Confl Etice in Administratie

http://aas.sagepub.com

Administration & Society

DOI: 10.1177/0095399705284206 2006; 38; 113 Administration & Society

F. Neil Brady and David W. Hart An Aesthetic Theory of Conflict in Administrative Ethics

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/1/113 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Administration & Society Additional services and information for

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/1/113 Citations

by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/1/113


10.1177/0095399705284206ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / March 2006Brady, Hart / CONFLICT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS

Disputatio Sine Fine

AN AESTHETIC THEORYOF CONFLICT INADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS

F. NEIL BRADYDAVID W. HARTBrigham Young University

Normally, one would think of conflict in administrative ethics as something to be avoided orresolved. This article, however, explores the possibility that conflict in ethics is essential andproductive. Great art is beautiful precisely because of tension, not in spite of it, and theauthors argue that administrative ethics is more like art than science. Therefore, the authorsadopt an aesthetic point of view that examines tension and balance and reveals a wide rangeof types of conflict in ethics. In fact, the authors articulate 15 types of conflict and argue thatthe recognition of conflict is necessary for its proper management.

Keywords: administrative ethics; management; conflict; tension; dilemma; art; aesthetics

The idea of conflict in administrative ethics has important implications.“Conflicts of interest” or “conflicts of duty,” among others, are often men-tioned when discussing ethical problems (Cooper, 1998; Denhardt, 1988).Yet the topic is a troubling one: The presence of conflict—especially sys-temic conflict—in ethical deliberation implies fragmentation, inconsis-tency, or incompleteness in ethical theory. As a result, we tend to see con-flict as something to be overcome, resolved, or eliminated.

Indeed, the strong tendency in modern ethics is to assume that solu-tions to ethical issues can be found. The assumption is that given enough

113

EDITOR’S NOTE: In this Disputatio Sine Fine we have an article by Hart and Brady with aresponse by Goodsell. Enjoy.

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 38 No. 1, March 2006 113-134DOI: 10.1177/0095399705284206© 2006 Sage Publications



time or enough talk or enough clarity of thought, ethical conflict and dis-agreement can be transformed into agreement, conformity, or unanimity.Reduction of conflict is the ideal toward which most efforts in ethicaltheory aim.

In contrast, this article regards ethical conflict or tension as an essentialcomponent of ethics. This is especially true for public administrationbecause of the need to address a variety of perspectives in a pluralistic so-ciety. This article builds on an older tradition—dating back to the Greeks(Plato, 1982, 1984; Xenophon, 1968) and especially the Enlightenment(R. E. Norton, 1995)—that there is a useful, even necessary, connectionbetween ethical theory and aesthetic theory. Our contention is that the roleof conflict in ethical theory is not only unavoidable but that it should beaccepted as a necessary component of a good life. On the other hand, atheory of ethics that shies away from conflict does not understand its ownnature very well. Instead of arguing that ethical conflict be seen as a limi-tation or mental challenge to be surmounted, we assert that the skilledmanagement of ethical tension is a fundamental part of the ethical pro-cess. Consequently, it is fundamental to good administrative practice aswell.

The first contribution of this article is to acknowledge the nature ofconflict in ethics. Conflict and dilemma in ethics should be embracedrather than downplayed, rationalized, or ignored. We support this asser-tion by introducing aesthetic theory to show how understanding conflictmanagement may be more important than solving ethical conflict. Wethen address the issue of conflict in ethics more systematically by adopt-ing a framework that categorizes conflict into a schema of 15 types of con-flict, which we illustrate with examples from public administration. Weconclude by further developing the idea of ethics through the lens of aes-thetic theory. In short, we argue that the implications of ethical conflict areimportant and, furthermore, that an ethical life is indeed a beautiful life.

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT IN ETHICS

One of the problems with many traditional approaches to ethics is theunderlying assumption that the desired result is a dependable decisionprocedure—some unitary approach that, like mathematics, will supplycorrect answers. In other words, with the right formula or recipe, there is acorrect action or set of actions for any given ethical situation. This is a veryimportant issue that has persistently plagued moral philosophy. In recent

114 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / March 2006



years scholars such as Charles Taylor (1989) have criticized mainstreammoral philosophy for displaying such a penchant for a unitary conceptionof the moral. Perhaps we can call this aim the quest for moral unity.Although many recognize a variety of ethical theories and perspectives, itis often implicitly assumed that ethical reality is ultimately unitary, if onlyit could be articulated. This desire for moral unity is certainly understand-able; who would not hope to realize this goal? A unified theory of ethicswould, ideally, give hope for a universal approach to all ethical problems.

Edmund Pincoffs (1986) refers to this method as “quandary ethics.” Heargues that quandary ethics “supposes that the ultimate relevance of ethicsis to the resolution of the problematic situations into which we fall. Theproblems in question are practical, not philosophical” (p. 19). Conse-quently, quandary ethics “must, according to the argument, provide somestable means of arriving at decisions, no matter how circumstances maychange. This is usually interpreted as requiring that rules and principles(or anyway ‘good reasons’) of universal application should be provided”(p. 18).

In reaction to this reductionism, many writers have adopted a moreeclectic approach that has resulted in important contributions and newdirections to the literature. Cavanagh, Moberg, and Velasquez (1981) rec-ommended a tripartite division of ethical theories along the lines of utility,rights, and justice. Others have revived an interest in Aristotelian virtueethics (Cooper, 1987; Dobel, 1990; Frederickson & Hart, 1985; Hart,1989; MacIntyre, 1981; Solomon, 1993). Still others have emphasized theconcepts of care and personal relationships as fundamental in ethical the-ory (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). Although Kantian deontology andutilitarian teleology have captured most scholars’ attention in the 20thcentury, many writers now view those two theories, taken together, as toorestrictive. This century promises to continue casting a much wider net tocapture more that swims in the sea of ethical theory.

Along these lines, Brady’s (2003) theory of six voices in ethics isanother recent effort to counter reductionist thinking about ethics. Thismodel makes use of a six-cell schema defined by widely recognized andfundamental concepts in ethics to organize six macro perspectives in eth-ics and incorporates most major ethical theories. Those six macro per-spectives are (a) universal principles, (b) situation ethics (or ethics ofresponsibility), (c) character or social ethics (or ethics of ideals), (d) ethicsof self-actualization, (e) ethics of universal care, and (f) ethics of personalrelationships.1 The idea behind this effort was to acknowledge the contri-

Brady, Hart / CONFLICT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS 115



butions of the major ethical theories while avoiding the pitfalls of relyingon a single theory.

One of the unintended effects of relying on a single approach to ethicsis the elimination of conflict and disagreement, either by claiming (as fre-quently happens) that the apparent plurality of perspectives is ultimatelyreducible to one, overarching perspective or by recognizing a plurality ofperspectives and then articulating some decision tree or other arrange-ment that views the perspectives as complementary. In contrast, the goalof this article is to secure an irreducible place for conflict in ethics. Toachieve this goal, we will show how ethical conflict and tension areessential for organizational good health.

AESTHETIC THEORY AND ETHICS

One might not be inclined to welcome an ethical theory that magnifiesfragmentation and conflict; the quest for moral unity certainly discour-ages such. The quest for moral unity has focused our concern rathernarrowly on what we ought to do and not enough on what is valuable initself or on what we should admire or love (Taylor, 1989, p. 84). But thereare alternative ways to regard the basic nature of ethics. We proposeapproaching ethics more like aesthetics, in the sense that ethical thinkingis more artful than it is scientific and that the ethical life is more beautifulthan it is correct.

Aesthetic theory itself supplies some important links to ethics. A majorcomponent of art theory centers on the tension between contrasting ele-ments as the basis of beauty in art. Eli Siegel (1972), for example, liststhese pairs of contrasts: rest and motion, oneness and manyness, structureand function, form and substance, line and color, intellect and emotion.Other contrasts include rhythm and surprise, control and spontaneity, per-sonal and impersonal, simplicity and complexity, heaviness and lightness,repose and energy, light and dark, depth and surface, and so on. In otherwords, conflict and tension are not a problem in art; rather, they are whatmake beauty possible in the first place. When an artist can balance theinfluence of conflicting elements in a painting, the painting becomesincreasingly interesting and praiseworthy. On the other hand, if one ormore of the tensions is not maintained—if, for example, the element ofrepetition dominates the element of surprise—the quality of the painting




diminishes. Lacking aesthetic tension, the visual arts become dull anduninteresting. Aesthetic excellence cannot be explained without appeal-ing to a plurality of elements that frequently conflict.

Ethics, we believe, is analogous in many ways to art. Thomas Moore(1996) writes, “There is no essential conflict between morality and aes-thetics; in fact, they serve each other well when each has subtlety anddepth” (p. 222). In other words, the presence of conflict and dilemma isnot necessarily evidence of defect or flaw. As is the case in art, it might sig-nal the need for contrasting elements to work together in the interest ofsome overall vision or project. This is especially true in the public sector,where democracy gives voice and legitimacy to all kinds of ethicalperspectives.

FIFTEEN CONFLICTS IN ETHICS

Various kinds of dilemmas can occur in ethical deliberation. One typeis conflict within a particular perspective. We speak of conflicts of duty orconflicting goals or conflicting values. The director of a school play, forexample, might be faced with the conflicting values of quantity and qual-ity in deciding whether to maximize participation in the play or pursuedramatic excellence by selecting only the best actors. Though in this caseone may value both, he or she cannot have both at the same time becausethese are conflicting ideals. One may also imagine conflicting personalvalues or conflicting principles or conflicting duties, and so on. Such con-flicts are something like family disputes—they can be serious, but there isreason to think that some sort of agreement is possible because the partiesinvolved in the conflict at least speak the same language.

Conflicts between perspectives are different; this type of conflict ismore like comparing apples and oranges. Using the six voices schema(Brady, 2003), we can identify 15 possible dilemmas using the pairwisecombinations of those perspectives; these provide a helpful frameworkthat illustrates the variety of administrative dilemmas. The following ismeant to briefly illustrate the utility of the framework; it by no meansserves as a comprehensive discussion. There may be other ways to arrangea variety of perspectives in ethics, but this schema lends itself particularlywell to articulating the many different kinds of conflict in ethics.




1. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLE WITH RESPONSIBILITY

Rules are a product of principle; they are the social mechanism bywhich principles are translated into expected practice. Where rules are notperfect, we rely on personal responsibility for ethical judgment. We wouldlike rules to be designed so that they bring about precisely the resultshoped for, but the letter of the law and the spirit of the law do not usuallycoincide completely. To suppose that they do when they do not is to giverules too much credit. The phenomenon of hunkering down under the pro-tection of rules also serves to absolve personal responsibility in decisionmaking (Milgram, 1974; Mosher, 1968).

Although one person may be inclined to act on principle and dem-onstrate rule-guided behavior, another person may prefer to base his or heractions on intrinsic motivation and to take personal responsibility forthose actions. As John Caputo (1993) put it, the latter kind of person

has been shaped by experience, matured by events, and has acquired thehabit of having an insight into what events demand. A good many thingshave happened to him, each of which was just different enough from theother as to demand from him . . . an insight into its novelty, a capacity toreinvent. . . . He has, over time, cultivated an eye for the idiosyncratic. Heknows what is needed at the time, what is too much and not too much, whenenough is enough or not enough, neither an excess nor a defect. That is theskill of judging in concreto. That is a matter of hanging loose, of having anice or a delicate sense of what is required . . . here and now. He knows whatis appropriate to the situation. (p. 100)

Administrators can more or less act on principle or more or less bearresponsibility for acting, but they cannot simultaneously do both. Actingon principle and bearing responsibility are two different ethical perspec-tives. The clash of these two views is illustrated by countless dilemmas inorganizations. When does one make exceptions to rules? How does oneknow when to seek shelter under principle and when to take personalresponsibility? The universalist would ask, “What principle could we allagree to act by in situations like this?” The particularist would respond,“Forget that. What should I do right here and now?” Two kinds of ethicalmistakes are possible in this situation: One is the simple violation of prin-ciple or rule, and the other is refusal to bear responsibility. As Bailey(1965) reminds us, “He who deviates frequently is subversive; he whonever deviates at all is lost; and he who tinkers with procedures without anunderstanding of substantive consequence is foolish” (p. 292). The result




is conflicting dilemmas in which there is often no clear ethical outcome orone right way to resolve the issue.

2. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLES WITH IDEALS

Ideals, as used here, represents the objects of a universal teleology—ends, goals, or purposes derived from a universal perspective such asdemocracy, community, efficiency, and so on. This second kind of dilem-ma involves the conflict of principles with ideals. This is perhaps bestexemplified in one of the fundamental tensions between principle andideal in public administration. Ideally, government organizations wouldbe efficient and highly responsive and would assume the best characteris-tics of private-sector organizations (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Yet theprinciples on which many governments were founded often force us tomanage organizations in a way that allows for fairness, equity, and demo-cratic participation (Okun, 1975; Schultze, 1977; Yates, 1982). Unfortu-nately, these principles can conflict with the ideals of efficiency andresponsiveness. In other words, sometimes our efforts to be morebusiness-like in government are superseded by the principles of fairnessand democracy. Thus, the rules or layers of bureaucracy will alwaysconflict with efficiency, responsiveness, and even productivity (Lynch,Lynch, & Cruise, 2002). The conflict of rules with results is a frequentoccurrence in organizational life (Brady, 1990).

3. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLEWITH PERSONAL GOALS

Teleological approaches in ethics can be universal, or they can be par-ticular, or more concrete. A eudaimonic teleology assumes that individu-als each have different “personal destinies” (D. L. Norton, 1976) or indi-vidual goals that may or may not coincide with living a life based onprinciple. Probably the most common way this dilemma is manifestedin modern organizations is the conflict of organizational norms withpersonal expression.

This dilemma is frequently illustrated in the clash between organiza-tional regimen and employee fulfillment. For example, a person mightfeel a deep personal need to become a lawyer but be unable to pass the barexam. Although it is important to acknowledge an individual’s desire toachieve a personal goal—for example, becoming a lawyer—it is essential




that a person be qualified to function effectively within that profession.Organizational standards can conflict with personal motivations.

4. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLE WITH UNIVERSAL CARING

The fifth perspective in the six voices theory is labeled universal care,and it represents any universal axiology or general theory of value. Cer-tainly environmental ethics, for example, represents this perspective. Wecare for the world in which we live, not out of principle but because wevalue it. In the world of environmental ethics, that compassion often con-flicts with principles such as individual freedom.

In organizations, principle and universal caring frequently conflict.Principle might compel a supervisor to discipline an employee, whereasawareness of the employee’s difficult personal problems might urge com-passion. Bailey (1965) mentions that administrators will sometimes findit impossible to be both kind and truthful, for example. Guy (1991)reminds us of a similar conflict in health and human service agencies thatmight want to emphasize caring when doing so might require sacrificingaccountability and fairness.

Much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action programs isgrounded in this type of ethical dilemma. On one hand, we want torespond to the needs of those who have been discriminated against for solong; on the other hand, we want to live by the merit principle, or the prin-ciple of equal opportunity. The issue is divisive precisely because we mustchoose between principle and caring.

5. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLE WITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES

The sixth ethical perspective represents particular values and prefer-ences. We focus here on personal relationships because they often reflectan individual’s highest priorities.

The conflict of private interest with public decisions is a commondilemma for public administrators (Appleby, 1952). How does one act onprinciple for the sake of the public and at the same time serve all privateinterests of which one is also a part? It is too easy just to say that principleshould always trump private interest. Bailey (1965) recognized this genu-ine dilemma by stating that one must “be consistent enough to deserveethical respect from revered colleagues and from oneself; to be pliableenough to survive within an organization and to succeed in effectuating




moral purposes—this is the dilemma and the glory of public service”(p. 290).

This dilemma is also illustrated in the frequent conflict between friend-ship and the principle of merit in hiring practices. The merit principle sug-gests that the best qualified candidate should get the job. But a friend is afriend, and the friendship may be damaged if principle is given the nodover relationship. Emphasis of principle over friendship might generatean organizational atmosphere that is sterile and utilitarian, whereasemphasizing friendship stifles a sense of fairness and is contrary to theideals of bureaucracy articulated by Max Weber (Gerth & Mills, 1946,chap. 8). Suppose you are faced with the task of writing a letter of recom-mendation for an employee who has been disruptive and has challenginginterpersonal skills. Do you act on principle and tell the truth, or do youfacilitate his or her leaving to preserve morale among coworkers? Con-flicts of principle with preference are abundant in organizational life.

6. THE CONFLICT OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH IDEALS

An ethic of responsibility is particular, not universal; it sees duty andobligation as falling differently among individuals. One person’s individ-ual responsibilities may not be the same as another person’s. This perspec-tive is best illustrated by the ethical perspectives of professionals such asphysicians, teachers, lawyers, and public administrators. They regardexperience and good judgment as the core of their approach to ethicalissues because each case demands professional and experienced care andattention (Martinez, 1998).

This approach to ethics can also conflict with other approaches, such asideals. Administrators, for example, are often torn between maintainingthe ideal of a cooperative, friendly working group and emphasizing thepersonal responsibilities of staying on task, breaking logjams, moving thework along, and voting in ways that jeopardize the cooperative morale ofthe group. Ideals are something to work toward, but they do not necessar-ily take precedence over competing elements of group work as may bedefined by the responsibilities of the leader of the group.

7. CONFLICTS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH PERSONAL GOALS

One’s professional orientation may or may not be compatible with thekinds of pursuits that enable a person to thrive and “come into one’s own.”




The personal responsibility to be a parent, for example, might conflictwith the personal goal of going back to school to further one’s education.With limited time available, one or the other may be neglected. Similarconflicts occur at work, such as when an employee finds that his or herresponsibilities at work are not personally fulfilling. From this perspec-tive, the manager’s task of matching employee talent and interest to thedemands of a particular job takes on added importance.

8. CONFLICTS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH UNIVERSAL VALUES

A sense of individual responsibility does not usually conflict with uni-versal, shared values. Most people would regard a livable, toxin-free envi-ronment not only as a common value but also as a personal responsibilitythat each of us bears. On the other hand, many responsibilities are not souniversally founded. One’s responsibility to care for one’s family mightconflict with the shared values of larger groups or communities. Forexample, consider Brazilian farmers who clear land to feed their familiesbut at the same time contribute to both international pollution and the lossof rain forest. Or imagine automobile owners who would like to avoidcontributing to global pollution but face a commute to work withoutaccess to public transportation. The responsibility to provide for one’sfamily and participate in a reasonable way in the local economy does notalways allow for following universal values or avoiding universal costs.

9. CONFLICTS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES

Vendors routinely try to exploit this potential for conflict by offeringgifts to purchasing agents, hoping that through gifts and other appeals tofriendship they can induce the purchasing agents to compromise theirsense of fiduciary responsibility (Appleby, 1952; Lieberman, 1973; Rob-erts, 2001; Roberts & Doss, 1992). One of the common threats to profes-sionalism is the introduction of personal values—the preference forfriends, the opportunity to exploit one’s expertise and power for personalgain, the penchant of a federal leader to engage in pork-barrel politics forhis or her home state or town.

10. CONFLICTS OF IDEALS WITH PERSONAL GOALS

People’s personal goals may be quite idiosyncratic and not generallythought of as ideal for the larger population. Such personal goals may




even conflict with shared ideals. Ayn Rand is famous for exploiting thisdilemma—the clash of social ideal with personal vision—in her novels.

An excellent example of this type of conflict is found in arts funding.On one hand, government wishes to promote the cultural benefits of thearts. On the other hand, an artist’s vision and subsequent output can con-flict with generally recognized ideals. One need only look at the row cre-ated by the Mapplethorpe exhibits of the 1980s or the more recent contro-versy at the Brooklyn Museum of Art to see clear examples of thisconflict.

11. CONFLICTS OF IDEALS WITH UNIVERSAL CARING

Normally, our ideals and values do not conflict. However, public policyoften confronts such a conflict, as in the conflict between financial effi-ciency and welfare. Welfare policies are commonly supported by an ethicof care and compassion; yet many policy makers also value the overarch-ing economic ideal of efficiency. Thus, although it may be compassionateto redistribute taxes to the poor or needy, it may not be efficient. Further-more, it may violate other ideals, such as the ideal that one should earnwhat one receives.

12. CONFLICTS OF IDEALS WITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES

Our choice of friends is among the most visible of our personal prefer-ences. In organizational settings, such choices often conflict with ideals.Equality, for example, is an ideal of many organizations, but friendshipsdevelop into cliques and alignments that jeopardize the ideal of equality.Indeed, the conflict between personal preference and organizational ide-als manifests itself in a variety of ways. Self-expression as found in officeromances, the decoration of personal space, clothing, styles of language,and so on is often seen as a threat to institutional ideals and objectives.

13. CONFLICTS OF PERSONAL GOALS WITH UNIVERSAL CARING

This conflict is among the most common dilemmas faced by individu-als and organizations. It can represent the clash between one’s personalgoals and one’s regard for others. This conflict is illustrated in “The Para-ble of the Sadhu,” one of the most widely used case studies from the Har-vard Business Review (McCoy, 1983). It recounts the experience of a WallStreet executive who spent a summer climbing in the Himalayas. In the




middle of the journey, just as he and his guide were to surmount a highmountain pass, they discovered an Indian holy man, a Sadhu, who wasnear death. They could abandon their plans to surmount the pass and helpthis man by carrying him back down to a village, or they could press on,trusting that other teams below them might be in a better position to help.After dressing the Sadhu in warmer clothing, they resumed their trek andleft him there for other teams to find.

14. CONFLICTS OF PERSONAL GOALSWITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES

In general, this dilemma is commonly illustrated in the conflictbetween career and family or friends. The movie It’s a Wonderful Lifeillustrates this dilemma well. Jimmy Stewart plays the role of GeorgeBailey, who time after time chooses to postpone self-actualization for thesake of friends who need his help in other ways—friends who often needhis help to pursue their own personal goals. The movie clearly sides withthe importance of friends, but one must not forget that George Baileyspent a lot of years doing very ordinary, uninspiring work in a smallbusiness.

15. CONFLICTS OF UNIVERSAL CARINGWITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES

A classic dilemma in ethical theory goes like this:

A house is burning down, and two people are inside. One is your spouse; theother is a world-renowned physician who is the only person who can savethe people of a nearby town from an epidemic. There is time to save onlyone. Whom should you save?

Of course, both people are important, and one risks becoming too paro-chial if one neglects others in the wider society.

This same conflict manifests itself in the dilemma between publicgoods and private interests (Lane, 1988). For example, most people wouldagree that the homeless should be provided with decent and suitable livingenvironments; it appeals to our tendency toward universal caring. Yet try-ing to locate shelters for the homeless or build low-income housing isnearly impossible because most citizens are adamantly opposed to thosetypes of programs being located in their neighborhoods. This is a classicproblem of social policy and public administration: Although few people




would oppose low-income housing or a homeless shelter (universal car-ing), no one wants it in his or her backyard (personal preferences). Thisconflict between public good and private interest provides a final illustra-tion of the conflict between the fifth and sixth voices in Brady’s (2003)schema.

The great variety of dilemmas possible in ethical thinking is a directproduct of multiple independent perspectives in ethics. In public adminis-tration, we face more than just conflicting values; we face conflicts amongour duties and goals and our professional and personal values (see Cooper,1998; Denhardt, 1988; Gortner, 1991; Menzel, 1995; Morgan & Kass,1991, 1993; Woller, 1998). These conflicts can further be differentiatedby their degree of universality or particularity. What is simply a personalpreference to the economist can represent great diversity to the ethicallyaware public administrator. This diversity is important; it would be a mis-take, for example, simply to get rid of such issues by voting on them or bypresuming they are all simply manifestations of varying personal prefer-ence. The active organizational presence of principles, responsibilities,ideals, goals, values, and personal preferences is healthy and challenging,as the next section will show.

ART AND ETHICS

From a more traditional point of view, this result might seem bewilder-ing. But from an aesthetic perspective, these results are both expected andwelcomed. Great art is defined by the presence of conflicting elementswhose tensions are the foundation of interest and beauty. Art without sur-prise is uninteresting, whereas art without rhythm is bewildering; but artwith both rhythm and surprise balances the familiar with the new andachieves interest and holds our attention. Psychologists describe the aes-thetic experience in terms of balancing redundancy with newness: Neitherart that is too redundant or familiar nor art that is too deviant or experimen-tal provides enjoyment. Rather, artistic enjoyment consists in “maintain-ing a steady balance between the new and the familiar” (Scitovsky, 1976,p. 51). So it is, we believe, with ethics. The decision maker who ignorescertain perspectives or who emphasizes other perspectives risks creating apicture of human interaction that is unbalanced, skewed, and confusing.

Returning to the pairwise conflicts illustrated above, we can easily seehow conflict is essential for healthy organizations. For example, thinkingof the first conflict (between principle and responsibility), the logical




(nonartistic) options for reducing the conflict are simple: Either hunkerdown in a set of rules or rely on employees to use their judgment responsi-bly. In the latter case, one sets aside the considerable experience thatunderlies the construction of most rules in the first place. Employees areleft to their own discretion, regardless of their experience and ability; andvariances in ability result in inconsistent judgment that, in the worst cases,looks purely capricious. In the former case, however, the organizationsimply becomes bureaucratic or worse—an organization without humanengagement or responsiveness and with excessive structure. In such an or-ganization, discretion is suppressed, and an artificial clarity and simplicityreigns (Finlay, Martin, Roman, & Blum, 1995). By honoring the tension,however, the artistic organization accepts the unsettling conflict betweenprinciple and responsibility. It knows that it sacrifices some comfort forlife and some clarity for interest.

This tension is quite similar to the endless conflict between the individ-ual and the organization, especially when this conflict is viewed as a ten-sion between organizational norm and individual discretion. On one hand,one could hope for a completely normative organization in which conven-tionality and conformity are dominant and much of working and living isscripted. On the other hand, one could imagine a highly decentralized or-ganization (e.g., dot-coms) where employees are free to dress, speak,work, and behave as they please. Neither alternative is wholly satisfactoryfor the typical case; the most interesting and livable alternative is an orga-nization in which both convention and personal discretion have a place—apermanent tension between universally felt and individually felt duties.

Similar justifications can be provided for each of the remaining pair-wise conflicts described above; none can be reduced or suppressed with-out damaging the health of the organization. Organizations need to focussimultaneously on principles, responsibilities, ideals, personal goals,shared values, and relationships. Peter Vaill (1989) refers to this milieu asthe “permanent whitewater” of organizational life. This may be complex,but it is engaging and highly humane.

If administrators are to successfully navigate this whitewater, they beara significant aesthetic burden. They bear responsibility for balancing theinfluence of contrasting ethical components in administrative decisions.The failure to do so invites ethical inferiority and organizational patholo-gies. But balancing multiple perspectives is not easy. Some people cometo fear multiple voices in ethics and try to reduce the complexity. Less art-ful managers might emphasize the influence of some perspectives to theneglect of others. The neglect of principles, for example, results in chaos,




loss of coordination, growth of uncertainty, confusion, and egregiouswrongdoing. Loss of responsibility in organizations leads to what VictorThompson (1961) calls “bureaupathologies,” where principles and rulesgrow unchecked (see also Adams & Balfour, 1998; Crozier, 1964; VanWart & Denhardt, 2001). Loss of ideals or goals leads to organizationalaimlessness, an absence of a shared vision, and the loss of a commonsense of direction. The neglect of personal goals leads to employee alien-ation and a loss of enthusiasm. The neglect of universal values or compas-sion allows organizational values to become too narrow, focusing only onefficiency, accountability, self-interest, promotability, and so on. And theneglect of relationships leads an administrator to think the organizationexists independently and is sovereign in the context of stakeholders suchas constituents, legislators, political appointees, and so on. As Rollo May(1991) wrote, “Life consists of living in contradictions; and the personwho forgets that is doomed to live in a make-believe world. Living in con-tradiction takes courage, but it is thrilling at the same moment” (p. 72). Forthe same reasons, Martha Nussbaum (1986) has described the ethical lifeas fragile and vulnerable. The human faculty of imagination is as impor-tant for administrators as it is for artists.

Unartistic administrators suffer from a form of what Thomas Moore(1992) calls “fundamentalism,” or the inability or reluctance to entertainin thought the rich textures of organizational life. They reduce complexityto simplicity and winnow out the conflicting elements. As Moore (1992)states, “The tragedy of fundamentalism in any context is its capacity tofreeze life into a solid cube of meaning” (p. 236). From a more specificethical perspective, this fundamentalist or reductivist approach has dan-gerous implications. By simplifying dilemmas and reducing them to rules(implying that there is always a correct answer), one may likely forsakethe most important elements of ethical deliberation (Pincoffs, 1986).

Thus, the best administrators will seek to incorporate all ethical per-spectives into their managerial toolkit. The great administrator does whatthe great artist does: He or she creatively balances the influence of all ethi-cal voices in the organization. Such managers are more “free to explorethe varied and rich texture of moral talk and thought” (Pincoffs, 1986,p. 174).

An administrator will be looking for consistency, of course, but also forbalance. Ethical balance requires that all ethical perspectives have influ-ence within the organization. The varying perspectives may agree at somedecision points but conflict at others. However, over the long haul, no per-spective is ignored or slighted. Likewise, no single perspective holds a




trump card. Modern ethics in the West often emphasizes principles andrules, rights and justice, impartiality and fairness. But this is just historicalaccident; one purpose of this article is to encourage a more inclusiveconcept of ethics.

An aesthetic theory of ethical conflict also implies that ethical deci-sions are often highly contextual. The relevant context includes not justthe features of the problem facing the manager, isolated from the organi-zation and its history, but also a sense of the entire organization and thehistory of the influence of a variety of ethical perspectives. For example, atypical case in administrative ethics involves a loyal employee who isasked to do something questionable by a person with power—a “mightversus right” case. Such a situation usually involves some ambiguity:“Don’t worry, this is standard procedure; don’t make waves.” Normally,discussions of this case assume that the ethical issue is choosing a right orwrong act or making a right or wrong decision. But if considered from amore aesthetic point of view, the decision maker will perceive that thepresent ambiguity is the result of a much larger, incomplete picture; nomoments of decision are self-contained. Moral integrity depends onunderstanding how all the elements fit together over time rather than onimputing motives to others and resolutely standing one’s ground in an iso-lated incident. Management is a moral picture in progress. Rules, respon-sibilities, ideals, goals, values, and relationships (to mention a few) allinteract over time to construct a moral atmosphere that is reasonable andbalanced. So, when an administrator is confronted with a moral conun-drum, he or she may be forced to act according to his or her best judgmentat the time, knowing that parts of the picture can usually be corrected, ifneed be, as the picture becomes clearer.

CONCLUSION

Sidney Harris (1986) wrote that “society is like a pot of soup: It needsdifferent, and contrasting, ingredients to give it body and flavor and last-ing nourishment. It is compound, not simple. . . . A blend to satisfy themost divergent palates” (p. 13). This article has tried to show that adminis-trative decision making is much like a pot of soup—or a painting or a song.Ethical life is multivocal, ambiguous, conflicting, and difficult; but it isalso beautiful, excellent, and praiseworthy—and all for the same reasons.Excellence in management demands some unusual skills. Harris added,




The best test I know for deciding how sane and rational you are is whetheryou can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. It is a paradoxbecause it seems irrational to hold two contradictory notions at the sametime; but being able to do so indicates that you have the strength and sanityto withstand the tensions between the two. . . . All nature, indeed, is a vastaggregation of contradictories. . . . So it is, also, with our social systems andeconomic arrangements. . . . None of them is in perfect balance; eachrequires something of the opposite in order to maintain a productive ten-sion. If there is one universal law, it seems to be that of uniting contradicto-ries. (p. 155)

Conflict in ethics is not something to be reduced, avoided, ignored, orfeared; it is to be welcomed, but only if ethics is properly understood.

When the aesthetic analogy is properly applied to ethics, administra-tive life becomes more human and less mechanistic. Hillman (1989) statesthat a

relaxed ego that honors the many offers considerable rewards. We findvitality in tension, learn from paradox, gather wisdom by straddling ambiv-alence, and gain confidence in trusting the confusion that naturally arisesfrom multiplicity. The sign of a soulful life is its rich texture and its com-plexity. The soul’s complexes, therefore, are not to be simply ironed out,because they are the stuff of human complexity. (p. 38)

Those in management spend much time straightening out and reducing allthese tensions, which are usually handled by adopting one dominant ethi-cal perspective to the exclusion of others. This can be achieved throughbureaucratization, “good ol’ boy” associations, division of responsibility,and so on. But if too much simplicity is gained, much vitality is lost.Parker Palmer (2000) wrote that “[opposites] need each other for health”(p. 99), whereas Joseph Campbell (1988) said, “One way to go crazy is tohave one [psychological] function dominate the whole system and notserve the order” (p. 240).

The whole point of managing is to arrange and coordinate things inbeautiful ways. This requires ethical decision making with an aestheticsensibility. Considered this way, good management affects our livesthrough and through. As administrators, we must seek to be principled,responsible, idealistic, motivated, caring, loyal—and perhaps much more.Great managers accomplish this and do so beautifully. There are separateethical languages for each of these perspectives, but we lack the aestheticlanguage that enables us to bridge the tensions that each language creates.Eli Siegel (1946) offers an analogy that might help:




A drum and a clarinet are playing at once. The way they play is plainly dif-ferent. If the drum dries to play exactly what the clarinet is playing, theresult is not good. If the drum plays something too different, wronglyopposed to what the clarinet is playing, the result isn’t good, either. . . . Still,it is possible that, as can be seen very often in halls where music is played,the clarinet and drum can play different things at the same time . . . and it ispossible that the differences make for togetherness and harmony. (pp. 22-23)

The same can be true for various paired opposites working togetherharmoniously in organizational experience. Employees are not likely toreflect all ethical perspectives in a clone like way; rather, each employeewill manifest a disposition to favor some perspectives over others. Thisfact gives rise to the kinds of dilemmas illustrated earlier in this article. Forexample, some employees will see greater ethnic and cultural diversity asa value to be preferred in the organization, whereas other employees willsee the same issue, not as a matter of preferred values but as a matter ofprinciple, viz. freedom of choice and merit. The worst choice an adminis-trator can make in this situation is at the extremes: hire on the basisof merit only or hire on the basis of ethnicity only. Both perspectives areorganizationally beneficial, and the excellent manager balances and har-monizes these and other factors in making hiring decisions.

As we pointed out earlier, management suffers when a single voicebecomes dominant; the same is true if a voice is ignored. Thus, ethicalmanagement is much like good art: The skillful coordination of differ-ences results in a work that is greater than the sum of its parts, with thepotential for ugliness always close at hand. Where the voices are bal-anced, we discover genuine dilemmas, which are indicators of good ethi-cal health. Dilemmas would not arise without the balance of ethicalvoices; therefore, the presence of ethical quandaries is a sign of ethicalhealth.

This article has focused on several points:

• The nature of administrative ethics is multivocal. We can hope for no ethi-cal unity—nor should we.

• The various ethical perspectives are often compatible, but they also some-times conflict.

• Organizational dilemmas exist; they are many and varied. They cannot behonestly avoided, and many cannot be solved.

• Organizations can simplify ethical conflict by allowing one voice to domi-nate, but the ethical costs—specifically, the loss of ethical diversity—arehigh.

• Rather than regarding administrative ethical dilemmas as symptoms orsigns of problems needing remedies, ethical conflict should be seen as asign of organizational health.




• Ethics is more artistic than scientific. The truly ethical organization is morebeautiful than correct, and the best administrators are those who strive tobalance the tensions of ethical voices within their organizations.

We end with a quote from Eli Siegel (1946), who makes a similar casefor applying aesthetic thinking in other areas, such as economics, psychia-try, and politics:

Aesthetics [is] a means of maintaining unity in difference and oneness inopposition. There is nothing really with which aesthetics in this meaninghas not to do. . . . The organization of a trade union is akin to organization inaesthetics. . . . The purpose of economics or politics is to maintain the col-lective while intensifying the individual, to support gloriously the universalwhile heightening properly a specific person. When this is done, we shallhave aesthetic economics and artistic politics. This would be good andaccurate; and the meaning of it is so large we can hardly realize it now.(p. 46)

We believe that ethics has much to gain from recognizing its aesthetic sen-sibilities. It is in this vein that we have articulated a more systematic wayof thinking about ethical conflict.

NOTE

1. The labels for each perspective are a little misleading. The schema is built using thedistinction between universals and particulars on one hand and the distinction amongdeontology, teleology, and axiology on the other. An ethic of principles, for example, repre-sents the schematic category universal deontology. In what follows, we rely heavily on thistheory, which cannot be reproduced in detail here.

REFERENCES

Adams, G., & Balfour, D. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Appleby, P. H. (1952). Morality and administration in democratic government. BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Bailey, S. K. (1965). The relation between ethics and public service. In R. C. Martin (Ed.),Public administration and democracy: Essays in honor of Paul Appleby (pp. 282-298).Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. New York: Macmillan.Brady, F. N. (2003). “Publics” administration and the ethics of particularity. Public Adminis-

tration Review, 63, 525-534.Campbell, J. (1988). The power of myth. New York: Doubleday.




Caputo, J. D. (1993). Against ethics: Contributions to a poetics of obligation with constantreference to deconstruction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cavanagh, G., Moberg, D., & Velasquez, M. (1981). The ethics of organizational politics.Academy of Management Review, 6, 363-374.

Cooper, T. (1987). Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public administration: A perspectivefor normative ethics. Public Administration Review, 47, 320-328.

Cooper, T. (1998). The responsible administrator (4th ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Denhardt, K. (1988). The ethics of public service: Resolving moral dilemmas in public orga-

nizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Dobel, P. (1990). Integrity in the public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 354-366.Finlay, W., Martin, J., Roman, P., & Blum, T. (1995). Organizational structure and job satis-

faction. Administration & Society, 27, 427-450.Frederickson, H. G., & Hart, D. K. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevo-

lence. Public Administration Review, 45, 547-553.Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays on sociology. New York:

Oxford University Press.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gortner, H. (1991). How public managers view their environment: Balancing organizational

demands, political realities, and personal values. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiersin public management: Seeking new strategies for resolving ethical dilemmas (pp. 34-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guy, M. E. (1991). Using high reliability management to promote ethical decision making. InJ. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiers in public management: Seeking new strategies forresolving ethical dilemmas (pp. 185-204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harris, S. J. (1986). Clearing the ground. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Hart, D. K. (1989). A partnership in virtue among all citizens: The public service and civic

humanism. Public Administration Review, 49, 101-105.Hillman, J. (1989). Blue fire: Selected writings by James Hillman. New York: Harper & Row.Lane, L. (1988). Individualism, civic virtue, and public administration. Administration & So-

ciety, 20, 30-45.Lieberman, J. K. (1973). How government breaks the law. Baltimore: Viking Penguin.Lynch, T., Lynch, C., & Cruise, P. (2002). Productivity and the moral manager. Administra-

tion & Society, 34, 347-369.MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame

University Press.Martinez, J. M. (1998). Law versus ethics: Reconciling two concepts of public service ethics.

Administration & Society, 29, 690-722.May, R. (1991). The cry for myth. New York: Norton.McCoy, B. (1983). The parable of the Sadhu. Harvard Business Review, 61, 103-108.Menzel, D. (1995). Through the ethical looking glass darkly. Administration & Society, 27,

379-399.Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul: A guide for cultivating depth and sacredness in everyday

life. New York: Harper Collins.Moore, T. (1996). The re-enchantment of everyday life. New York: Harper Collins.Morgan, D., & Kass, H. (1991). Legitimating administrative discretion through constitu-

tional stewardship. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiers in public management:




Seeking new strategies for resolving ethical dilemmas (pp. 286-307). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, D., & Kass, H. (1993). The American odyssey of the career public service: The ethi-cal crisis of role reversal. In H. G. Frederickson (Ed.), Ethics and public administration(pp. 177-190). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York: Oxford University Press.Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Norton, D. L. (1976). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.Norton, R. E. (1995). The beautiful soul: Aesthetic morality in the eighteenth century. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.Nussbaum, M. (1986). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and phi-

losophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution.Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit

is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Pincoffs, E. L. (1986). Quandaries and virtues: Against reductivism in ethics. Lawrence:

University of Kansas Press.Plato. (1982). Philebus (R. Waterfield, Trans.). New York: Penguin.Plato. (1984). Gorgias (R. Waterfield, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.Roberts, R. (2001). Federal ethics management and the public trust. In T. Cooper (Ed.),

Handbook of administrative ethics (2nd ed., pp. 367-385). New York: Marcel Dekker.Roberts, R., & Doss, M. (1992). Public service and private hospitality: A case study in federal

conflict-of-interest reform. Public Administration Review, 52, 260-270.Schultze, C. L. (1977). The public use of private interest. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution.Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction (Rev. ed.).

New York: Oxford University Press.Siegel, E. (1946). Psychiatry, economics and aesthetics. South Deerfield, MA: Schoen.Siegel, E. (1972). Damned welcome: Aesthetic realism maxims. New York: Definition Press.Solomon, R. (1993). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New

York: Oxford University Press.Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Thompson, V. (1961). Modern organizations. New York: Knopf.Vaill, P. (1989). Managing as a performing art: New ideas for a changing world. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.Van Wart, M., & Denhardt, K. (2001). Organizational structure: A reflection of society’s val-

ues and a context for individual ethics. In T. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of administrativeethics (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Woller, G. (1998). Toward a reconciliation of the bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Admin-istration & Society, 30, 85-109.

Xenophon. (1968). Memorabilia and oeconomicus (E. C. Marchant & O. J. Todd, Trans.).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yates, D. (1982). Bureaucratic democracy: The search for democracy and efficiency inAmerican government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.




F. Neil Brady is the Jack R. Wheatley Professor of Public Management in the RomneyInstitute of Public Management at Brigham Young University. He has published morethan 30 articles on ethics in a variety of journals including the Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, AmericanReview of Public Administration, and the Academy of Management Review. He hasauthored Ethical Managing (1990) and edited Ethical Universals in InternationalBusiness (1996). For 20 years, his research has focused on the application of ethicaltheory to managerial decisions.

David W. Hart is an assistant professor of public management in the Romney Instituteof Public Management at the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young Uni-versity. He received his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Albany. Hiscurrent research focuses on administrative ethics, business-government interaction,and the external environment of organizations. He has published in a variety of jour-nals and is the coauthor of Wall Street Polices Itself: How Securities Firms Managethe Legal Hazards of Competitive Pressures (1998).




Confl Etice in Administratie

Documents

Transcript of Confl Etice in Administratie