Reexamining the Historical Meaning of Public Service

Government is commonly associated with fostering and facilitating “the good” for a society. Framers of governments across the globe sought to construct a suitable social order that reflects or mirrors their country's cultural leanings. Such a society is supported and reinforced by its government, which in turn is charged with governing, managing, and protecting the values of its society. Toward these ends, governments have institutionalized and operate based on a myriad values ranging from collectivism and communitarianism to individualism and liberalism. Public servants—the human resources that catalyze, represent, and reflect these governments—have been central to this effort.

Public servants function metaphorically as the inner wheel in the middle of a larger governmental wheel: they serve as the driving force to provide and deliver services for the betterment of their people. Theoretically, these agents are expected to operate and abide by a sense of duty, responsibility, answerability, and accountability. However, administrative life in the public sector is inherently political, and these agents are actors intertwined in the Lasswellian (Lasswell, 1958) notion of politics (who gets what, where, when, and how) and serve as vital conduits for the distribution of power within a society. This scenario has ethical implications and raises some practical questions: How best to ensure administrative responsibility? And to whom should public servants be responsive and accountable? These questions bring into focus the concept of bureaucratic accountability.

Accountability has emerged as an ever-expanding concept (Mulgan, 2000). Bureaucratic accountability reflects the faithful obedience of governmental institutions and their agents to the law, the direction and oversight of higher officials, and certain performance standards like efficiency and economy (Kettl, 2012). In essence, public service accountability reflects “the methods by which a public agency or a public official fulfills its duties and obligations, and the process by which that agency or the public official is required to account for such actions” (Jabbra & Dwivedi, 1988, p. 5). These methods are multiple and consist of various facets of bureaucratic accountability: administrative, managerial, legal, political, professional, moral, process, fiscal, program, and outcome accountability (Smith & Hague, 1971; Romzek & Dubnick, 1987; Jabbra & Dwivedi, 1988; Deleon, 1998; Sinclair, 1995).

The concept of bureaucratic accountability is supported by the twin pillars of the ethic of neutrality and the ethic of structure (Thompson, 1985). The ethic of neutrality holds that public servants should not exercise independent moral judgment but serve their government by acting in accordance with the orders of their superiors and the policies developed by their political leaders (Thompson, 1985). This ethic portrays the ideal administrator as a completely reliable instrument who refuses to inject personal values in the process of carrying out policies. Conversely, the ethic of structure highlights the structural arrangements of public organizations—the hierarchy, chain of command, formal rules and regulations, and others—as the object of judgment. This ethic asserts that the organization, and not its public servants, should be held responsible for its decisions and policies. In theory, the various facets and the twin pillars of bureaucratic accountability work in concert toward the betterment of society through faithful obedience to the law, direction of overseers, and compliance with performance expectations. However, numerous examples (e.g., the 1942 Wannsee Conference to discuss and coordinate the implementation of the “Final Solution”) highlight the shortcomings that accompany that assumption.

Consistent ethical action is a constant challenge that faces public servants of all types and who represent governments with different populations, socioeconomic beliefs, and ideologies. This inconsistency often happens in spite of the assumed societal benefits that would derive from the theoretical construct of bureaucratic accountability (O'Leary, 2006). From the more visible, public, and notable standoffs, including those at Tiananmen Square and the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, to the less recognized, and some may consider negligible, encounters and more private or hidden interactions that occur in public offices and spaces in a variety of places, public servants often act in accordance with the directives of bureaucratic accountability. Subsequently, they obey the law and the orders of their political superiors—even at the expense of the public they serve. These actions support the argument advanced by Thompson (1985) that the ethic of neutrality and the ethic of structure suppress the independent moral judgment and the individual moral agency of public servants. The actions of Adolph Eichmann and the US soldiers who participated in the My Lai or My Son Massacre during the Vietnam War serve as visible and poignant examples of this phenomenon. Consequently, faithfully following orders that have been sanctioned can impede consistent ethical action and even facilitate the manifestation of what has been named administrative evil.

Administrative evil, a concept that Adams and Balfour (2009) advanced, “falls within that part of the continuum in which people engage in or contribute to acts of evil without recognizing that they are doing anything wrong” (p. 13).

Administrative evil reveals how contemporary organizations and the human resources embedded within them inflict pain and suffering on others but do so unknowingly and often under the guise of following orders that have been socially constructed, politically endorsed, and legally sanctioned. Consequently, this type of evil is masked, hidden, and, prior to Adams and Balfour's articulation, unnamed.

Administrative evil is a “social phenomenon,” but its appearance across sectors and settings “is likely to vary according to the political and economic arrangements” of its host country (Adams & Balfour, 2009, p. 7). Our emphasis on technical rationality that can result in a scientific mind-set enables administrative evil. This type of rationality is especially conducive to public sector environments that emphasize narrowly analyzing the processes by which public policy is developed and formulated. The structure of public sector organizations, like those organizations from other sectors, also diffuses individual responsibility for actions that foster many functional, but not necessarily intentional, acts that facilitate administrative evil (Adams & Balfour, 2009).

The preceding discussion highlights attempts that have been made and designs that have been offered to facilitate consistent ethical action. Yet the examples reveal obvious deficiencies. The emphasis placed on bureaucratic accountability, inclusive of its multiple facets, the ethic of structure, the ethic of neutrality, and ultimately its reliance on compliance to external mechanisms of control, seems ineffective as a strategy or tactic to ensure consistent ethical action. The limitations of the external approach have signaled an opportunity to consider an internal approach to promote and embrace ethical principles for public action.

Scholars have advanced arguments acknowledging and in support of an internal approach toward consistent ethical action (Friedrich, 1940; Harmon & Mayer, 1986; Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). This approach has been expressed using a variety of terms, including professional, inward, personal, and subjective accountability (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987; Sinclair, 1995; Gagne, 1996). The internal approach fits with Thompson's (1985) notion of administrative ethics, or the application of moral principles to the conduct of individuals within organizations. Administrative ethics in public sector organizations is based on an individual applying his or her moral principles to his or her administrative or professional life. This method assumes that consistent ethical action can be generated from within through inner convictions and professional values facilitated by strong leaders and managers to foster an ethical climate. However, administrative life in the public sector is inherently political, and as a result, the public servants who are the key actors within this process are intimately linked to this political process.

This linkage is a challenge that can yield either inconsistent but benign ethical action or administrative evil regardless of an emphasis on internal or external mechanisms presumed to develop consistent ethical action. Yet both approaches seem to affect and highlight the role and importance of the public manager, leader, or administrator in creating an ethical climate.

How Best to Guard the Guardians?

Ethical climate is defined as “the shared perceptions of what is correct behavior, and how ethical situations should be handled within an organization” (Victor and Cullen, 1987, p. 51). As a theory, ethical climate draws from Kohlberg's (1981) research on moral development that argues that individuals develop morally in a sequential, multistage fashion. During this process, reasoning progresses from reasoning governed by fear of punishment ultimately to a reasoning based on a concern for universal rights and humanity as a whole. This progression allowed Kohlberg to construct a framework that defines three major types of ethical standards (self-interest, caring, and principle) and three levels of ethical concern (individual, social system, and humanity as a whole; Kohlberg, 1981). Subsequently, Victor and Cullen (1988) used Kohlberg's conceptualization to construct a framework to hypothesize nine ethical climates types. This framework (table 32.1) is based on two dimensions: ethical criteria and locus of analysis.

Source: Adapted from Victor and Cullen (1988).

The two-dimension table offered by Victor and Cullen (1988) mirrors Kohlberg's (1981) two-dimensional conceptualization. The first dimension captures the ethical criteria or the reasoning process by which ethical decisions are made. Victor and Cullen (1988) identify three major classes of ethical reasoning, which they term egoism, benevolence, and principle, and each corresponds respectively with Kohlberg's three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. The second dimension of ethical climates, which used social role theory (Gouldner, 1957), involves the focus of the ethical reasoning and distinguishes the scope of ethical issues under consideration, resulting in individual-level, local or group-level, and cosmopolitan or societal-level concerns. Victor and Cullen's (1988) ethical criteria and the locus of analysis dimensions yield nine theoretical climate types: self-interest, company profit, efficiency, friendship, team interest, social responsibility, personal morality, company rules and procedures, and laws and professional code. However, only five emerged in their empirical study: instrumental, caring, independence, company rules and procedure, and law and professional codes (Martin & Cullen, 2006). Table 32.2 highlights the emergence of these five climates within the original theorized framework.

Source: Adapted from Victor and Cullen (1988).

Numerous studies have revealed three major consequences of an ethical climate: the impact that an ethical climate has on job attitudes and affect, ethical behavior, and ethical or job and organization-related outcomes. In terms of job attitudes and affect, various studies have demonstrated that certain dimensions of ethical climate yield a more satisfied employee (Ambrose, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2007; Babin, Boles, & Robin 2000; Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2009). Other findings suggest a relationship between ethical climate and organizational commitment (Ambrose et al., 2007; Martin & Cullen, 2006; Schwepker, 2001); ethical climate and turnover intentions (Ambrose et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 2007); ethical climate and psychological well-being (Martin & Cullen, 2006); and how ethical climate affects employee trust and affective reactions (Mulki et al., 2009).

Researchers have found ethical climate to be a predictor of a number of ethical and unethical outcomes. These outcomes range from the more deviant, like lying, stealing, deception, and other forms of organizational misbehavior (Martin & Cullen, 2006; Aquino, 1998; Vardi, 2001), to outcomes that are more prosocial in nature (Rothwell & Baldwin, 2007).

Findings that support a relationship between ethical climate and job attitudes and affect and ethical climate and ethical or unethical behavior have been supplemented by research findings that highlight ethical climate as a predictor of ethical judgments (Barnett & Vaicys, 2000), ethical decision making (Fritzche, 2000), ethical intentions (Buchan, 2005), and organizational outcomes like social responsibility, efficiency, law and professional codes, and commitment to performance and product quality (Weeks, Low, Chonko, Martinez, & Wakefield, 2006; Erondu, Sharland, & Okpara, 2004). Other studies indicate the power of positive ethical climates in promoting an increase in ethical behavior (Verbeke, Ouwerkerk, & Peelen, 1996; Ross & Robertson, 2000). The research findings related to the outcomes or consequences of ethical climate are commonly associated with certain precursors; one of the most visible is leadership or the role of the leader.

Leadership is frequently cited as the most significant organizational factor in discussions about the safeguarding of ethics and integrity within organizations. The leadership literature historically acknowledges the influence of leaders on the ethics of organizations (Barnard, 1938; Schein, 1992). However, researchers have recently begun to consider this relationship explicitly. Theoretical arguments and empirical studies have linked leaders to the development of ethical climates (Sims, 2000; Dickson, Smith, Gorjean, & Ehrhard, 2001; Sims & Brinkman, 2002). In particular, Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000) discuss the importance of leaders in conveying, from the top down, values that facilitate and reinforce consistent ethical actions. Similarly, others suggest that the critical determinant of ethical climate is the leader's ethical behavior and the role that leaders play in shaping and strengthening the ethical climate of an organization (Sims, 2000; Dickson et al., 2001; Sims & Brinkman, 2002). The roles that leaders can play may vary, from role modeling and rewards to stating and implementing ethical policies and practices, but scholars conceptually agree that leaders have a significant impact on an organization's ethical climate.

Empirical studies have found a positive and significant relationship between leadership and ethical climate in a variety of professional settings. Mulki et al. (2009) emphasize the critical role of leadership on ethical climate and the behavior of persons employed in pharmaceutical sales. Huberts, Kaptein, and Lasthuizen (2007), writing on the impact of leadership styles on integrity violations by Dutch police officers, noted the positive effects of the leader's role modeling and strictness in limiting unethical conduct of officers. Like Huberts et al.'s (2007) findings, Rothwell and Baldwin's (2007) study of whistle-blowing and the code of silence found supervisory status as the most consistent predictor of willingness and frequency of whistle-blowing intentions and behaviors by police and civilian public employees in Georgia. The findings from these studies lend empirical support to the role that leadership plays in creating an ethical climate that results in right actions by those within an organizational setting.

The conceptual agreements and the supporting empirical studies highlight not only the importance of ethical work climate but also the crucial role that leaders play in facilitating, shaping, and maintaining ethical organizations, plus the powerful and crucial role they play in creating the right ethical atmosphere in organizations (Schminke, Arnaud, & Juenzi, 2007). Hence, the inference is that the actions or inactions of leaders and managers can affect the presence or absence of an ethical climate. This lends itself to exploring additional questions. Are there other emerging opportunities to better safeguard and further embrace ethical principles in public action? Could these emerging opportunities be more effective?

Emerging Opportunities to Embrace Ethical Principles in Public Action: A View from Below

Leadership is the most frequently cited organizational factor in discussions about the safeguarding of ethics and integrity, but history is replete with examples of organizational leaders who have shaped and reinforced an unethical climate within organizations (Adams & Balfour, 2009; Sims & Brinkman, 2002 2003). This unfortunate reality requires exploring other ways to embrace ethical principles in public action. Instead of the dominant leader-centric, top-down perspective to facilitate ethical action, a more follower-centric, bottom-up perspective is offered.

Followership—when an individual helps or supports a leader in accomplishing organizational goals—is an emerging but often overlooked concept (Kelley, 1992; Kellerman, 2008). Historically, and theoretically for that matter, followership has been relegated to second-class status and relatively concealed from academic view and investigation. Subordinates are commonly assumed to have less power, authority, and influence. The attention, or lack thereof, paid to subordinates pales in comparison to the consideration given to leadership, even though the majority of people in organizations are followers and, one can argue quite persuasively, are in a better position to recognize the daily happenings and appreciate the daily functions within the organization (Kelley, 1988).

Followers are at the heart of followership. They have been defined as “subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors, and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall in to line” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 213). Notwithstanding this “subordinate” status, followers can and do play a constructive role in the health of organizations (Chaleef, 2003), and so we can view them “as the primary defenders against toxic leaders of dysfunctional organizations” (Kelley, 1988).

Chaleef (2003) and Kellerman (2008) also appreciate how followers can add value to an organization's effectiveness, performance, and ethics. Chaleef introduces the concept of the courageous follower: one who exhibits the courage to support the leader, assume responsibility for the organization's mission, challenge the leader's behavior in a constructive way, participate as needed in organizational transformation, and ultimately take a stand when warranted to prevent ethical abuses by the organization or its officials.

Accompanying the conceptual frameworks of Kelley, Chaleef, and Kellerman, are models they have designed to classify the types of followers that have emerged. Kelley (1988) identifies five types or styles of followers (sheep, yes-people, alienated, pragmatics, and star followers). Chaleef (2003) offers four styles (resource, individualist, implementer, and partner). Kellerman (2008) offers five (isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards). Kelley's classification is based on the follower's degree of independent thinking and level of organizational engagement. Chaleef's (2003) classification considers the levels of independent thinking and organizational engagement of the follower but is also based on the courage each follower has to support or challenge the organization's leader. Kellerman's (2008) types of followers are conceptualized in a hierarchical way and place followers on a continuum of engagement from being detached to being fully committed.

These nuanced classifications or styles help to reveal the various roles that followers can play in organizational efforts. These roles have been disclosed in the work of Howell and Mendez (2008), who have advanced three perspectives on followership that conceptualize the duties and responsibilities that followers have within their organizational positions and reflect the range of relationships existing between leaders and followers. The three role orientations are the interactive, the independent, and the shifting. In the interactive, role, the follower complements and supports the leader. This role is vital for the achievement or accomplishment of group and organizational goals. In the independent role, the follower acts more independently of the leader due to his or her increase in education and training of followers and resulting desire to exhibit more control over his or her work. The shifting role notes that the duties and responsibilities of the follower are contingent on the situation that the follower and the organization face. This orientation projects and reflects the need for leadership and followership to alternate as needed. In some instances, the formal leader may be an ineffective leader requiring subordinating his or her status to one of being an “informal follower,” while at the same time the “formal follower” could be more effective as an “informal leader” due to his or her intimate knowledge of the situation, process and procedures, or population served. This shifting role reflects the more fluid leadership roles and realities of dynamic organizations, environments, and situations that require flexibility (Burke, Fiore, & Salas, 2003).

With the emergence of followership, a clearer vision of mission-focused, shared leadership has appeared. This vision has been advanced by Chaleef (2003) and is captured by figure 32.1.

Figure 32.1 highlights the shared responsibilities for both leaders and followers. It also captures the desired state of both the leader and the follower orbiting around, acting according to, and reinforcing the mission of the organization. This conception highlights that both leaders and followers should be mission focused and equally responsible for not only individually pursuing consistent ethical action but also for attempting to influence and facilitate consistent ethical action on the parts of others within their sphere of influence (Chaleef, 2003).

Out of Darkness and into the Light: Implications for Consistent Ethical Actions

Thus far, I have addressed the topics of what it means to be a member of the public administration profession and to whom these members should be accountable. One question remains: How best to facilitate consistent ethical action? To get to heart of this question requires an appreciation for coupling the more traditional approach that is leader-centric with the more follower-centric concept of courageous followership—all with a singular focus toward embracing ethical principles and facilitating consistent ethical action across the organization. This approach might be effective in bringing public sector organizations out of the proverbial darkness and shadows into the marvelous light.

Somewhat like the two opposing routes toward the pursuit of ethical practice in public organizations offered by Friedrich (1940) and Finer's (1941) internal and external controls and Rohr's (1989) low-road and high-road approaches, this chapter makes the argument for the coupling of two routes to encourage consistent ethical action: combining the more orthodox and leader-centric with the more unconventional and follower-centric orientations. This fusion approach, much like the fusion road described by Lewis and Gilman (2005), has direct implications for practitioners, pedagogues, and researchers.

Practitioners can aid in bringing the theory of this mission-focused, shared leadership approach to consistent ethical action into practice by creating an in-service atmosphere where leaders and followers role-model the desired state. Likewise, those managing practitioners can take advantage of exposing and employing multiple ethical decision-making strategies that have been developed, and in many instances underused, to leaders and followers. These strategies require decision makers to consider stakeholders, alternatives, consequences, and implications for making a decision that will see the light of day (Lewis & Gilman, 2005; Blanchard & Peale, 1988; Josephson, 2010). Each strategy seeks to leverage internal and external controls to serve the public more consistently and better. These strategies could accentuate the importance of embracing ethical principles and strengthen the resolve of public sector actors to consistently engage in ethical action. Moreover, they could serve as excellent tools for managers to activate the ethics of dissent and create an atmosphere that better accommodates guerrilla government when public servants work toward the public interest and against the wishes of their superiors (O'Leary, 2006).

Like practitioners, pedagogues or university instructors can also advance the cause toward the adoption of ethical principles for public action. Instructors of preservice or aspiring public servants are in a unique position to present and expose to students a greater understanding of and appreciation for the public interest. Multiple approaches are available, ranging from incorporating case studies into the learning process to highlighting those often unsung operatives in guerrilla government who embraced ethical principles and were steadfast in doing what was right and for the right reasons. Pedagogues can also begin the process of sharing with students the various applied decision-making tools and strategies noted, as well as presenting additional conceptions of the public interest, much like Svara's (2007) ethics triangle, which “conveys the idea that administrators should act on their duty to promote the public interest by seeking a balance of virtue, principle, and good consequences” (p. 67).

To complement these pedagogical approaches, instructors need to expose students, through courses or course readings, to the concepts and theories associated with followership and the supporting rationale of servant leadership. Servant leadership is a servant-first approach to leadership to ensure that other people's needs are being met (Greenleaf, 1970 1977). A balanced approach that highlights the dual responsibility of leaders and followers in creating, maintaining, and sustaining an ethical climate can be presented to preservice public servants in the hope that this initial impression of mission-focused, shared leadership can be a lasting one.

Finally, future research must play a central role as we seek better ways to embrace ethical principles for public action. More research is needed that uncovers and explores the dimensions, tensions, and challenges associated with followership. Are there some public settings more amenable to cultivating followership and embracing the mission-focused shared leadership model that has been presented? Are some leaders better adept at developing followers who are coleaders? Are some followers better adept at developing leaders who are coleaders? Are some of the applied decision-making tools, strategies, and approaches more effective than others? Are some of these tools, strategies, and approaches more effective with certain professions, types of professionals, or settings within the public sector than others?

Much like the diversity of instruments, tools, and strategies used to operate on the human body, a diversity of quantitative and qualitative methods is required to uncover and better understand the personal, professional, and political challenges and opportunities that can impede or facilitate consistent ethical actions of both leaders and followers. A diverse yet vigorous research agenda can serve as a beacon of light and a source of inspiration toward the desired end of embracing ethical principles and achieving consistent ethical actions.

The concerted efforts by practitioners, pedagogues, and researchers will help to minimize the ethical lapses connected with public officials, while maximizing the adoption of ethical principles and potential for consistent ethical action. Consequently, these efforts might bring the often-decried ethical lapses of public organizations and their officials out from the darkness of negative media attention and into the light of public support and praise.

Conclusion

Embracing ethical principles for public action requires concerted effort by leaders and followers. Both are vitally important for creating, maintaining, and sustaining an ethical climate and culture within public sector organizations. This mission-driven environment, coconstructed by leaders and followers, will serve to promote, embrace, and fortify ethical conduct and discourage unethical conduct.

Like weather patterns, ethical climates and cultures in organizational settings are affected by environmental dynamics. Hence, the actions or inactions of both leaders and followers can affect the presence or absence of an ethical climate and culture, bear on the consequences (positive or negative) of public sector decisions, and influence the quick or sluggish emergence of consistent ethical action. Bringing the conception of the mission-driven, shared leadership into practice requires a concerted effort not only on the parts of followers and leaders, but also from practitioners, pedagogues, and researchers. The prospects of this collaborative approach to enhance the adoption of ethical principles and improve consistent ethical action by public servants are good and worth the investment.

Summary

Public service accountability has been a public management problem. Accountability can be promoted by adhering to legal and ethical principles, but to achieve consistent ethical action requires a new approach. This chapter advocates combining the more dominant, orthodox, and leader-centric approach with a more nascent, unconventional, and follower-centric method. This fusion approach to facilitate consistent ethical action requires the support of practitioners, both leaders and followers, as well as guidance and direction from pedagogues and researchers. These efforts working in concert can have an important impact on public trust and public confidence.