The Kingdom of Individuals IV: Ethics and Power

One of the problems in talking about conflicts of interest is that we
tend to assume that people with conflicts analyze their situations
before acting. We think that, for example, they balance acting in their
personal interest, or in the interest of a family member or business
associate, against the consequences of getting caught. Or we think that
the principal ethical considerations they bring to bear on their
situation arise from their local code of ethics or their spiritual or
philosophical beliefs.<br>
<br>

But, as Bailey points out, “behavioral economists [have] pointed out
that most
decisions are
taken without rigorous calculation; out of habit, or copying the next
person,
or taking someone's advice.<span>  </span>People do
not optimize; they merely satisfice.”<span></span> Even when
we calculate, he says, our calculations "are handed to us in the form
of precepts, of
preconceived opinions, rather than as the demonstrated results of some
experiment."<span></span><br>
<br>
Right up front in his preface, Bailey describes the conscience
as consisting essentially of conventions, including the conventions of the
organizations in which an individual works. In effect, an
organization's ethical environment works on officials and employees in
two ways. One, from the inside, in the form of accepted conventions,
such as it's okay (or not) to hire your son or give a contract to your
business
partner. And two, from the outside, in the form of power being
exercised over you by superiors, often in the form of expectations
placed on you, such
as participating in a political campaign or keeping quiet about what
you might consider unethical conduct.<span><br>
<br>
Bailey sees the exercise of power as a form of exploitation. People are
usually aware of how power is exercised on them directly, but often</span>
unaware that their values are often instilled from those in power.
Bailey concludes, using the first person, "I follow my
conscience
and collude unknowingly in my own subjection." A good example of this, which I don't believe Bailey gave, is the prohibition on snitching (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/ci/complicity">my blog post on this</a>).<br>
<br>
Later in the book, he makes a valuable comment about exploitation
that certainly applies to local governments: “exploitation is a
secondary, if necessary,
endeavor; the
game that matters for the exploiters is the one that they play against
each
other." In other words, the principal game is not leader vs. community
or leader vs. subordinates, but leader vs. leader. When the rest of us
are hurt by their actions, it is effectively collateral damage.<br>
<br>
When this is the most important game in town, it skews the local government's
ethical environment. Conflicts of interest become political footballs,
and preferential treatment is the norm. If you don't do it, you'll lose
your supporters to a leader who does. Sometimes the political football
has to clear the goalposts many times in order for the other team to
win. Then the ethics laws
change a bit, and new varieties of preferential treatment become the
norm. It is very hard to truly change a local government's ethical environment.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---