Skip to main content

Being Wrong I (Summer Reading)

<br>
<br>
It's arguable that a bigger problem than unethical conduct in local
government is the way local officials respond to allegations of
government ethics violations. Kathryn Schulz's excellent book, <b><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=5OCnB78Bsp0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=be…; target="”_blank”">Being
Wrong:
Adventures in the Margin of Error</a></b> (2010), provides
perspective on some of the ways officials respond to such
allegations and some of the ways they can better handle their mistakes.
This is the first in a series of summer reading posts that will, I
hope, give you a number of new perspectives on local
government ethics.<br>
<br>

<i>Being Wrong</i> does not deal with the full range of responses to
allegations of unethical conduct,
because officials often do not consider ethics allegations to be
about
their being wrong, but about their being bad. In other words, there
are
two meanings involved here that both go by the name of "wrong":
making
the wrong decision (adjective) and acting wrong (adverb). <i>Being Wrong</i>
only deals with the adjective.<br>
<br>
Since it is difficult to know how conscious an
official is of his conduct, and since in government ethics this is
irrelevant to
anything but possibly the penalty, one is required to assume that
the
wrong decision was made, that the official was not dealing
responsibly
with a conflict, not that the official was consciously being bad. So <i>Being Wrong</i> and government ethics are on the same page when it comes to wrongness.<br>
<br>
<b>Fallibility</b><br>
Fallibility is a funny thing. We get enormous pleasure out of being
right, even though we always feel we're right. And finding out we're
wrong can feel calamitous, as if it goes to the core of who we are.
Here's a wonderful quote from Schulz that sums this feeling up (and
it is a feeling, no matter how much we focus on "the facts"):<ul>

If fallibility is built into our very name and nature, it is in much
the same way the puppet is built into the Jack-in-the-Box:  in
theory wholly predictable, in practice always a jarring surprise. In
this respect, fallibility is something like mortality, another trait
that is implicit in the word "human." As with dying, we recognize
erring as something that happens to everyone, without feeling that
is
either possible or desirable that it will happen to us. Accordingly,
when mistakes happen anyway, we typically respond as if they hadn’t,
or
as if they shouldn’t have:  we deny them, wax defensive about
them, ignore them, downplay them, or blame them on somebody else.</ul>

Fallibility might be like a Jack-in-the-Box, but the ways officials
deal with their ethical misconduct is anything but unexpected. It's
so often just as Schulz describes it:  denial, defensiveness,
downplaying,
blaming, and acting as if nothing happened and nothing was said.<br>
<br>
So, are government officials just like everyone else? No, it is
harder
for those in positions of authority to accept their fallibility.
Schulz
quotes celebrity divorce lawyer Raoul Felder as saying, “people
believe in their
own infallibility in a ratio that’s consistent with their power in
life. As you get higher, you get more and more people around you
saying
you’re right, you get less and less used to being contradicted or
being
wrong.”<br>
<br>
<b>The Effects of One's Surroundings</b><br>
Government organizations are also known for their groupthink. People
are naturally hesitant to disagree with those around them, what
Schulz
calls the "disagreement deficit.” Studies have shown that we not only believe what those around us believe, but that we even
see
things as those around us see them. When
those around us are not ordinary colleagues, but party and faction
colleagues,
for whom loyalty is so important, the disagreement deficit is even
stronger.<br>
<br>
With respect to government ethics, this sort of usually unconscious
conformity strengthens, for better or worse, a city or county's ethics environment, a
culture that determines more than any single factor the quantity and
quality of unethical conduct.<br>
<br>
Schulz writes about the four ways in which we are limited by our
communities, that is, our
workplaces, circle of friends, political parties, etc.
“First, our communities expose us to disproportionate support for
our
own ideas. Second, they shield us from the disagreement of
outsiders.
Third, they cause us to disregard whatever outside disagreement we
do
encounter. Finally, they quash the development of disagreement from
within. ... Whatever the other virtues of our communities, they are
dangerously effective at bolstering our conviction that we are right
and shielding us from the possibility that we are wrong.”<br>
<br>
<b>Vive La Différence</b><br>
But there is one big difference when it comes to government
organizations. Government officials have an obligation to consider
all
ideas and views in their city or county, as well as ideas from the
outside that would be helpful, but which citizens without the time or expertise to focus on specific problems would have
no knowledge of. For example, an
official may feel that he learned everything he needs to know about
government ethics from his parents and his religion, and his
colleagues
may agree with him, but he still has an obligation to listen to what
others (such as good government organizations) say, and see how
people
in other jurisdictions feel and what others have done. And why.<br>
<br>
Local government officals may deny, downplay, and blame with the
best
of them, but these other people do not represent their community.
They only
represent themselves. This is why it is so important that local
government officials understand the dynamics that occur when they
are
wrong and when they feel infallible.<br>
<br>
It is human to err. It is even human to feel infallible. But a local
government official has an obligation to recognize this feeling of
infallibility and to recognize that, while it might be okay for a
king
or a pope, it is not okay for a community leader in a democracy.<br>
<br>
The second post on <i>Being Wrong</i> will look at ways in which local government officials can better prevent mistakes, including ethics violations.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959