a given way in any situation. According to this theory, there really is no such thing as free will.

For example, a deterministic argument goes something like this. Suppose that an individual named Smith sees item X. As a result of seeing X, Smith wants X and has the ability to purchase X. However, Smith denies her desire and does not purchase X.

Most people would argue that it is a clear example of “free will.” However, the determinist would argue that it is not “free will,” because Smith is not free to want what she wants. Further, her seeming denial of what she wants may be motivated by other desires. She may place a higher value on something else, which may even be something like the intrinsic satisfaction at showing restraint. However, she is still not free to want that either. Smith may be acting as a result of subconscious factors that even she is not aware of and has no control over.

Psychological egoism is a form of determinism that offers an explanation as to why we behave the way we do. According to this theory, people are inherently selfish. Since we are inherently selfish, psychological egoists argue that we will always act to preserve our own best interests.

At first glance, this theory appears on its face to be false. There are examples of people acting altruistically all the time. Take, for example, the case of the late Mother Teresa who spent most of her life caring for the world’s poorest, sickest, and most unwanted people. Surely this is a clear example of altruism? However, the psychological egoist would argue that Mother Teresa was simply doing what she wanted. The psychological egoist would say that she was perhaps motivated by the good feelings that she received as a result of her work, or perhaps by a belief that God told her to do this work and she would not want to disobey God. Whatever the motivation, the psychological egoist would say she was still acting out of a selfish motive.

In response to this descriptive view of human behavior, some thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes have developed a theory called ethical egoism to deal with the problem. According to ethical egoists, we can channel our selfishness into positive outcomes. This can be seen clearly in Hobbes’s statement regarding the state of nature and the subsequent formation of governments to deal with the problems created by the state of nature. Hobbes imagines a time before government. Hobbes says that in such a state it was a “war of all against all.” Hobbes further says that life in this primitive time was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1651). However, in this primitive state, each individual is absolutely free. Hobbes posits that we came together and formed a “social contract” in which we agreed to give up some of our rights in exchange for security. In the short term, we may lose something, but it is worth it for the long-term gains that can be achieved in an atmosphere in which cooperation can be achieved. Thus, the major premise is to structure social institutions and rules in such a way as to maximize the overall welfare by using each individual’s self-interest.

There are at least three major flaws with psychological egoism. First, it makes a categorical statement about human motivation. That statement is that we always act in a selfish manner. In ethics and the social sciences, such categorical statements are usually suspect. People are enormously complex and it is impossible to say what has motivated and continues to motivate every person since the beginning of mankind. Also, the theory does not adequately address the fact that people are often enormously conflicted about the choices they make.

A second problem with the theory is that it treats selfishness and self-interest as being mutually inclusive terms. These terms are not one and the same. Getting a college education is surely in one’s self-interest, but it is not selfish. In fact, one could argue that getting an education is the antithesis of being selfish. Statistically, we know that people with more education are likely to be more self-sufficient—at least in economic terms. Therefore, an individual with more education is less likely to be a burden on his or her family or society, which is the opposite of being selfish.

Finally, psychological egoism equates motives with feelings. For example, suppose that Smith helps Jones make some repairs to his home because Jones cannot afford to hire someone. Smith may feel good about having helped Jones out. However, that does not mean that was necessarily her motivation.

Now that we have addressed ...