Ethical failures in the Smith and Halloran corruption case

¶ … ethical obligations -- as discussed, for example, in Chapter 16 of the Northouse text -- allegedly breached by Smith or Halloran while in office. (These obligations will not "fit" perfectly, as the real world does not always match the academic world precisely. Contemplate and give the best answer.) In each case, describe the ethically-proper course of action that was not taken by the relevant actors. Does New York -- like Chicago, Illinois, which was called the most corrupt city in the United States (Cody, 2012) -- have a special culture where corruption is accepted or even expected? Be sure to contrast the differences between leadership and power. Also discuss whether Smith and Halloran's behavior would have been unethical in the private sector.

Background

New York State Sen. Malcolm Smith and New York City Councilman Dan Halloran were arrested by federal authorities in an alleged plot to rig the New York City mayor's race (Associated Press, 2013). U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara described the situation as (Associated Press, 2013):

"an unappetizing smorgasbord of graft and greed involving six officials who together built a corridor of corruption stretching from Queens and the Bronx to Rockland County and all the way up to Albany itself."

The senator and the councilman were caught taking a cash bribe from federal authorities in the amount of $7,500 dollars. "You can't get anything without the f -- king money… money is what greases the wheels -- good, bad or indifferent," Halloran allegedly remarked when questioned about the affair (Margolin, 2013). Senator Smith was also trying to bribe his way into the Mayoral race in New York even though he was a registered Democrat.

Applied Ethics

The situation with Sen. Malcolm Smith and New York City Councilman Dan Halloran could be viewed from a variety of different ethical views. Their actions seem unconscionable but it could be argued that they were somehow still acting ethically if you considered their motivations. For example, say Smith had a vision for the society that would decrease unemployment, provide greater access for healthcare, or some other legislative action that had the potential to help countless people. Some might argue, most likely including Smith himself, that his motives were entirely pure and the end would justify the means -- the means in this case being bribery and corruption among others.

However, most people would probably feel that the ends do not justify the means in this case and that no matter what the ends were, the means that were used were not justifiable. A democracy has rules and regulations to level the playfield and try to ensure that the public is being appropriately represented. Maintaining the integrity of the system improves the likelihood that government will effectively represent the population. By rigging the system with bribes, this provides a potential advantage to candidates that otherwise would not deserve it.

From the new coverage, it is easy to speculate that Sen. Malcolm Smith and New York City Councilman Dan Halloran were trying to promote their own self-interest and maximize their power through illegal and corrupt actions. Thus their motives seem consistent with pure ambition with little or no regard for the public's good and the people that they represent. If this is the case, then the two men could not be viewed as being ethical from any perspective and their actions were clearly unethical. It is always difficult to know what truly motivates someone though. They may have great intentions that lead to terrible outcomes.

It is for this reason most of the rules and regulations that govern a society must rely on outcomes and not internal motivations. However, in some cultures this kind of behavior is the norm in both the private and public sector. People in leadership positions will often expect to be bribed in some fashion. In the developed world, it is generally unacceptable to use bribes in any form. In fact there are laws and regulations that even guide the practice of gift giving to ensure that it does not influence decision making.

Leadership Analysis

Sen. Malcolm Smith and New York City Councilman Dan Halloran seem to be operating within the transactional leadership model. Leadership and power are closely related and leadership can be one form of power over others. Transactional leadership has been defined as the relationship between managers and those who they are responsible for in the organization that is framed by the participants meeting their own self-interests. Management is aimed at monitoring, controlling, and motivating employees through economic incentives and other exchange incentives (Bass, 1985). This is often contrasted with transformational leadership that will appeal to someone's moral calling rather than their self-interest.

The ideal leadership model for a public servant would most likely be the servant leadership model. The concept of servant leadership was first introduced by Robert Greenleafe in the 1970's and has been picked up by many more famous leadership theorists such as Stephen Covey for example (Greenleafe Center, 2011). A servant leader uses the leadership position as service to others as opposed to following their own self-interest. A servant leader is constantly trying to find out what their employees need to be successful (in the case of a public servant this would be the public in general); which is in stark contrast from leadership styles that ruthlessly follow their own self-interest as in the case with many politicians (Vinod & Sudhakar, 2011).