Power Deviant Behaviors
With the "big news" this week being the sexting of Rep. Anthony Weiner, it
seems appropriate to write about a piece I came across on the
i-sight.com website entitled "<a href="http://i-sight.com/investigation/do-workplace-fraud-investigations-lead…; target="”_blank”">Do
All
Workplace
Fraud Investigations Lead to Porn?</a>" The piece
discusses the ideas of <a href="http://www.acfe.com/about/bio-hubbs.asp" target="”_blank”">Ryan Hubbs</a>, a
forensic accountant.<br>
<br>
Hubbs’ research indicates a correlation between what he calls the power
deviant behaviors — bullying, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation
— and corruption and fraud.<br>
<br>
The piece quotes Hubbs as saying, “Over the past several years of
conducting investigations, it almost seemed that regardless of the
allegation or complaint, we’d find pornography or other workplace
deviant behaviors. It happened so much that I jokingly coined the
phrase that all investigations lead to porn, because it truly felt this
way. ... In a conflict of interest case we would identify an
intra-office affair or abuse of the email system mostly involving porn.”<br>
<br>
This does not, of course, mean that if you were to look at all
officials'
computers, wherever you found porn you would be likely to find corrupt
behavior. But the use of a work computer for viewing or sharing porn
does manifest a government official's problem with the difference
between the personal and the public, a boundary issue (in psychspeak)
at the heart of dealing irresponsibly with conflicts of interest.
Having an
office affair with a subordinate says much the same thing.<br>
<br>
With respect to the meaning of power deviant behaviors, the emphasis
should be on the "power," not the "deviant." Many
people who are careful about separating the personal and the public
engage in behavior many would consider deviant. It is the blurring of
the personal and the public, and especially the abuse of power for personal reasons, that
turns deviant behavior into unethical behavior. Although sexting may be
sexier, bullying, intimidating, and retaliating are stronger
indications
that an official is abusing his or her power in ways that are seriously
harmful both to subordinates in the workplace and to the public
interest.<br>
<br>
Is it an accident that Rep. Weiner has a reputation for being very hard
on his subordinates? This should be considered a more serious problem
than his sexting. But holding an important government office seems to
give individuals the right to abuse the people around them. Most people
appear to believe that such an individual is driven rather than
abusive, and that his work is so important, it trumps the feelings of
subordinates.<br>
<br>
The question is, does the abuse of subordinates reflect
an equal propensity to abuse the public? If you put yourself first in
one way, will you not put yourself first in other important ways, as
well?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---