Blind Spots VI — Psychological Cleansing and Obfuscation
The denial of unethical behavior, which usually occurs long after the
behavior itself, is usually the worst part of an ethics scandal, the adding of insult to injury. The public is faced with two possibilities when an official
denies that he did something unethical. This dilemma is well described
in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Spots-Whats-Right-about/dp/0691147507" target="”_blank”">Blind
Spots:
Why
We
Fail
to
Do
What's
Right
and
What to Do about It</a>, a new book by
Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel (Princeton University Press):<ul>
It is possible that the person doesn't actually
believe he behaved ethically, but rather claims to be ethical to reduce
the damages associated with his unethical actions. [Another]
explanation is also the most troubling in terms of improving one's
behavior. It is possible that the person inherently believes in his own
ethicality, despite the evidence to the contrary.</ul>
Note that the authors say the second explanation is more troubling in
terms of improving one's behavior, not what many of us would say:
that the official who thinks so well of himself is simply in denial,
detached from reality, caught up in a world of power and yes-men. When
you believe you act ethically because you are an ethical person, you
have no incentive to analyze situations for their ethical aspects or
bring ethical reasoning into play.<br>
<br>
I
would add that those who deny the unethical nature of their behavior
not only prevent themselves from improving their behavior, but also
make it less likely that those around them will improve their behavior.
And that includes citizens as well as officials.<br>
<br>
<b>Psychological Cleansing</b><br>
The authors describe the process by which people deal with their own
unethical conduct. Our "moral disengagement" involves a process they refer to as "psychological cleansing."<ul>
As
we gain distance from our visceral responses to an ethical dilemma,
the ethical implications of our choices come back into full-color. We
are faced with a contradiction between our beliefs about ourselves as
ethical people and our unethical actions. This type of discrepancy is
unsettling, to say the least, and we are likely to be motivated to
reduce the dissonance that results. So strong is the need to do so that
researchers found in one study that offering people an opportunity to
wash their hands after behaving immorally reduced their need to
compensate for an immoral action ... No other action was needed.</ul>
Psychological cleansing is a process that "allows us
to selectively turn our usual ethical standards on and off at will." It consists of
rationalizations, changing our definition of what is ethical, and
becoming desensitized to unethical behavior. With respect to
desensitization regarding billable hours, the authors note that "as
ethical numbness sets in, each one-hour lie
becomes less ethically painful."<br>
<br>
<b>Obfuscation</b><br>
Although <i>Blind Spots</i> focuses on unconscious behavior, its authors do
consider more intentional behavior. One kind of intentional behavior
they discuss is obfuscation, which they define as "the practice of
communicating in a deliberately confusing or ambiguous manner with the
intention of misleading the listener. The main goal of obfuscation is
to create reasonable doubt about change in the minds of citizens and
policymakers and thus to encourage the status quo to prevail."<br>
<br>
One example they provide is that of auditing firms who "claim their
integrity protected them,
thereby creating reasonable doubts in the minds of politicians and the
public about the need for change" (that is, change in rules governing auditors).<br>
<br>
Although government officials often claim they have integrity, citizens are less
likely to believe them than they are to believe auditors. For obfuscation, officials tend to turn to the law
and the attack. They insist that they followed the law, or that the law
isn't clear or, if they get really desperate, that the law isn't
constitutional, at least with respect to them, talking about their
rights of free speech and legislative immunity. The fact that rights and government ethics are both intended to protect citizens, not officials, is something they never point out.<br>
<br>
The alternative is the attack. Those making the allegations are said to be acting
purely out of partisan spite. They've done the very same things.
They're making a mountain out of a molehill. Attacks create a cloud of uncertainty.<br>
<br>
Each of these acts of obfuscation is an attempt to turn attention away from the official's
behavior and away from government ethics in general. They are attempts
to have newspapers and blogs write about partisan rancor, legal
language, free speech, and legislative immunity. Some are attempts to take the matter out of the hands of an ethics commission
and put it in the hands of the courts, where laws trump government
ethics nearly every time.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---