Ethics Reading Reflection

The following is a reflection on the CPM course's assigned reading of an excerpt from How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, 2nd edition (HarperCollins, 2009, pages 1-18), by Rushworth M. Kidder.  Specifically Chapter 1, Overview: The Ethics of Right vs Right.


I thought the title of Right vs Right a bit more catchy than relevant.  How many choices do we really face that involve to equally right choices.  I expect that number to be a relatively small.  When we are factoring out the "right" choices done with poor motivations, or those that are done in lieu of something that clearly should have been done, we probably have a relatively miniscule sampling to work from.

So of those entirely Right vs entirely Right options, who really cares?  If you end up choosing between curing brain cancer or breast cancer, pick the one that interests you or intrigues you and move on.  The rest of us have more complex problems we need to work on and I suspect you have plenty other issues to consider as well.

Now choosing between bad and bad options, is frequent enough to warrant some contemplation.  Perhaps the concept doesn't have the appeal or pizzaz of "Right vs Right", but it seems more prevalent.

As an aside, one aspect of choosing between bad decisions that didn't seem to be brought up in the article was how bad alternatives are often the byproduct of previously made poor decisions.  Like the tangled up ball of yarn, there are some situations that the only way out of them is to never get into them in the first place.

So yes, having some principles to guide one's action in choosing between bad choices is something worth thinking hard about.

Of the three principles presented in the article, the Ends-based Thinking option, doing whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number, seemed wanting.

Using ends to justify the means rarely, if ever, ends well.  Especially when the ends cannot be known ahead of time.  History exhibits plenty of examples of this playing out poorly.

Interestingly, the next two principles presented, Rule-based thinking and Care-based thinking, could loosely be correlated to the summary of the Jewish Ten Commandments as recounted by Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40.

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”" 


What is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, but acting according to a pattern of living that God has set.  Essentially a Rule-based approach to ethical living.

One difference might be that the Judeao-Christian version has an authoritative set of rules to work from, whereas Kant was left to figure out a general principle by which everyone could decide there own rules.  I suppose both approaches have advantages and drawbacks.

The third principle of Care-based thinking, summarized in the article as "Doing to others what you would like them to do to you", could just as easily be restated as "Love your neighbor as yourself."  These two statements are nearly identical and interchangeable.  See Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.

Unfortunately, figuring out what to do, doesn't even seem like the greatest problem.  The much greater problem is how do I actually carry out these ethical principles.

By whatever hierarchy of principles one chooses, how well do any of us claim to truly carry them out.

And then if you extend the criteria beyond actions to one's thoughts and motivations, how much more are our shortcomings exasperated?  As a friend of mine, Jim Price noted "I could bite my tongue and edit my emails, but that didn't make me good, it just made me polite!" (Taken from a published copy of the notes from Jim Price's Testimony offered 3/27/05.)

Bringing this back to class material, within Dr. Faser's dissertation, she researched 28 cases of broken trust.  I wonder how hard these were to find.  Not that I care to recount them here, but I could probably recollect 28 scenarios where I have not done as well as I would have hoped.  Mercifully not many of my past failures rose to the level of being studied in someone's doctoral dissertation, but that does not make them right.


Is was also interesting, that none of Dr. Fraser's trust violations were primarily about the interviewees own past failures?  The interviews were able to draw out some instances were the interviewee may have contributed in some way to the trust violation but the primary issue seemed to be what someone else had done.  Does it surprise us that we would be much more eager to see faults in others all the while minimizing our own.


So in order of importance, starting with how one decides between Good vs Good alternatives is perhaps the wrong end to start from.

If we were to order the discussion based on frequency, importance, and relevance, it would probably be the following: 1) What to do about our own past ethical violations and those of others; (Repairing Trust)   2) How do we better adhere to whatever standard of ethical principles we choose;  3)  What are those ethical principles and what is their basis;  4)  How do we address situations when our available choices seem to set our ethical principles against each other;  and 5) Within those situations that set our principles against each other, we could discuss the small subset of situations in which there is all available choices seem equally Right.

Practically speaking, in parenting my three sons ages 3 to 8, every once in a while we have a discussion about good vs good choices.  "Do you want to watch Up or Cars tonight."

We have more discussions about thinking through various competing ethical issues.  "I am glad you are eager to get started on your homework, but your mother asked you to hang up your clothes first."

We have even more discussions about just doing what we know is right.  "Do not hit your brother because he is bothering you."

And we have lots of discussions about resolving ethical violations.  "You need to tell your brother you are sorry.  And you need to forgive your brother."

Journal Reflection 1.1 Orientation and Personal Style

[Editors note:  The following is a journal entry addressing specific questions provided by the CPM course instructors for module 1.1.]



Q1.  Briefly describe what you learned from the introductory activities, instruments and discussions.  What stands out for you?

After the first two days of instruction providing only marginal amounts of new material, one observation in particular stood out.  Since this is the first offering of the class by the UW-Tacoma, the course’s shape, format, and requirements, in the phraseology of the famous golf instructor Harvey Penick, “has the opportunity to improve.”

A fairer description should also acknowledge the third day provided interesting introductions to and dialogue about the concepts of personality typing and systems theory presented by Mrs. Rough-Mack and Dr. Fraser.


Q2.  Now that you know what the program entails, what are you most excited about and why? 

Given that much of the course is still forming, I am particularly excited to help shape the course in a manner that maximizes my learning and leaves a positive imprint on subsequent classes.  Being part of something that is innovative and developing is intriguing, whereas a rigorously scripted syllabus would grate on my "Most Independent" (INTJ) personality type.

As for the course content, I am very excited to meet a wide range of experts in the public management fields.  Both of the first two instructors were very engaging and knowledgeable.

What do you anticipate will be most challenging to you and why?

Since participation in the program has been primarily driven by my own initiative, I anticipate getting strong investment and buy-in from supervisor and peer team members to be my biggest challenge.


Q3.  How will information about personality typing be useful to you as a leader?

The personality typing has clarified some of my thoughts in regards to my own motivations.  Anticipating that this will be a subject for a future reflection, I will defer further comment on that specific subject for the present.


Q4.  How would you describe systems thinking and how does it relate to leadership?

Thinking in terms of systems and structures is something that seems to come naturally for me.  Given a background in engineering and construction which entail designing, analyzing, and optimizing systems of inter-related systems, envisioning these concepts within management applications has been and will likely be one of my strengths.

Being able to communicate the vision of an optimized system with enthusiasm is something that will probably be an area for growth.


Q5.  Considering your self-assessment and the components of the program, what aspects of your leadership style would you most like to develop?  What do you want to learn more about?  How might you do that?  Who or what would need to be involved?

Given the other reading in the class, the concept of starting with self assessment components seemed either paradoxical, or at the least premature.

The first reading, In Grave Danger of Growing by Dr. Charles Seashore, makes the point that there are often "significant discrepancies between what was expected in the programs and what is found" and "Participates will generally find some of their most valuable experiences and learning in situations which have not been planned or designed for that purpose.”  So guessing at what areas to target for development based on self assessments in the first class is likely to be inaccurate.

More pointedly, in the assigned reading Teaching Smart People How to Learn by Chris Argyris (Harvard Business Review, May-June 1991) the point is made that even high achieving professionals who are very profficient in teaching others how to do things, are particularly poor at identifying their own errors.  The article does point to a process whereby self assessment techniques leading to learning  feedback loops could be taught, but it gives little support to a notion of simple period of self reflection will be productive.

Third, Americans are extremely poor at self assessment.  Consider this synopsis of the situation recounted within a sermon by Dr. Robert Rayburn dated April 29, 2007. (See also his sermons dated 2/18/96, 4/5/98, 9/3/00, 9/30/07 and 7/28/13 for additional references.  Should it be surprising that this concept needs repeated reinforcement?)

I have regaled with you such statistics before but it is important for us to remember and never forget that human beings typically view themselves in wildly complementary terms. Whether it is the recent Washington Post report of a survey that found that 94% of Americans said they were above average in honesty, 89% above average in common sense; 86% above average in intelligence; and 79% above average in looks; or a recent report in the journal Social Psychology (1993) that 90% of American business managers rate their performance “superior”, 86% of employees rate themselves as “better than average”, and among divorced couples 90% insist that the break-up was their spouse’s fault; or the enormous survey some years ago of American high school seniors who took the SAT, of whom 70% rated their leadership ability above average and only 2% below, as to getting along with others zero rated themselves below average and 25% saw themselves in the top 1%...  (http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/2007-04-29-pm.aspx)

Given all of this, how accurate or meaningful should we expect a self assessment to be?  Is it logical to make such a self assessment the primary basis for how we structure learning goals for the course?


Q6.  Identify a goal or action item for your Learning Plan.

So with minimal weight placed on self assessment, the two areas have emerged as the most worthwhile growth areas for the coming class.

The first foci, would be the continued development of social interaction skills.  In conversation with my wife recently, she commented that I was pretty smart, but didn’t have ANY social skills.  Admittedly, I have always felt this is an area of discomfort for me and an opportunity for growth.

The second foci would be a technical aspect.  I would like to round out some of the knowledge areas peculiar to governmental service that I may not be exposed to at my position in a Tribal Government.

Advantages of Sub-Optimized Systems

In thinking about system configurations as presented by Dr. Fraser in the first module of the Certified Public Manager course, one aspect seemed worth exploring further.

The general principle of system structure theory is shown in the graphic below and states that as effective systems are developed, issues progress from being handled as events, to patterns, to structural systems. The potential for managers to positively impacting how an issue is addressed is maximized in the ability to create and implement the effective system structures before issues arise.

What seemed most interesting would be to explore the potential advantages sub-optimized systems could have to various stakeholders.  When system structure is either not effective or has not been developed, thereby requiring issues to be dealt with on the event level, what if any tangential advantages might there be to various stakeholders.


Three scenarios are presented to explore this question.

Scenario #1 - Business Genius or Project Management Wacko

"Either the architect was a certified genius or an authentic whack-o!" - Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Ghost Busters, 1983

At one point in my professional career, I was working for a construction contracting company in a very frustrating environment.  My role consisted of assisting two very competent project managers and all of us were perpetually frustrated with the systems the senior managers had implemented on our project.  The systems in place were by all accounts an impediment to progress and made our work extremely cumbersome.

Below is a flow chart to depict the steps between when an issue was identified to when work could be formally authorized to address the issue.

Somewhere in the middle of the project Kevin Koening, one of the very competent project managers, came to the realization that whatever we thought of the leadership’s inefficient and sub-optimal “system configuration” sense, they were certifiable business geniuses.

They had effectively developed a business model in which they could bill a client an astronomical amount to carry out an inefficient and cumbersome system with a small army of minimally skilled labor.  


The system was sub-optimal for accomplishing the project, but it was optimized around creating billable work.

Scenario #2 - The Commission Without Policy

Consider a somewhat hypothetical public commission whose approval is being required for some necessary action.  If that commission fails to adequately adopt regulations to define what does and does not meet their requirements, and instead deals with every issue on a case by case basis, we have the potential for a sub-optimized system.

Specific sub-optimized effects include the inability of support staff to develop “structural” (referencing the systems graph depicted above) systems to deal with issues generatively.  Entities appearing before the commission also lack clarity in what will be required to gain approval.  And the commission’s work is further encumbered by the necessity of needing to address every matter before them as an individual event.

The net effect is that the commissioners become the critical stakeholder in any project needing commission approval.  There any few limits as to what can be brought into the purview of the commission thereby expanding their power. 


So this sub-optimized system has the advantage to the commissioners of effectively maximizing the political power of the commission at the expense of the actions it is intended to oversee.

Scenario #3 - The Emergency Oriented Employee

The third scenario, devised in discussions with my fellow classmate Casey Rice, considers the motivation of an individual employee.  Although neither of us could pinpoint specific examples, it seems possible this scenario could occur.

If your workforce derives more value from responding to the "Event" level incident than addressing an issue on the structural level, an inverse incentive to avoid carrying out the routine of the “structured” system could be developed.

Incentives for dealing with “Event” level issues could include the adrenaline thrill of operating in crisis mode, the potential to address crises outside of bureaucratic decision making “systems”, the opportunity for overtime pay, or appreciation of an employee’s visible efforts to fix the emergency by the larger community.

Taken from this vantage point, the underlying employee motivation theoretically favors minimizing optimized system structures and in order to direct issues to the more rewarding Event level.

Analysis and Conclusions

Within each of these scenarios, one group of individual stakeholders gains advantages by placing their own interest ahead of the larger objective that the “system” is designed to address.

Therefore the incentive to the manager seeking leverage issue response by building system structures is to ensure that all of the stakeholders within the system are committed to and motivated towards achieving the system outcomes. 


In the specific cases described above this likely entails ensuring that contractual relationships support structures that foster system success (Scenario #1), or that individuals are rewarded for and motivated towards achieving the ultimate ends the structure of the “systems” are trying to achieve (Scenario #2 and #3). 

Discussion Topic #1 - Bureaucracy's Primary Function

The primary function of any bureaucracy is self preservation. – Steve Solters*, circa 1998


After a brief discussion of this statement in class today, it seems that this was a statement suitable for further exploration.  Perhaps it shouldn’t seem so surprising given that the class consists of government employees might take offense at disparagement of the concept of general bureaucracy.
In the hopes that this will be a subject suitable for raising an initial discussion, I present it here for my classmates further development.  Particularly since the last arguments presented in class on the subject seemed to me entirely unpersuasive.

If I recall the final argument was that if some hypothetical state commission or agency announced to the legislature that it wanted to cut its mission and budget in half, the legislature would immediately dismiss the suggestion and perhaps the messenger too.  Specifically, because we assume the legislature finds the public service being provided by such agency to be of such vital importance that cutting it in half would jeopardize the health, safety, security, prosperity… of all state residents, economies, cultures, environments....

This argument almost makes my point in the following ways.

First, is anyone claiming that the any commission or agency as currently structured, is of such optimal size so as to eliminate all of the bad/evil/ill that it was created to thwart.  I find that difficult to fathom.
Second, given that some bad/evil/ill in the targeted area remains, it would seem that the people of the state (as represented by their duly elected representatives) have accepted a level of functionality based on a cost/benefit analysis factored against a law of diminishing returns.

So under what scenarios would we anticipate any agency advocating for a lower standard of service. This entails individuals with vested interests in a cause not wanting to advance that said cause. Especially if that decision were to imply that their job was un-necessary.

Linking this thought to other concepts discussed today almost develops a theme. The inability of “Smart” people to find their own weaknesses and to naturally act defensively when challenged. Or the inability to institute "True Change" without being acted upon by an external force in the quote by Demming? [sic] as Dr. Fraser alluded to.


And yet, given a finite amount of resources (my tax dollars), it would seem at least plausible that in many cases, the ideal cost/benefit ratio for most of the state residents would be at cost levels below those presently employed.

Not that many taxpayers or even elected representatives would be knowledgable to assess what that ideal ratio would be.
Of course, accepting a reduced level of service by a legislative body, has feedback loops of its own. The appearance of historically overfunding an agency would not be attractive. Or that any governing body would be willing to oppose whatever vocal minority would be impacted by any marginal reduction. Or that a governing body would want to be tied politically to whatever bad/evil/ill may potentially have been prevented by said agency without the reductions.


Hence, even in this argument, it would still seem that the primary function of any bureaucracy would be to justify its own existence and to preserve itself. Making other arguments to support the statement and extending them to beyond the applications to public governments would not likely be difficult, but is beyond the scope of this particular article.


Conclusion and Challenge

Is it then any wonder that we have a governmental system that tends towards growth and expansion? Are we then surprised that one of the few ways of cutting government size within our system has been indiscriminant cuts across wide swaths of government driven by rather extreme crisis?


So how would this relate to students in a Certified Public Management Course? One of my reflections on the excellent Supervision Essentials I course I took a few months ago, was that this subject was never even touched on.

I would propose, that as leaders in public service, seeking to manage resources entrusted to us by the public (or extracted from the citizenry in the form of a tax), we need to be always challenging ourselves to do the un-natural. We need to be asking ourselves “How can we do less?” or “Why is it so imperative that my agency undertake this function on behalf of every taxpayer?”



*Steve Solters was a friend and favorite project manager of mine when I was working in NY. I doubt the thought is original to him, but with the high esteem I hold him in, I appreciate the chance to mention his name and give him as much credit as possible.