Ethics in Adminitration

Ethics in Administration

Terry L. Cooper's book the Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role examines the problem of maintaining responsible conduct from the manager's viewpoint. Managers oftentimes are left feeling confused when it comes to their inability to achieve the results that they want when changes in rules occurs -- as well as policies, training, laws and other reorganizational arrangements (Cooper 164). Cooper points out that even though we often think of unethical behavior and willfully insufficient work performance as two very distinct problems, both are types of negligent behavior. "Both represent a diverting of the public's resources from the fulfillment of its preference and demands" (164).

Chapter six dives into the conflicts that exist among internal and external controls. The chapter gives the apt example of a police force that liked and was going to hire a certain police officer, but there was some speculation that he might be gay. After being reminded that the police force was an equal opportunity employer, the hiring personnel still admitted that hiring this man could potentially cost the force a lot of money -- not to mention the fact that many of the police officers would not want to work with this man as they had deep prejudices against gays. This just goes to show that the people that are hired to hired people need to have values that are more representational of the law. If we have individuals who are biased against certain individuals in the position of hiring, this will negatively affect equality in our society.

Organizations need to be managed in an efficient and ethical manner; it doesn't make sense to simply get rid of hierarchical organizations as that is not a solution, but there needs to be responsibility coming from all corners and levels of an organization.

The real problem comes from authority and the lack of limits that there are in place for people in authoritative positions; there are too many people in authoritative positions overstepping their boundaries while keeping certain individuals oppressed at the same time. Cooper states that it is important for people to know who is in charge in an organization and what exactly their limitations of power are so that the people can keep an eye out for any unethical behavior. The individuals with authority thus are also expected to be held accountable for their actions and their conduct. "The formal and informal organizations must be brought into congruence by reducing the need for political maneuvering, which is at odds with the formal decision-making structures, or even the possibility of engaging in such activities" (180).

Cooper talks about "constitutional bureaucracy" and how in this type of system, there is authority that is very clearly outlined on all different levels. In this bureaucracy, there is room for consultation and negotiation all the time -- not simply when there is a problem within the organization. Therefore, this means that there is power not solely at the top of an organization pyramid, but the power is interwoven throughout different levels and this will help the organization function much more efficiently and crisis-free.

Chapter seven, entitled "Safeguarding Ethical Autonomy in Organizations: Dealing with Unethical Superiors and Organizations," uses some of the ideas that were discussed in chapter three: administarative responsibility in objective form as two main organization dimensions: responsibility to superiors and responsibility for subordinates (199). The principal-agent theory can be used for this as the manager is seen as a principal who must oversee the performance of workers under him (the agents) and he tries to shape the relationship in a "general and abstract" way (199).

Cooper notes that there can be a problem of loyalty when it comes to discerning the limits of our objective responsibility to our superiors. "Typically, it is a matter of conflict between our formal obligation to those with a higher level of responsibility and authority within the organization on the one hand, and our fiduciary relationship to the public on the other" (200). This is seen in public administrators who are accountable to their superiors as well as to the public -- "proximately and routinely to the former, but ultimately and more importantly to the latter" (200). Cooper says that when we have these conflicting feelings of loyalty, the obligation is always to the public and therefore sometimes there needs to a be a breach in loyalty when it comes to the organization. This, of course, is what the term "whistle-blowing is all about" (2010). Whistle-blowing can have many adverse effects on the person doing the whistle-blowing and there are definitely feelings of loneliness that can arise when a whistle-blower decides to make some noise. Cooper gives some prime examples of whistle-blowing cases in chapter six, but he insists that there are still many who have "gone away quietly" (202), which may appear to be the safest option for the individual, yet that means that the public will never know the truth about what was going on -- and so, the individual really does have a moral responsibility to the public so that unethical behavior isn't allowed at any level as it will eventually seep into the very core of the organization and back into society.

Whistle-blowing, no matter what way it is looked at is "risky," according to Cooper (203). People who blow the whistle not only face scrutiny and alienation, but they may also seriously upset their financial stability as well as their entire career, peers and colleagues as resources, and their reputation (203). These are the main reasons that some people may simply decide to turn a blind eye or walk away quietly as opposed to standing a stand in the name of fairness and righteousness.

Cooper (220) brings up the example of Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel for the United States, and his opening statement before the Nuremberg Tribunal. Jackson argued that the policy of individual responsibility for crimes on an international level had a very long history in matters of piracy and brigandage. He said that, "Only sanctions which reach individuals can peacefully and effectively be enforced" (220). This makes sense as individuals commit crimes and each individual who is a part of a crime has the opportunity and the responsibility to come forward for the good of the general public. Loyalty to the public therefore must be first and must be always put above loyalty to an organization or one's superiors.

Individuals must counterbalance the bureaucratic organization. Individuals will inevitably commit misdeeds, whether purposefully or not, and thus peers need to be aware of all types of conduct that is going on in organizations whether it is above or below them.

Chapter eight's conclusion, "A Model of Responsible Administration," begins with Cooper discussing the gap between an objective responsibility and subjective responsibility for public administrators. There are instances where they may feel that they must act against the organization hierarchy, which can leads to feelings of confusion and guilt. Cooper notes that these conflicts between the objective and subjective responsibilities manifest in three types of conflicting responsibility: 1) conflicts of authority; 2) role conflicts; and, 3) conflicts of interest (244). "Each confronts public administrators with quandaries about where their ultimate responsibility lies and presents opportunities to engage in unethical conduct" (244).