Three Ways of Affecting Ethics in the Government Workplace

Despite the many differences between corporate and government ethics, sometimes the corporate ethics world has a lot to teach the government ethics world, especially considering that corporate ethics has a zillion times the personnel and budget to work with.

One example of this appears in a Harvard Business Review blog post yesterday by Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor. The post focuses on what ways work in affecting ethics in the workplace, based on studies Gino has done. Since this is an important issue in the government workplace as well, this post is worth a look.

Means Rather than Ends
The first way of affecting ethics is to stress the means over the ends. Ethics is all about means (consider:  "the end justifies the means" is antithetical to government ethics), and this is a problem since most people think and talk about ends far more than about means.

Gino writes that she found, through her studies, that "people judged the unethical behavior of others more harshly when it resulted in a negative rather than a positive outcome, even when the actions that led to a good outcome were more egregious from an ethical standpoint than those that led to a negative outcome." This is sad to hear, but not surprising.

Gino notes that performance appraisals based on ends can reward those who use unethical means to seek them. She believes that such appraisals should include an assessment of means as well as ends. I agree, but would add that it is more important to discuss means as well as ends at regular staff meetings, to inculcate the idea that means are important in every aspect of work and every stage of a project.

The Language of Promotion or Prevention?
The second way of affecting ethics in the workplace is also upsetting. Gino looked at the framing of ethics discussions, that is, at the difference between talking about ethics using the language of promotion and the language of prevention. By prevention, she means discussing ethics in terms of constraints, compliance, and penalties. Promoting ethics would involve positive outcomes, reaching specific goals in terms of thought and action.

I have always assumed that it is better to discuss ethics in positive terms. For example, that it is worthwhile to discuss ethics decision-making openly and to talk about acting responsibly when faced with conflict situations, rather than focusing on prohibition and enforcement. But Gino's studies lead one to think it's better to use the language of prevention, because, she says, using the language of promotion tends to "heighten people's risk-seeking tendencies."

Since government officials are less likely to be risk-seeking than executives, this may not be quite so true in government. On the other hand, since people often worry (and listen?) more when they are given negative direction (don't do this, this is bad), it might be better to use preventive language.

But the fact is that putting a threat over people's heads is a form of violence. When people do what they should, it is more out of fear or guilt rather than learning to do what is responsible. It leads to people thinking of others as good or evil rather than considering what should be done, and why. Therefore, I still prefer using positive language that promotes being responsible, rather than the language of prevention, and certainly rather than the language of prohibition and enforcement.

Setting a Good Example
The third way of affecting ethics in the workplace is by setting a good example, or establishing good social norms. Gino helped devise a study in which students were asked to do math problems. An actor shows them that cheating is possible. The study found that when the actor is wearing a t-shirt from another school, the students are less likely to cheat than when he or she wears a t-shirt with no name on it. That is, when someone in the community cheats, it is more likely to affect others — to be seen as a social norm — than when outsiders (those corrupt people in the city next door) do it.

In her post, Gino also mentions an ethics blog written by Best Buy's chief ethics officer, which is itself worth a look. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that many employees are commenting on these excellent posts. But this sort of thing might work very well in local government, at least where there is an ethics officer. The writing is simple, reasonably down-to-earth corporate, and the tone is one of sincerity, honesty, and openness.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---