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.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/1/113 Citations
by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.com Downloaded from
10.1177/0095399705284206 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / March 2006 Brady, Hart / CONFLICT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS
Disputatio Sine Fine
AN AESTHETIC THEORY
OF CONFLICT IN
ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS
F. NEIL BRADY
DAVID W. HART
Brigham Young University
Normally, one would think of conflict in administrative ethics as something to be avoided or
resolved. This article, however, explores the possibility that conflict in ethics is essential and
productive. Great art is beautiful precisely because of tension, not in spite of it, and the
authors argue that administrative ethics is more like art than science. Therefore, the authors
adopt an aesthetic point of viewthat examines tension and balance and reveals a wide range
of types of conflict in ethics. In fact, the authors articulate 15 types of conflict and argue that
the recognition of conflict is necessary for its proper management.
Keywords: administrative ethics; management; conflict; tension; dilemma; art; aesthetics
The idea of conflict inadministrative 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 conflictespecially sys-
temic conflictin 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
EDITORS NOTE: In this Disputatio Sine Fine we have an article by Hart and Brady with a
response by Goodsell. Enjoy.
ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 38 No. 1, March 2006 113-134
DOI: 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 ethical
theory aim.
In contrast, this article regards ethical conflict or tension as an essential
component of ethics. This is especially true for public administration
because of the need to address a variety of perspectives in a pluralistic so-
ciety. This article builds on an older traditiondating back to the Greeks
(Plato, 1982, 1984; Xenophon, 1968) and especially the Enlightenment
(R. E. Norton, 1995)that there is a useful, even necessary, connection
between ethical theory and aesthetic theory. Our contention is that the role
of conflict in ethical theory is not only unavoidable but that it should be
accepted as a necessary component of a good life. On the other hand, a
theory of ethics that shies away from conflict does not understand its own
nature very well. Instead of arguing that ethical conflict be seen as a limi-
tation or mental challenge to be surmounted, we assert that the skilled
management of ethical tension is a fundamental part of the ethical pro-
cess. Consequently, it is fundamental to good administrative practice as
well.
The first contribution of this article is to acknowledge the nature of
conflict in ethics. Conflict and dilemma in ethics should be embraced
rather than downplayed, rationalized, or ignored. We support this asser-
tion by introducing aesthetic theory to show how understanding conflict
management may be more important than solving ethical conflict. We
then 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. We
conclude by further developing the idea of ethics through the lens of aes-
thetic theory. In short, we argue that the implications of ethical conflict are
important 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 the
underlying assumption that the desired result is a dependable decision
proceduresome unitary approach that, like mathematics, will supply
correct answers. In other words, with the right formula or recipe, there is a
correct action or set of actions for any given ethical situation. This is a very
important issue that has persistently plagued moral philosophy. In recent
114 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / March 2006
years scholars such as Charles Taylor (1989) have criticized mainstream
moral philosophy for displaying such a penchant for a unitary conception
of the moral. Perhaps we can call this aim the quest for moral unity.
Although many recognize a variety of ethical theories and perspectives, it
is often implicitly assumed that ethical reality is ultimately unitary, if only
it could be articulated. This desire for moral unity is certainly understand-
able; who would not hope to realize this goal? A unified theory of ethics
would, ideally, give hope for a universal approach to all ethical problems.
Edmund Pincoffs (1986) refers to this method as quandary ethics. He
argues that quandary ethics supposes that the ultimate relevance of ethics
is to the resolution of the problematic situations into which we fall. The
problems in question are practical, not philosophical (p. 19). Conse-
quently, quandary ethics must, according to the argument, provide some
stable means of arriving at decisions, no matter how circumstances may
change. 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 more
eclectic approach that has resulted in important contributions and new
directions 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 virtue
ethics (Cooper, 1987; Dobel, 1990; Frederickson & Hart, 1985; Hart,
1989; MacIntyre, 1981; Solomon, 1993). Still others have emphasized the
concepts of care and personal relationships as fundamental in ethical the-
ory (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). Although Kantian deontology and
utilitarian teleology have captured most scholars attention in the 20th
century, many writers now view those two theories, taken together, as too
restrictive. This century promises to continue casting a much wider net to
capture more that swims in the sea of ethical theory.
Along these lines, Bradys (2003) theory of six voices in ethics is
another recent effort to counter reductionist thinking about ethics. This
model makes use of a six-cell schema defined by widely recognized and
fundamental 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 of
responsibility), (c) character or social ethics (or ethics of ideals), (d) ethics
of self-actualization, (e) ethics of universal care, and (f) ethics of personal
relationships.
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 relying
on a single theory.
One of the unintended effects of relying on a single approach to ethics
is the elimination of conflict and disagreement, either by claiming (as fre-
quently happens) that the apparent plurality of perspectives is ultimately
reducible to one, overarching perspective or by recognizing a plurality of
perspectives and then articulating some decision tree or other arrange-
ment that views the perspectives as complementary. In contrast, the goal
of this article is to secure an irreducible place for conflict in ethics. To
achieve this goal, we will show how ethical conflict and tension are
essential for organizational good health.
AESTHETIC THEORY AND ETHICS
One might not be inclined to welcome an ethical theory that magnifies
fragmentation and conflict; the quest for moral unity certainly discour-
ages such. The quest for moral unity has focused our concern rather
narrowly on what we ought to do and not enough on what is valuable in
itself or on what we should admire or love (Taylor, 1989, p. 84). But there
are alternative ways to regard the basic nature of ethics. We propose
approaching ethics more like aesthetics, in the sense that ethical thinking
is more artful than it is scientific and that the ethical life is more beautiful
than it is correct.
Aesthetic theory itself supplies some important links to ethics. Amajor
component of art theory centers on the tension between contrasting ele-
ments as the basis of beauty in art. Eli Siegel (1972), for example, lists
these pairs of contrasts: rest and motion, oneness and manyness, structure
and function, form and substance, line and color, intellect and emotion.
Other contrasts include rhythmand 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 other
words, conflict and tension are not a problem in art; rather, they are what
make beauty possible in the first place. When an artist can balance the
influence of conflicting elements in a painting, the painting becomes
increasingly interesting and praiseworthy. On the other hand, if one or
more of the tensions is not maintainedif, for example, the element of
repetition dominates the element of surprisethe quality of the painting
diminishes. Lacking aesthetic tension, the visual arts become dull and
uninteresting. 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 and
depth (p. 222). In other words, the presence of conflict and dilemma is
not 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 of
some overall vision or project. This is especially true in the public sector,
where democracy gives voice and legitimacy to all kinds of ethical
perspectives.
FIFTEEN CONFLICTS IN ETHICS
Various kinds of dilemmas can occur in ethical deliberation. One type
is conflict within a particular perspective. We speak of conflicts of duty or
conflicting goals or conflicting values. The director of a school play, for
example, might be faced with the conflicting values of quantity and qual-
ity in deciding whether to maximize participation in the play or pursue
dramatic excellence by selecting only the best actors. Though in this case
one may value both, he or she cannot have both at the same time because
these are conflicting ideals. One may also imagine conflicting personal
values or conflicting principles or conflicting duties, and so on. Such con-
flicts are something like family disputesthey can be serious, but there is
reason to think that some sort of agreement is possible because the parties
involved in the conflict at least speak the same language.
Conflicts between perspectives are different; this type of conflict is
more like comparing apples and oranges. Using the six voices schema
(Brady, 2003), we can identify 15 possible dilemmas using the pairwise
combinations of those perspectives; these provide a helpful framework
that illustrates the variety of administrative dilemmas. The following is
meant to briefly illustrate the utility of the framework; it by no means
serves as a comprehensive discussion. There may be other ways to arrange
a variety of perspectives in ethics, but this schema lends itself particularly
well 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 by
which principles are translated into expected practice. Where rules are not
perfect, we rely on personal responsibility for ethical judgment. We would
like rules to be designed so that they bring about precisely the results
hoped for, but the letter of the law and the spirit of the law do not usually
coincide completely. To suppose that they do when they do not is to give
rules too much credit. The phenomenon of hunkering down under the pro-
tection of rules also serves to absolve personal responsibility in decision
making (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 her
actions on intrinsic motivation and to take personal responsibility for
those actions. As John Caputo (1993) put it, the latter kind of person
has been shaped by experience, matured by events, and has acquired the
habit of having an insight into what events demand. A good many things
have happened to him, each of which was just different enough from the
other as to demand from him . . . an insight into its novelty, a capacity to
reinvent. . . . He has, over time, cultivated an eye for the idiosyncratic. He
knows what is needed at the time, what is too much and not too much, when
enough is enough or not enough, neither an excess nor a defect. That is the
skill of judging in concreto. That is a matter of hanging loose, of having a
nice or a delicate sense of what is required . . . here and now. He knows what
is appropriate to the situation. (p. 100)
Administrators can more or less act on principle or more or less bear
responsibility for acting, but they cannot simultaneously do both. Acting
on principle and bearing responsibility are two different ethical perspec-
tives. The clash of these two views is illustrated by countless dilemmas in
organizations. When does one make exceptions to rules? How does one
know when to seek shelter under principle and when to take personal
responsibility? The universalist would ask, What principle could we all
agree to act by in situations like this? The particularist would respond,
Forget that. What should I do right here and now? Two kinds of ethical
mistakes 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 who
never deviates at all is lost; and he who tinkers with procedures without an
understanding of substantive consequence is foolish (p. 292). The result
is conflicting dilemmas in which there is often no clear ethical outcome or
one 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 as
democracy, community, efficiency, and so on. This second kind of dilem-
ma involves the conflict of principles with ideals. This is perhaps best
exemplified in one of the fundamental tensions between principle and
ideal in public administration. Ideally, government organizations would
be efficient and highly responsive and would assume the best characteris-
tics of private-sector organizations (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Yet the
principles on which many governments were founded often force us to
manage 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 and
responsiveness. In other words, sometimes our efforts to be more
business-like in government are superseded by the principles of fairness
and democracy. Thus, the rules or layers of bureaucracy will always
conflict with efficiency, responsiveness, and even productivity (Lynch,
Lynch, & Cruise, 2002). The conflict of rules with results is a frequent
occurrence in organizational life (Brady, 1990).
3. CONFLICTS OF PRINCIPLE
WITH 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 on
principle. Probably the most common way this dilemma is manifested
in modern organizations is the conflict of organizational norms with
personal expression.
This dilemma is frequently illustrated in the clash between organiza-
tional regimen and employee fulfillment. For example, a person might
feel a deep personal need to become a lawyer but be unable to pass the bar
exam. Although it is important to acknowledge an individuals desire to
achieve a personal goalfor example, becoming a lawyerit 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. We
care for the world in which we live, not out of principle but because we
value 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, whereas
awareness of the employees difficult personal problems might urge com-
passion. Bailey (1965) mentions that administrators will sometimes find
it impossible to be both kind and truthful, for example. Guy (1991)
reminds us of a similar conflict in health and human service agencies that
might want to emphasize caring when doing so might require sacrificing
accountability and fairness.
Much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action programs is
grounded in this type of ethical dilemma. On one hand, we want to
respond to the needs of those who have been discriminated against for so
long; 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 must
choose 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 reflect
an individuals highest priorities.
The conflict of private interest with public decisions is a common
dilemma for public administrators (Appleby, 1952). Howdoes one act on
principle for the sake of the public and at the same time serve all private
interests of which one is also a part? It is too easy just to say that principle
should always trump private interest. Bailey (1965) recognized this genu-
ine dilemma by stating that one must be consistent enough to deserve
ethical respect from revered colleagues and from oneself; to be pliable
enough to survive within an organization and to succeed in effectuating
moral purposesthis 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 a
friend, and the friendship may be damaged if principle is given the nod
over relationship. Emphasis of principle over friendship might generate
an organizational atmosphere that is sterile and utilitarian, whereas
emphasizing friendship stifles a sense of fairness and is contrary to the
ideals 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 challenging
interpersonal skills. Do you act on principle and tell the truth, or do you
facilitate 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 and
obligation as falling differently among individuals. One persons individ-
ual responsibilities may not be the same as another persons. This perspec-
tive is best illustrated by the ethical perspectives of professionals such as
physicians, teachers, lawyers, and public administrators. They regard
experience and good judgment as the core of their approach to ethical
issues because each case demands professional and experienced care and
attention (Martinez, 1998).
This approach to ethics can also conflict with other approaches, such as
ideals. Administrators, for example, are often torn between maintaining
the ideal of a cooperative, friendly working group and emphasizing the
personal responsibilities of staying on task, breaking logjams, moving the
work along, and voting in ways that jeopardize the cooperative morale of
the group. Ideals are something to work toward, but they do not necessar-
ily take precedence over competing elements of group work as may be
defined by the responsibilities of the leader of the group.
7. CONFLICTS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH PERSONAL GOALS
Ones professional orientation may or may not be compatible with the
kinds of pursuits that enable a person to thrive and come into ones own.
The personal responsibility to be a parent, for example, might conflict
with the personal goal of going back to school to further ones education.
With limited time available, one or the other may be neglected. Similar
conflicts occur at work, such as when an employee finds that his or her
responsibilities at work are not personally fulfilling. From this perspec-
tive, the managers task of matching employee talent and interest to the
demands of a particular job takes on added importance.
8. CONFLICTS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH UNIVERSAL VALUES
Asense 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 responsibility
that each of us bears. On the other hand, many responsibilities are not so
universally founded. Ones responsibility to care for ones family might
conflict with the shared values of larger groups or communities. For
example, consider Brazilian farmers who clear land to feed their families
but at the same time contribute to both international pollution and the loss
of rain forest. Or imagine automobile owners who would like to avoid
contributing to global pollution but face a commute to work without
access to public transportation. The responsibility to provide for ones
family and participate in a reasonable way in the local economy does not
always 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 offering
gifts to purchasing agents, hoping that through gifts and other appeals to
friendship they can induce the purchasing agents to compromise their
sense 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 valuesthe preference for
friends, the opportunity to exploit ones expertise and power for personal
gain, the penchant of a federal leader to engage in pork-barrel politics for
his or her home state or town.
10. CONFLICTS OF IDEALS WITH PERSONAL GOALS
Peoples personal goals may be quite idiosyncratic and not generally
thought of as ideal for the larger population. Such personal goals may
even conflict with shared ideals. Ayn Rand is famous for exploiting this
dilemmathe clash of social ideal with personal visionin 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 the
arts. On the other hand, an artists 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 this
conflict.
11. CONFLICTS OF IDEALS WITH UNIVERSAL CARING
Normally, our ideals and values do not conflict. However, public policy
often confronts such a conflict, as in the conflict between financial effi-
ciency and welfare. Welfare policies are commonly supported by an ethic
of care and compassion; yet many policy makers also value the overarch-
ing economic ideal of efficiency. Thus, although it may be compassionate
to 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 earn
what 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 friendships
develop 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 office
romances, 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 ones personal
goals and ones 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 Wall
Street 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 high
mountain pass, they discovered an Indian holy man, a Sadhu, who was
near death. They could abandon their plans to surmount the pass and help
this 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 and
left him there for other teams to find.
14. CONFLICTS OF PERSONAL GOALS
WITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES
In general, this dilemma is commonly illustrated in the conflict
between career and family or friends. The movie Its a Wonderful Life
illustrates this dilemma well. Jimmy Stewart plays the role of George
Bailey, who time after time chooses to postpone self-actualization for the
sake of friends who need his help in other waysfriends who often need
his help to pursue their own personal goals. The movie clearly sides with
the importance of friends, but one must not forget that George Bailey
spent a lot of years doing very ordinary, uninspiring work in a small
business.
15. CONFLICTS OF UNIVERSAL CARING
WITH PERSONAL PREFERENCES
A classic dilemma in ethical theory goes like this:
Ahouse is burning down, and two people are inside. One is your spouse; the
other is a world-renowned physician who is the only person who can save
the people of a nearby town from an epidemic. There is time to save only
one. 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 public
goods and private interests (Lane, 1988). For example, most people would
agree that the homeless should be provided with decent and suitable living
environments; it appeals to our tendency toward universal caring. Yet try-
ing to locate shelters for the homeless or build low-income housing is
nearly impossible because most citizens are adamantly opposed to those
types of programs being located in their neighborhoods. This is a classic
problem 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). This
conflict between public good and private interest provides a final illustra-
tion of the conflict between the fifth and sixth voices in Bradys (2003)
schema.
The great variety of dilemmas possible in ethical thinking is a direct
product of multiple independent perspectives in ethics. In public adminis-
tration, we face more than just conflicting values; we face conflicts among
our 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 differentiated
by their degree of universality or particularity. What is simply a personal
preference to the economist can represent great diversity to the ethically
aware public administrator. This diversity is important; it would be a mis-
take, for example, simply to get rid of such issues by voting on themor by
presuming 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
Froma more traditional point of view, this result might seembewilder-
ing. But froman aesthetic perspective, these results are both expected and
welcomed. Great art is defined by the presence of conflicting elements
whose tensions are the foundation of interest and beauty. Art without sur-
prise is uninteresting, whereas art without rhythm is bewildering; but art
with both rhythm and surprise balances the familiar with the new and
achieves interest and holds our attention. Psychologists describe the aes-
thetic experience in terms of balancing redundancy with newness: Neither
art 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 ignores
certain perspectives or who emphasizes other perspectives risks creating a
picture of human interaction that is unbalanced, skewed, and confusing.
Returning to the pairwise conflicts illustrated above, we can easily see
how conflict is essential for healthy organizations. For example, thinking
of the first conflict (between principle and responsibility), the logical
(nonartistic) options for reducing the conflict are simple: Either hunker
down 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 that
underlies the construction of most rules in the first place. Employees are
left to their own discretion, regardless of their experience and ability; and
variances in ability result in inconsistent judgment that, in the worst cases,
looks purely capricious. In the former case, however, the organization
simply becomes bureaucratic or worsean organization without human
engagement or responsiveness and with excessive structure. In such an or-
ganization, discretion is suppressed, and an artificial clarityand simplicity
reigns (Finlay, Martin, Roman, & Blum, 1995). By honoring the tension,
however, the artistic organization accepts the unsettling conflict between
principle and responsibility. It knows that it sacrifices some comfort for
life 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 normand 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 is
scripted. 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 satisfactory
for the typical case; the most interesting and livable alternative is an orga-
nization in which both convention and personal discretion have a placea
permanent 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 focus
simultaneously on principles, responsibilities, ideals, personal goals,
shared values, and relationships. Peter Vaill (1989) refers to this milieu as
the 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 bear
a significant aesthetic burden. They bear responsibility for balancing the
influence 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 come
to fear multiple voices in ethics and try to reduce the complexity. Less art-
ful managers might emphasize the influence of some perspectives to the
neglect of others. The neglect of principles, for example, results in chaos,
loss of coordination, growth of uncertainty, confusion, and egregious
wrongdoing. Loss of responsibility in organizations leads to what Victor
Thompson (1961) calls bureaupathologies, where principles and rules
grow unchecked (see also Adams & Balfour, 1998; Crozier, 1964; Van
Wart & Denhardt, 2001). Loss of ideals or goals leads to organizational
aimlessness, an absence of a shared vision, and the loss of a common
sense 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 on
efficiency, accountability, self-interest, promotability, and so on. And the
neglect of relationships leads an administrator to think the organization
exists independently and is sovereign in the context of stakeholders such
as constituents, legislators, political appointees, and so on. As Rollo May
(1991) wrote, Life consists of living in contradictions; and the person
who 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). For
the same reasons, Martha Nussbaum (1986) has described the ethical life
as 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 entertain
in thought the rich textures of organizational life. They reduce complexity
to simplicity and winnow out the conflicting elements. As Moore (1992)
states, The tragedy of fundamentalism in any context is its capacity to
freeze life into a solid cube of meaning (p. 236). From a more specific
ethical perspective, this fundamentalist or reductivist approach has dan-
gerous implications. By simplifying dilemmas and reducing themto rules
(implying that there is always a correct answer), one may likely forsake
the 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 what
the great artist does: He or she creatively balances the influence of all ethi-
cal voices in the organization. Such managers are more free to explore
the varied and rich texture of moral talk and thought (Pincoffs, 1986,
p. 174).
An administrator will be looking for consistency, of course, but also for
balance. Ethical balance requires that all ethical perspectives have influ-
ence within the organization. The varying perspectives may agree at some
decision 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 and
rules, rights and justice, impartiality and fairness. But this is just historical
accident; one purpose of this article is to encourage a more inclusive
concept of ethics.
An aesthetic theory of ethical conflict also implies that ethical deci-
sions are often highly contextual. The relevant context includes not just
the features of the problem facing the manager, isolated from the organi-
zation and its history, but also a sense of the entire organization and the
history of the influence of a variety of ethical perspectives. For example, a
typical case in administrative ethics involves a loyal employee who is
asked to do something questionable by a person with powera might
versus right case. Such a situation usually involves some ambiguity:
Dont worry, this is standard procedure; dont make waves. Normally,
discussions of this case assume that the ethical issue is choosing a right or
wrong act or making a right or wrong decision. But if considered from a
more aesthetic point of view, the decision maker will perceive that the
present ambiguity is the result of a much larger, incomplete picture; no
moments of decision are self-contained. Moral integrity depends on
understanding how all the elements fit together over time rather than on
imputing motives to others and resolutely standing ones 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) all
interact over time to construct a moral atmosphere that is reasonable and
balanced. 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 judgment
at the time, knowing that parts of the picture can usually be corrected, if
need be, as the picture becomes clearer.
CONCLUSION
Sidney Harris (1986) wrote that society is like a pot of soup: It needs
different, and contrasting, ingredients to give it body and flavor and last-
ing nourishment. It is compound, not simple. . . . A blend to satisfy the
most divergent palates (p. 13). This article has tried to showthat adminis-
trative decision making is much like a pot of soupor a painting or a song.
Ethical life is multivocal, ambiguous, conflicting, and difficult; but it is
also beautiful, excellent, and praiseworthyand 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 whether
you can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. It is a paradox
because it seems irrational to hold two contradictory notions at the same
time; but being able to do so indicates that you have the strength and sanity
to withstand the tensions between the two. . . . All nature, indeed, is a vast
aggregation of contradictories. . . . So it is, also, with our social systems and
economic arrangements. . . . None of them is in perfect balance; each
requires 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, or
feared; 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) states
that a
relaxed ego that honors the many offers considerable rewards. We find
vitality in tension, learn fromparadox, gather wisdomby straddling ambiv-
alence, and gain confidence in trusting the confusion that naturally arises
from multiplicity. The sign of a soulful life is its rich texture and its com-
plexity. The souls 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 all
these tensions, which are usually handled by adopting one dominant ethi-
cal perspective to the exclusion of others. This can be achieved through
bureaucratization, 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 to
have one [psychological] function dominate the whole system and not
serve the order (p. 240).
The whole point of managing is to arrange and coordinate things in
beautiful ways. This requires ethical decision making with an aesthetic
sensibility. Considered this way, good management affects our lives
through and through. As administrators, we must seek to be principled,
responsible, idealistic, motivated, caring, loyaland perhaps much more.
Great managers accomplish this and do so beautifully. There are separate
ethical languages for each of these perspectives, but we lack the aesthetic
language that enables us to bridge the tensions that each language creates.
Eli Siegel (1946) offers an analogy that might help:
Adrum 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, the
result is not good. If the drum plays something too different, wrongly
opposed to what the clarinet is playing, the result isnt good, either. . . . Still,
it is possible that, as can be seen very often in halls where music is played,
the clarinet and drumcan play different things at the same time . . . and it is
possible that the differences make for togetherness andharmony. (pp. 22-23)
The same can be true for various paired opposites working together
harmoniously in organizational experience. Employees are not likely to
reflect all ethical perspectives in a clone like way; rather, each employee
will manifest a disposition to favor some perspectives over others. This
fact gives rise to the kinds of dilemmas illustratedearlier in this article. For
example, some employees will see greater ethnic and cultural diversity as
a value to be preferred in the organization, whereas other employees will
see the same issue, not as a matter of preferred values but as a matter of
principle, viz. freedomof choice and merit. The worst choice an adminis-
trator can make in this situation is at the extremes: hire on the basis
of merit only or hire on the basis of ethnicity only. Both perspectives are
organizationally 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 voice
becomes dominant; the same is true if a voice is ignored. Thus, ethical
management 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 the
potential 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 ethical
voices; therefore, the presence of ethical quandaries is a sign of ethical
health.
This article has focused on several points:
The nature of administrative ethics is multivocal. We can hope for no ethi-
cal unitynor 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 be
honestly avoided, and many cannot be solved.
Organizations can simplify ethical conflict by allowing one voice to domi-
nate, but the ethical costsspecifically, the loss of ethical diversityare
high.
Rather than regarding administrative ethical dilemmas as symptoms or
signs of problems needing remedies, ethical conflict should be seen as a
sign of organizational health.
Ethics is more artistic than scientific. The truly ethical organization is more
beautiful than correct, and the best administrators are those who strive to
balance the tensions of ethical voices within their organizations.
We end with a quote from Eli Siegel (1946), who makes a similar case
for applying aesthetic thinking in other areas, such as economics, psychia-
try, and politics:
Aesthetics [is] a means of maintaining unity in difference and oneness in
opposition. There is nothing really with which aesthetics in this meaning
has not to do. . . . The organization of a trade union is akin to organization in
aesthetics. . . . The purpose of economics or politics is to maintain the col-
lective while intensifying the individual, to support gloriously the universal
while heightening properly a specific person. When this is done, we shall
have aesthetic economics and artistic politics. This would be good and
accurate; and the meaning of it is so large we can hardly realize it now.
(p. 46)
We believe that ethics has much to gain fromrecognizing its aesthetic sen-
sibilities. It is in this vein that we have articulated a more systematic way
of thinking about ethical conflict.
NOTE
1. The labels for each perspective are a little misleading. The schema is built using the
distinction between universals and particulars on one hand and the distinction among
deontology, 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 this
theory, 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. Baton
Rouge: 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 constant
reference 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: Aperspective
for 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). Integrityinthe public service. Public AdministrationReview, 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). Howpublic managers viewtheir environment: Balancing organizational
demands, political realities, and personal values. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiers
in public management: Seeking new strategies for resolving ethical dilemmas (pp. 34-
63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guy, M. E. (1991). Usinghighreliabilitymanagement topromote ethical decisionmaking. In
J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiers in public management: Seeking new strategies for
resolving 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: Selectedwritings by James Hillman. NewYork: 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). Lawversus ethics: Reconcilingtwo 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 andthe public service. NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress.
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: Howthe 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 andprivate hospitality: Acase studyinfederal
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). Damnedwelcome: Aesthetic realismmaxims. NewYork: DefinitionPress.
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: Areflection of societys val-
ues and a context for individual ethics. In T. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of administrative
ethics (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 in
American government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
F. Neil Brady is the Jack R. Wheatley Professor of Public Management in the Romney
Institute of Public Management at BrighamYoungUniversity. He has publishedmore
than 30 articles on ethics in a variety of journals including the Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, American
Reviewof Public Administration, and the Academy of Management Review. He has
authored Ethical Managing (1990) and edited Ethical Universals in International
Business (1996). For 20 years, his research has focused on the application of ethical
theory to managerial decisions.
DavidW. Hart is anassistant professor of public management in the Romney Institute
of Public Management at the Marriott School of Management at BrighamYoungUni-
versity. He received his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Albany. His
current 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 Manage
the Legal Hazards of Competitive Pressures (1998).

Confl Etice in Administratie

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Confl Etice in Administratie

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://aas.sagepub.

S-ar putea să vă placă și