In the Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government (2006) by Rosemary O’Leary, guerrilla government is the defined as the process in which government employees opening and secretly dissent from policies. As discussed in class, bureaucrats make policy through the exercise of discretion and when ethics, bureaucratic politics, and organization and management are combined, things will not fit well and will eventually become distorted. Public administrators like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has faced numerous of challenges, obstacles, and transitions in their department. In this paper, I will examine the ways in which EPA’s administrators during Regan era worked behind the scenes to use their power of discretion for personal …show more content…
and/or business gain and how staff members leaked information to the media and made complaints or praises concerning their leadership style as well. During the time of Ronald Regan presidency, Regan believed that “control is better than freedom” and sought like-minded administrators like John Spencer who believed in the Theory X approach of controlling subordinates. According to Douglas McGregor, “Theory X assumes that employees are naturally unmotivated and dislike working, and this encourages an authoritarian style of management” (Vliet, online). Spencer used this approach to promote his orders and plans. For example, he made illegitimate plan knowingly, and he continued his plan to buy an official membership for the EPA in the Chamber of Commerce with taxpayers’ money until he was confronted by a US representative (O’Leary, p. 12). Even though Spencer was warned multiple times about his misdealing, he took matters in his own hands and used his position to justify his action that could have destroyed the entire environmental agency. In addition, Spencer promoted a hostile working environment that led to staff members reporting that had used public funds for personal matters to the Inspector General’s Office and eventually leaked information about his misdealing’s to the press for questioning. For case in point, a staffed member filed an anonymous compliant with the EPA Inspector General’s Office concerning these allegations against him (O’Leary, p.48). The director of the Management Division did nothing about the compliant, but Spencer still held the director accountable for the anonymous complaint to the inspector general because of a whistleblower. This issue caused tension between them because Spencer felt as though the director should have prevented the staff member from making a complaint against him. However, the director chose to do nothing because it was out of his hands. This situation is a clear example of a truth vs loyalty ethical dilemma. The truth is that the director knew Spencer was morally wrong for using public funds for his self-interest, but he used “dirty hands” to do the work and take the pressure off him. The director did not show no loyalty either to spencer or to the staff member that made the complaint in order to remain neutral within the organization. As a consequence, he was later transferred to a new position that Spencer had created for him in another division and Spencer refused to “finalized the director’s Senior Executive Service appointment even though he was already appointed into office before Spencer’s arrival” (O’Leary, p.49). Spencer wanted to make an example out of this director by calling him into his office and reassigning the director to another department because “he felt uncomfortable doing business with him” (O’Leary, p.49). For Spencer, he believes decisions flows from the top down, but the higher he goes up the ladder of success, the more scrutiny he will face inside the organization. Thus, he was wrong for transferring the director to another department because the director did not obey his commands about grueling the employee that made the complaint against him. As an authoritative leader, Spencer did not like following government rules and his subordinates did not like following his rule as well.
For example, Spencer ordered EPA Staff to release confidential information to a private organization, but EPA officials were reluctant to relinquish the information to outsiders (O’Leary, p.52). This is another ethical dilemma about truth vs loyalty that caused EPA officials to questioned Spencer motives to the Inspect General Office after he resigns from his job, and accepts another job at a private industry. Was Spencer right to give out confidential business information to secure a better job or should he have concealed his knowledge of business dealings in the agency? Fear was all over the workplace and nobody did not trust Spencer. He was then later investigated by the EPA’S Office of the Inspector General. Those who confronted spencer directly had been reassigned or demoted and some staff members did not trust the inspector general as well (O’Leary, p.54). Staff members feared to leak information to the press because it was better to solve matters inside the organization. The only thing EPA officials could do was to wait for Spencer to eventually hang or self-destruct himself since it was nearly impossible for the inspector general to discipline him for his
wrongdoings. After Spencer’s reign of terror, Ernesta Barnes became the next appoint appointed EPA administrator and she had a heart for working towards the people’s interest. She used her power and position to promote the former director of the management Division that was fired by Spencer. Unlike her predecessor, Barnes build good communication skills and trust among her staff in order to increase productivity in the workplace. For instance, she sought to increase the number of EPS staff officials in the Northwest region and she constantly defended her team when they were right even when she herself was placed in uncomfortable situations (O’Leary, p.55). Barnes also has a new public management perspective that comes from a deontological standpoint in which she believes action is universal and rules are meant to followed by all people including herself. For case in point, Barnes had stern policy guidelines for nonpoint sources of pollution and she also reprimand the Defense Department for its mishandling of a shipment of transformers containing PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, (O’Leary, p.56). Barnes’s action speaks high level of integrity about her persona and she is definitely a transformational leader who helped turned the EPA’s organizational culture around from corruption and distrust to transparency and loyalty. For Barnes, it is not about money nor power, it’s about doing what is right for the public interest regardless of your position and status in society. Since Barnes new how to handle problems and decisions in her organization, guerrilla activity was nonexistent while she remained in office. After Barns resigns, she was succeeded by Robert Russell whose leadership style mimic Barnes; however, he later became lenient and reverted back to the company’s old structure of exclusion and mistrust. Russell used power of authority and discretion to have closed-door meeting with department heads without having the deputy administrator present (O’Leary, p.58). The deputy director had to meet with the department heads secretly in order for him to articulate his concerns and issues about directing the organization back in the right path. Russell also has a teleological approach to ethics because he believes in having a more flexible approach to morality than following a strict rule-based morality such as deontological ethics. Russell went from being a good consistent and transparent leader to a radical inconsistent leader who mixed business with pleasure with no remorse. For instance, he was accused of using the government money to fund private trips to Idaho, but he viewed his action as something trivial because he was having lunch with his friends. From an ethical standpoint, Russell has no right to use the public funds for personal matters and his misconduct led to guerilla activity entering back into the EPA’s department. As a result, staff members began to questioned Russell decision making skills and often at times, felt left out of the process as well. This conflict led to some staff members reporting his inexcusable and unethical behavior to the inspector general and he was soon investigated for his alleged crimes. Nonetheless, the Inspector General office found him not guilty of any illegal activities and ruled in his favor about having “the right to construct his own business schedule that involved having weekend offs” (O’Leary, p.59). Once again, staff members felt disappointed and shocked by the inspector general’s decision and therefore, EPA members began to leak information to the press and protest against Russell reappointment. Russell may have dodged a bullet during his term, but during his second term he really faced self-destruction and another investigation from the Inspector General’s Office which lead to his demise. His situation reflected more of an individual vs community ethical dilemma because he used discretionary power for his own self-interest rather than using his power of discretion and influence for the greater good of his organization’s community and culture. Furthermore, EPA officials used guerilla government activities to weight out future regional administrators who are authoritative and corruptive. While Spencer was in his office, he used a theory x approach that did not fit well with other EPA officials and the inspector general office as well. Unlike Spencer, Barns used a unified ethics approach to handle conflicts and decisions in order to achieve moral reasoning. Russell used a radical and transactional approach, but he used his discretion powers for his own benefits. Overall, these three EPA regional administrators during the Regan era utilized different ethical styles based on authority, role, and interest and recognized ethical dilemmas as ethical issues.
Casamayou, Maureen. “The Columbia Accident.” Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Stillman, Richard Joseph. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. 105-114.
Sharp, B., Aguirre, G., & Kickham, K. (Eds.) (2011). Managing in the Public Sector: A Casebook in Ethics and Leadership. Boston: Longman.
In the field of Public Administration there is a highly-defined structure of constitutional, legal, and procedural requirements that are in place to keep those in power in check. That being said, no matter how stringent the oversight, or how well-meaning the intentions of those who serve, Public Service is a complicated field with many landmines to navigate. As the Iran-Contra Affair illustrates, duties, orders, and responsibilities and can easily conflict with each other because there are so many areas of
Politics or politicking is a game that is more ostensible and reserved for the political arena; however, metaphorically, much of the political discourse can also be found within organizations. Politics in organizations, then, is design for groups to reconcile differences between interests, conflicts, and power (Morgan, 2006). The case study to be analyze (Cutting Back at City Hall) is one that illustrates all three aspects of interests, conflicts, and power as the City of Smithville, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the International Association of Firefighters (IAF), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) deliberate the city’s proposed budget.
From 1965 to 1973, the United States military sent over 536,000 combat troops into the jungles, villages, and swamps of Vietnam. Of these 536,000, over 58,000 men would never return. Despite air superiority, artillery, and the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world, the United States slumped to defeat by the hands of both their enemy and themselves. Unpreventably so, the United States of America was defeated in Vietnam due egregious errors in political and military judgment, lack of popular support and an extreme unpreparedness to fight the Vietcong and North Vietnamese in a guerilla war.
“Most people in the U.S. want to do the right thing, and they want others to do the right thing. Thus, reputation and trust are important to pretty much everyone individuals and organizations. However, individuals do have different values, attributes, and priorities that guide their decisions and behavior. Taken to an extreme, almost any personal value, attribute, or priority can “cause” an ethical breach (e.g. risk taking, love of money or sta...
1. Bovard, James. Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000
The act of whistle-blowing is an ethical issue that all employees have the right to. Whether they decide to make the corrupt information known publicly or anonymously, the information they provide can protect everyone involved. The ethical and moral sides of whistle-blowing can go both ways. In order to protect the customers, patients, or consumers of the harmful products the companies are offering, employees that have morals and feel the need to make the truth be known have an ethical responsibility to do so. Issues of being a whistle-blower are more controversial than the responsibilities of the employees doing so. When a whistle-blower takes action, they expose information from their company that it not meant to be public. They basically turn their backs away from their company and colleagues by revealing the truth. When surveying these issues, an employee who is torn by exposing information or keeping silent must decide whether it is more ethical to stay loyal to their organization or to the organization's
The power of executive privilege has been extremely controversial since basically the beginning of the United States as a democratic government. Many saw this power come into a greater public focus particularly during the Nixon presidency and the infamous Watergate Scandal, but the theory and use of executive privilege existed long before Nixon. As in true American fashion, some argue in favor of executive privilege, while others view it in a more negative light. The intense controversy is what makes executive privilege so intriguing to review in a deeper and more in depth analysis. The theory of executive privilege has derived its power throughout evolution of time, a series of presidencies, and quite a few pinpointed circumstances resulting in some very notorious court cases.
In “Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power,” Peter Woll states that our system of government, “. . in many ways supported bureaucratic organization and functions independent of the president,” (311). According to Woll, the Framers intended to establish an independent bureaucracy, as they gave Congress substantial power over the administrative “branch.” However, because of the bureaucracy’s independence, Woll asserts that, though he possesses the authority, the president often lacks the power to control the bureaucracy. Naturally, this can lead to the corruption and inefficiency of the administrative process. Also contributing to this inefficiency and corruption, is the very nature of the bureaucracy itself. By definition, a bureaucracy is a “large, complex organization of appointed officials,” (“American Government: Institutions and Politics”); this inherent complexity causes many of the issues of bureaucracy. In discussing bureaucratic agencies’ budgets, James Wilson claims that “. . since measuring the output of a bureau is often difficult. . .the bureau has a great deal of freedom within which to seek the largest possible budget,” (“The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, Wilson). Essentially, the vastness of each bureaucratic agency makes close scrutiny a time consuming and futile effort. Additionally, Woll contends that “. . the three branches do not always use to the fullest extent their authority to regulate the bureaucracy,” (“Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power”, 314). This assertion suggests that perhaps the source of the bureaucracy’s problems lie, not within the institution itself, but within the reluctance of the other branches of government to regulate it. Wilson proffers another explanation for the bureaucracy’s inefficiency in his scrutiny of the USPS, arguing that
Egoism focuses on what is best for one’s self. The top executives may have followed this ethics system because they made millions of dollars off of the Enron scandal even though they knew what they were doing was wrong. Since they were doing what was best for them, they must have been acting ethically. It could also be argued that utilitarianism was at work in regards to the Enron scandal. Utilitarianism holds that an action is ethical if it does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. The end justifies the means. By manipulating their statements, Enron was helping all of their employees and shareholders to keep their jobs and money. This justified and made their choice to lie on their statements the ethical decision to
The Vietnam War was a brutal and bloody conflict that took the lives of more than fifty-eight thousand American soldiers and an estimated two million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. In addition, air bombings, mortar attacks, and gun battles destroyed countless forests, farmlands, villages, and city neighborhoods in both North and South Vietnam. As the war progressed, it also took a great emotional toll on its American and Vietnamese participants as they struggled to keep themselves, their comrades, and—in the case of Vietnamese civilians—their families alive.
John Rohr views on Democratic Morality and the Administrative Law and how these laws affect the organizations. Democratic Morality deals with the issue that large organizations will have more control or influence on the development of policy. The Administrative law is concern with the legal aspect of the organization and the fairness across the board. The author examines the administrative law of democratic morality between the periods of 1800s and 1900s, with emphasis on the how democratic morality was used to bring about changes in the organizations. The author point is that bureaucrats who deal with policies should look to the Supreme Court for guidance on the constitution. It is important to understand the constitution and be able to explain why the attack on separation of powers in Congressional Government calls for changes in amendments to the constitution of the United States. The democratic morality policies as it relates to the law are constructed around the perspective of democratic responsiveness, public opinion, citizens, religious, and partisanship affect adoption of policy; these policies will include the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a profound effect on policy-making in America.
Public administration formally became a recognized academic and professional field in the late 19th century. Many public administration scholars contend that the start of public administration becoming a field of study was the 1887 Political Science Quarterly article “The Study of Administration” by a young Woodrow Wilson. (Shafritz, Russell, & Borick, 2011, pg. 28) Woodrow Wilson was classified as being a member of the Progressive Movement. The Progressives were a varied group of politicians, academics, advocates and activists who sought to abolish what they saw as the corrupt practices of the patronage system and to reform the new industrialized society that America had become. They objected to the pervasive corruption of government and sought to do away with the political machines that had become the standard of the time.
Woodrow Wilson’s purpose in writing “The Study of Administration” is to bring awareness that the government systems in place need to be re-evaluated and improved. Wilson encourages we need to examine the history of administration set forth by others in determining certain needs to be accomplished in effective ways and methods. Wilson’s desirable outcomes for research within the public administration field are for government systems to become more productive and organized.