Institutional Corruption Conference IV: A Weakness of Compliance Systems
At the Institutional Corruption conference sponsored by Harvard's Safra Ethics Center last Saturday, Ann Tenbrunsel, co-author of <i>Blind Spots</i> (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/search/node/blind%20spots" target="”_blank”">my blog
posts on this book</a>), noted that people act not only against
what is written in ethics codes, but also against their own values.
And they don't realize they're doing it. She portrayed the process
by which we act as broken into three phases: prediction,
action, and recollection. In the first and third phases, we tend to
think in terms of values. But when we act, we do what we want to do
or what fits the context (e.g., a business or political decision
rather than an ethical decision). Another way to put this is that we
make forecasting errors regarding our actions, and then we engage in
revisionary ethics, that is, we see good in what we did. Neither
planning nor reflection reflect our actual decision.<br>
<br>
When acting, we are strongly affected by situational cues, which
allow us to deceive ourselves about the appropriateness of what we
do. When we ask ourselves what kind of situation we are in, the answer
predicts most of how we psychologically do what we do, and how we
justify our actions. If, for example, we consider ourselves to be
making a business decision, we take a cost-benefit approach. If we
consider it an ethical decision, we look at things like fairness,
harm, and the greater good.<br>
<br>
Tenbrunsel also talked about some problems with compliance systems,
such as government ethics programs. The problem she identified with
respect to standards of conduct is that too often the focus is on
the standards themselves rather than on the objectives behind the
standards. This is the legal approach, which so strongly
predominates in government ethics.<br>
<br>
She feels that sanctioning systems tend to decrease trust, mutuality, creativity,
and self-esteem. As with business decisions, compliance decisions (by officials, that is)
are not about what is fair or appropriate, but rather how to do
what one feels is necessary while complying with the language of the law.
This is a legal decision rather than an ethical decision, and there is no reason to expect that it will take into account fairness or what is appropriate or might undermine public trust.<br>
<br>
She notes that, partly because of this, compliance systems are
weakened as people find ways around the rules. Because we see rules as legal obstacles, they are loopholes waiting to be bored. Government ethics advice, on the other hand, is a different kind of obstacle, one that is not so easy to bore holes into.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---