Fall Reading: Out of Character

Anonymous

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 04:24

Book Reviews

I don't talk much in this blog or in my book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/ethics%20book" target="”_blank”">Local Government
Ethics Programs</a> about character. However, there is another approach to
government ethics that is sometimes referred to as "the character
approach." For example, the <a href="http://josephsoninstitute.org/">Josephson
Institute</a> trains local officials on the six pillars of
character. There are ethics codes, too, that take a character
approach to government ethics. 
 
There are many reasons I have ignored the character approach, which I set
forth in two short paragraphs in my book (see the end of this post). Reading the
book <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Mywj9XqIgHwC&pg=PP8&lpg=PP1#v=onepage&…; target="”_blank”">Out

of Character</a> by David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo (Crown
Archetype, 2011) gave me more reasons to reject this approach.

The authors' basic argument is that the way we view character is
fundamentally wrong. It is not the stable thing we think it is,
formed at an early age and continuing throughout our lives, so that
there are people of integrity and people without integrity. This
view of character is important to people when they make judgments about
trusting others, but it is inaccurate. 
 
DeSteno and Valdesolo have found, through their and others' experiments, that "there
lurks in every one of us the potential to lie, cheat, steal, and
sin, no matter how good a person we believe ourselves to be." They
see character as a fluctuating trait, a balance between competing
psychological mechanisms. "Character unfolds over time, but not in a
slow or linear way. ... it's constantly oscillating to adjust to our
needs, situations, and priorities." 
 
We all think that generosity and kindness are signs of a good
character, but these qualities can be taken too far, to the point
where they can harm us. Therefore, we balance our self-interest
against our kindness all the time. The result is different conduct
at different times in different situations. One time we respond to a
charitable solicitation, another time we don't. One time we report
ethical misconduct, another time we don't. 
 
Even self-interest is far from simple. The authors use the metaphor
of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant is that part of us that
emphasizes our long-term interest, the grasshopper that part of us
that emphasizes our short-term interest. Those who focus on
character tend to prefer the ant to the grasshopper, but it is the
ant that worries about how speaking up about ethical misconduct might affect our career, our
family, our friendships. These concerns enable ethical
misconduct in government. And it is the grasshopper that wants us to
be a hero by blowing the whistle. Emphasizing the ant's
long-term focus is no better than emphasizing the grasshopper's
focus on immediate self-gratification. 
 
The ant-grasshopper situation is complicated by our tendency to
underestimate the value of future vs. immediate gains. This helps
the grasshopper dominate. But we also tend to fear taking risks, which
helps the ant. 
 
What we need to do is not make character simplistic, but learn to
recognize how complex it is, and how hard it is for us to act
responsibly with respect to our self-interest, or what others
perceive as our self-interest, without the input of a neutral and
knowledgeable individual. Character is simply too complex to be seen
as something that defines an individual. 
 
External Effects 
Besides these internal processes, there are external situations and pressures that affect how we act. This is where the
authors' experiments come in. They have shown how even the most
minor cues and situations can affect how ethically we act. 
 
One experiment involved the use of reason, which most people consider superior
to emotion. For example, we greatly value having the willpower to think through a situation and not act
unethically. The authors argue that, in fact, our emotions are
sometimes better and more trustworthy than our reason, which can
justify just about anything. They came up with a clever experiment
in which, by keeping participants busy memorizing a string of
numbers, the participants were unable to rationalize acting unfairly toward
another participant. The act of memorizing changed how they viewed their
unfair conduct toward the other participant. And how one views one's conduct is the first step toward
dealing with it responsibly. 
 
Another experiment involved the classic trolley problem, deciding
whether one would push a heavy man onto trolley tracks to save the
lives of five other people. Showing participants a comedy skit made
them three times as likely to say they'd push the man onto the tracks
to save the others' lives. The participants' buoyant feelings
overwhelmed their instinctual aversion to harming someone in any
situation. The authors conclude that "we all unwittingly use our
emotional states as information, or cues, to guide our decisions
about what's likely to happen or what we should do." 
 
This is something our usual concept of character does not account
for. When character is seen to involve balance rather than a steady state, we
can see how vulnerable we are to suggestion and manipulation. This is where Out of
Character intersects with <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Exp…; target="”_blank”">what I've written about the effect of situational forces</a> in
government organizations (also known as an organization's ethics
environment) on how each individual handles conflict situations,
theirs and others'. 
 
Is it hopeless then? No. We can learn to recognize bias and
situational forces, and institute ways to limit them (my book is full of them). We can learn to recognize our limitations
(humility helps) and to accept the fact that we are not good people,
but rather people who mean to do well and yet are not always sure what is the
best way to handle a situation. With respect to government ethics,
we can learn to ask for advice about how to handle conflict
situations, so that we can get a neutral, professional viewpoint. 
 
Gratitude 
Another area the authors of Out of Character focus on is gratitude,
an issue I touched on in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/569" target="”_blank”">a blog post about Lewis Hyde's
classic book The Gift</a>. The authors show how powerful gratitude
is. In experiments they have done, not only are people who feel
grateful to someone more likely to help that person, but people who are
grateful for something someone has just done for them are also more
likely to help a stranger. 
 
When politicians say, "I can't be bought" or "A lunch isn't going to
make any difference with me," they are simply wrong. A smile or a
compliment is enough, as is making a call for someone's child,
speaking in favor of one's motion. You know those nickels and
greeting cards they put in charitable solicitations? They're enough
to get millions of people to open up their wallets. 
 
No one has a good enough character to fend off gratitude. And why
would anyone want to? It's one of the things that keeps
families and communities together. 
 
But gratitude has its place. Certain kinds of gratitude cannot be
kept out of government affairs unless people are honest with
themselves and others about the power of gratitude. The only way to
deal with mutual gift giving is (1) to prohibit officials from
participating in matters involving those with whom they have a
special relationship, and (2) to prevent the creation of special
relationships between officials and those seeking special benefits
from government. In other words, strong government ethics rules. 
 
My gratitude can be bought without spending a penny. And so can
everyone else's. Once it becomes a sign of poor character to say "I
can't be bought," we'll be halfway to instituting government ethics.
Responsible officials can start by saying, "My gratitude can be
bought." And from there, they can deal responsibly with this
wonderful, universal, but sometimes problematic part of everyone's emotional life. 
 
Character and Government Ethics 
In my book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Exp…; target="”_blank”">Local

Government Ethics Programs</a>, I wrote about the limitations of
considering character with respect to government ethics:<blockquote>

When officials talk about character and personal integrity, they
should be reminded (1) that there is no way the public can know what
their character is, and (2) that life is not that simple. By their
nature, conflicts put officials between a rock and a hard place. In
a conflict situation, no one, no matter what his character, can
satisfy all his obligations. He is going to have to hurt or
disappoint someone. Government ethics takes the position that, with
respect to official business, an official has an obligation to the
public that overrides the official’s other obligations. This takes
the official’s character out of the equation. 
 
An important element of an individual’s response to a conflict
situation is the character of the organization in which the
individual functions, that is, its ethics environment. The values
and unwritten rules of a government organization can make it hard
for an official to act responsibly. Or they can make it very easy. A
good, comprehensive ethics program that has the full support of most
high-level officials makes it hard for an official to misuse his
office to help himself or others. A poor ethics environment makes an
official feel like a chump if he doesn’t.</blockquote>

Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Fall Reading: Out of Character

Tags

Share This Page