Winter Reading: Switch VII - Self-Evaluation and Identity

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 Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (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 blind spots, which prevent officials from dealing responsibly with their conflict situations.

Consequences vs. Identity
According to Switch, James March, author of Primer on Decision Making (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 Checklist of Ethics Commission Activities in my book Local Government Ethics Programs). Checklists are simple, ironclad, and help people avoid blind spots. They also provide insurance against overconfidence.

Click here to read the other six blog posts on Switch.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---