Winter Reading: Switch VII - Self-Evaluation and Identity

Anonymous

Wed, 02/20/2013 - 03:10

Book Reviews

Self-Evaluation and Getting One's Bearings 
To change oneself (and to support change in one's environment),
self-evaluation is required. Before you change, you have to have
your bearings. The problem is that, unlike evaluation of others,
self-evaluation is rarely rational. It is more commonly emotional,
taking "the rosiest possible interpretation of the facts," according
to the Chip and Dan Heath in their book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Switch-Change-Things-When-Hard/dp/0385528752/" target="”_blank”">Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard</a> (Crown, 2010). Most
of us think we're above average at everything, from driving a car to
making judgments regarding our conflict situations. Officials see
themselves as people of integrity, trying to do their best for our
community. This makes it hard to orient themselves with respect to
possible ethics reform.

One of the reasons we can get away with evaluating ourselves so
positively is that our standards are ambiguous. Being a leader or
team player, driving well or being a person of integrity — these are
standards everyone can define so as to feel they have what it takes.
Get more specific and things change. Few feel they are better than
average race-car drivers or leaders of mountain-climbing
expeditions. 
 
With respect to government ethics, however, it's not clear that
getting more specific makes a difference. I don't think most
officials feel that, with a bit of training, they couldn't be a
better-than-average ethics adviser. And they don't realize that
even good ethics advisers need ethics advice themselves when they find themselves in a conflict situation. 
 
The problem is that, in government ethics, self-evaluation is not just
any obstacle. It's the principal obstacle. It is hindered by
various <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Bli…; target="”_blank”">blind spots</a>, which prevent officials from dealing responsibly with
their conflict situations. 
 
Consequences vs. Identity 
According to Switch, James March, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Decision-Making-Decisions-Happen/dp/143915…; target="”_blank”">Primer

on Decision Making</a> (Free Press, 2009), says that we rely on
two basic models of decision-making: the consequences model
and the identity model. The consequences model means weighing costs
and benefits. It's a rational, analytical approach. 
 
The identity model is a more emotional approach. When we follow this
model, we effectively ask ourselves, "Who am I? What kind of
situation is this? What would someone like me do in this situation?" 
 
If one's identity is that of a professional government
administrator, one would quickly come to the conclusion that one has
to deal responsibly with a conflict situation, to protect the
government's reputation. This means that if it is a simple
situation, one follows the law; if it is in a gray area, one asks
for ethics advice. 
 
If one's identity is that of a politician (or an administrator who
is politically involved or the aide to a politician), however, it's
not so easy. Professional pride does not necessarily mean dealing
responsibly with situations, nor does it mean that one's principal
concern is protecting the government's reputation. A politician's
pride involves numerous things, which need to be weighed against one
another. In other words, a politician's identity leads to the
consequences model of decision-making. 
 
An important question for a politician is, "What effect would the decision have on
my reputation?" But this does not just mean reputation with the
community, one's own or the government's. It also means reputation
with one's political colleagues, with one's business associates,
with the brother-in-law who's seeking the contract that led to the
conflict situation in the first place. 
 
That's why, with politicians, when it comes to ethics reform, it's important to focus less on
professional identity than on their pride in being a person of
integrity, a person who is incorruptible but realizes that not
everyone else is. 
 
Filing Annual Financial Statements 
One of the many case studies the Heaths provide in their book
involves getting employees to file expense reports on time. This
case study has a lot in common with the problem of getting officials
to file annual financial statements on time. 
 
One of the Heaths' recommendations is to look for bright spots, that
is, what are the people who do file statements on time doing
differently? Once you figure out their tricks, habits, values, or
whatever, you can share them with the slackers. 
 
Another recommendation is to script the critical moves in the
process. It might turn out, upon closer examination (including
working with officials to fill out the form), that one or more
aspects of the process are confusing enough to cause decision
paralysis. It also may turn out that the environment itself — that
is, the form — needs tweaking. One way to do this is to make it easy
to fill out the form online, via a fillable PDF, for instance. If a
reminder e-mail contains a link to the form, officials don't have to
go searching through the piles on their desk. They can even fill the
form out at home, which is where most of the necessary information
is. 
 
Motivation is another consideration that is often ignored. It's
valuable to ask oneself, "What does someone who files late 'feel'?"
Since officials probably don't feel anything (except, possibly,
harassment if they keep getting late filing notices and threats of
fines), the solution is to make them feel something positive. For example, the obligation to
do someone a favor by not making them look bad, just as they would want that person to do for them. 
 
To create this positive feeling of obligation to an individual, every department, agency, and board should have one
person who is responsible for turning all disclosure statements in
on time. Each individual's success and failure should be shown on
the ethics commission's website. This way, each official's failure
to file makes someone else, and the board or agency, look bad. 
 
The Checklist 
The Heaths present what they call "the humble checklist" as a tool
that can tweak an environment and build habits. It's something that
I've started embracing myself (see, for example, the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Che…; target="”_blank”">Checklist of Ethics Commission Activities</a> in my book Local Government
Ethics Programs). Checklists are simple, ironclad, and help people
avoid blind spots. They also provide insurance against
overconfidence. 
 
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/search/node/switch%20heaths">Click here to read the other six blog posts on Switch.</a> 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Winter Reading: Switch VII - Self-Evaluation and Identity

Tags

Share This Page