Professional ethics in a bureaucracy

Bureaucracies tend to take a narrow and legalistic definition of ethics. This may be administratively convenient, but it feeds a culture of amoral cynicism. While there are cases where right and wrong are unclear, the existence of moral dilemmas is no excuse for abdication of moral responsibility or outright bad faith.

Everyone should strive to fill their role in a professional and "workmanlike" fashion.
No one should be duplicitous with their colleagues, bully them, undermine them, slander them, or violate their privacy.
Managers should not practice "kiss up, punch down" or similar exploitative tactics.
Policies, procedures, audits, and investigations should never be used as tools of retaliation or coercion.
Policies that are not achieving a legitimate, ongoing goal for the organization should be purged aggressively.
Gatekeepers should never expect (much less solicit) a quid-pro-quo to sign off on something.
Leaders should not tolerate gross misconduct, much less normalize, institutionalize, or reward it.
No one should be thrown under the bus for asking valid questions, speaking the truth, disobeying an unconscionable order, or being competent when others are incompetent.
No one should have to tolerate a coworker being obstructive, spreading lies, enforcing an unconscionable policy, or causing damage through incompetence.

For leaders, there is no escaping the responsibility to make the call. People acting in good faith make mistakes and can develop stronger ethics through such experience. Draconian enforcement is counterproductive. On the other hand, toxic people ("sharks") systematically exploit processes that give them second chances and the benefit of the doubt. If justice starts closing in, they set up a colleague to take the fall. Leaders have the tough job of seeing through that deception and dealing decisively with sharks before their trail of victims grows long. If you don't, you're on the menu.

Blog
Home