Spring Reading: Dennis Moberg on Frames of Perception in Organizations

Anonymous

Thu, 04/10/2014 - 05:02

Advisory Opinions

I thought that I had covered all the blind spots that wreak such
havoc on local government ethics (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Bli…; target="”_blank”">the
section in my book Local Government Ethics Programs</a>).
But Dennis J. Moberg's essay, "<a href="https://www.google.com/#q=moberg+ethics+blind+spots" target="”_blank”">Ethics
Blind Spots in Organizations: How Systematic Errors in Person
Perception Undermine Moral Agency</a>" (Organization Studies
27(3):413–428 (2006)), raises some I haven't seen mentioned anywhere
else. 
 
Moberg's principal contribution to the area of ethics blind spots is
his original use of the term "framing." While most talk about
framing involves the communication of ideas to others, Moberg's
frames are perceptual frames, that is, they involve the way we see
rather than the way we communicate (although perceptual frames do
also affect the way we communicate, since our perceptual limitations
limit what we say to others).

Moberg's frames consist of "well-learned sets of associations that
focus people's attention on and label some aspects of a situation to
the exclusion of others." They involve both perception and
interpretation. The blind spots that Moberg discusses occur because
frames narrow our view of situations, leading
us to interpret the situations in limited ways, often leading to
erroneous conclusions or preventing us from taking appropriate
action. 
 
Competence and Character 
Moberg's focuses on two of the
principal frames by which people view each
other: competence and character. 
 
The common tendency is to look at others through the frame of
character rather than competence. We do this out of self-interest,
that is, to prevent ourselves being victimized by others' ethical
misconduct. Thus, our emphasis tends to be on others' negative
character traits. 
 
With respect to ourselves, however, we tend to look through the
frame of competence, because we believe we are people of high
character. Our self-esteem is primarily based on our competence.
Moberg asks, "can a person be expected to display genuine moral
agency when they are occupied in an intrapsychic process … that
distracts them from the process of being or becoming moral?" For
example, someone who values cleverness, a form of intellectual
competence, will be "distracted" by the opportunity to be clever and
will, therefore, "be prone to exemplify cleverness even when it is
morally inappropriate." In government, especially when lawyers are
involved, this is a very common problem. 
 
Frames in Organizations 
Things are a bit different within organizations. Superiors tend to
view subordinates through the frame of competence, while
subordinates tend to view superiors, as well as their peers, through
the more common frame of character. Since superiors do not generally
recognize this difference, they tend to underestimate the importance
not only of acting ethically, but also of appearing ethical. 
 
Failing to be interested in appearing ethical, they fail to send the
right messages to their subordinates, who are more sensitive to
superiors' ethical conduct than superiors are to theirs. Moberg says
that subordinates want this sort of moral information, but that it
is hard for them to find it. He writes, "This tendency undermines the
development of a viable moral community. Moreover, without publicly
salient moral role models, moral development opportunities are
squandered." 
 
Moberg provides a valuable example from Arthur Andersen. When,
in 1998, this accounting firm decided to develop a plan to deal with
the risk that fraud at some of its clients would affect the firm,
its chief ethics officer "urged that the plan be communicated in
attention-grabbing form, and that the plan should go beyond the
symptoms of the problem." Instead, the CEO sent out a low-key
memo framed in competence terms. Soon the firm got into serious ethical trouble and was dissolved. 
 
What this means is that ethical misconduct does not require a poor
ethics environment led by unethical officials. It can occur just
because high-level officials don't believe it's important to ensure
that subordinates act ethically, as long as they get things done and bring in the bacon. 
 
Moberg argues that the most serious problems arise because superiors
focus on subordinates' competence and, therefore, fail to identify
employees who are "prone to moral lapses." This focus also leads
superiors to ignore whistleblowers when they point out ethical
misconduct. Moberg says that whistleblowers are more successful when
they frame their complaints in terms of competence rather than in
terms of morality. 
 
When whistleblowers are ignored, subordinates see this as "a sign
that ethics is simply not a priority in the organization." 
 
Moberg's essay is limited to business organizations. In government,
there is another group to consider: citizens. They look at
government officials through both frames, but feel more strongly
about the character frame. They have even less information about
officials' ethics than subordinates have. Therefore, even minor
scandals can make a big difference in their perception of government
leaders. This is why it is so important for even minor conflict
situations to be prevented or, when handled poorly, dealt with
swiftly, publicly, and with the full cooperation of all officials
involved. 
 
Correcting Blind Spots 
Moberg argues that "moral agency ultimately requires intrinsic
motivation." I disagree with this, at least with respect to
conflicts of interest, but first I will look at Moberg's
suggestions. He suggests that the best way to correct blind spots is
for each of us to "reframe," that is, to change our perspective on
ourselves and on others. We need to ask why we should be moral.
Those who want approval for acting ethically will, he says, be
disappointed. Therefore, we need to recognize that we do it for
ourselves and for the good of the organization. With respect to
local government, officials need to recognize further that it is their
fiduciary obligation, as managers of the community and spenders of
the community's funds, to act ethically. 
 
Moberg also suggests that we seek role models from outside our
organization, either famous ones (e.g., Gandhi or Mother Teresa) or
external administrators, and that peers and subordinates are better
sources of feedback on one's moral conduct than are supervisors, due
to supervisors' focus on competence. 
 
As for managers, he suggests that they make "special effort to
communicate their moral standards publicly and indicate how the
standards factor into the choices they make." This is great advice,
but it is a very hard thing for most people to do. With respect to
government ethics, most high-level officials do not really
understand conflicts of interest (unless they have instituted an effective ethics training program) and, therefore, cannot guide others
with respect to ethics standards. 
 
Moberg also suggests that managers give recognition to desirable
employee conduct. This is an important suggestion. This sort of
recognition is too rarely provided. 
 
Moberg acknowledges that an organization's ethics environment
can exacerbate blind spots, and that it is difficult for ethical
conduct to occur consistently in a poor ethics environment. This is
why "intrinsic motivation" is not enough. It is much easier for
individuals to act ethically when their ethics environment is
healthy, that is, when it is characterized by clear ethics rules and
a lack of pressure to conform to unwritten rules and be loyal to
superiors no matter what they do; when independent ethics advice
(rather than the advice of superiors and government attorneys who
work for them) is made available; and when high-level officials make
it clear that ethics rules and formal processes must be followed. 
 
In other words, it is very difficult for subordinates to reframe
when their superiors fail to do so or make it dangerous for
subordinates to put their ethics into action. And it is hard for
high-level officials to consider anything but competence and
political success when there is no government ethics program to train them and to keep reminding them about their fiduciary duties. 
 
Ethics Training and Advice 
I believe that "intrinsic motivation" is not enough to offset blind
spots. Ethics training and advice are necessary. The most important, and overlooked,
aspect of ethics training is getting individuals to recognize their
blind spots, to realize that they are not personal to them, and to
understand that the best way to get around blind spots is not
"intrinsic motivation," but rather the advice of independent
individuals who they trust and who are not affected by the
individual's blind spots, by the blind spots of the individual's
superiors, or by the organization's unwritten rules or pressures.
The best person to provide this advice is someone who works for an
independent citizen body that is not appointed by the individual's
superiors, is not part of the organization, and is not subject to
its unwritten rules and pressures. In other words, a government
ethics officer. 
 
Moberg notes that "blind spots are similar to those that afflict
drivers of motor vehicles. Once one is aware that they exist, it is
possible to develop alternative interpretive and action strategies."
But changing one's frames and having the courage to act are two very
difficult things. Far easier is seeking advice from an ethics
adviser because one recognizes that he has blind spots and because one knows he will be held accountable for failing to do so. 
 
Moberg identifies a serious problem that arises from our focus on
our competence and makes it that much more necessary not to depend
on an individual learning to both recognize his blind spots and
handle them effectively. He argues that, due to our focus on
competence, many of us are often not open to ethics education and
mentally disengage from it. If we do not see such training as
relevant to our competence, we reject it. Similarly, if we see
ourselves as moral, morality as something we learned as children,
and character as immutable, we consider ethics training a waste of
time, especially for us. 
 
This is why it is so important to present ethics training not as
about morality or about changing one's frames of perception, but
rather as about the improvement of one's professional handling of
conflicts of interest, one's recognition of one's blind spots, one's fulfillment of one's fiduciary duties, and one's understanding of the laws that govern this
area. Action requires no more than a call to the ethics officer when
one is too busy, or does not feel competent enough, to check out the
laws and advisory opinions on the ethics program website. 
 
Needless to say, this does not solve all ethical problems in an
organization. But quality ethics training, the formation of trusting
relationships with an ethics officer, and the open discussion of
ethics issues can go a long way to making it much easier for
government officials and employees to recognize and handle their
ethical quandaries. The institutionalization of government ethics in
a visible and effective program can also change a government's
ethics environment for the better, which can have broad, beneficial
ramifications. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Spring Reading: Dennis Moberg on Frames of Perception in Organizations

Tags

Share This Page