Current Public Administration Magazine (March - 2014) - "Ethics & Morality in Administration"

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Online Course

Sample Material of Current Public Administration Magazine

Ethics & Morality in Administration

ETHICAL AND MORAL VALUES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ethics and public service values are important elements in comprising the “body and soul” of public administration (Menzel, 2003). Accordingly, several scholars and practitioners have sought to identify and understand the ethical responsibility of the public administrator and have also attempted to offer applied ethical guidance and structured theoretical frameworks for use within the sector (Cody & Lynn, 1992; Cooper, 1990; Denhardt, 1988; Rohr, 1978). From ethical principals to recommendations, scholars and practitioners have attempted to classify what are, or should be, the foundations of administrative ethics, the appropriate ethical behaviors of public leaders, and the ethical role of the public administrator.Yet, very often the subject of administrative ethics and the ethical qualities considered fundamental to the public administrator’s role are explored independent of values which are also associated with leadership.

In his book Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values, Rohr (1978) argues that regime values are the normative foundations of administrative ethics. He later defines regime values as the values of the political entity “brought into being by the ratification of the Constitution that created the American republic” (p. 59). Frederickson (1983) however calls for a renewal of civic virtue in defining a central value of public administration, and Cooper (1991) similarly argues that public administration should seek its ethical identity in the ethical tradition of citizenship. Accordingly, Stivers (2001) sets forth the major ingredients of a citizenship ethic in public administration as authoritative judgment, the public interest, citizenship as education, and community.

This is a Part of Public Administration Online Coaching & Study Kit

Further in addressing the moral and ethical obligations of public administrators, Moore (1976) states that public-sector obligations arise from three different realms which includes: (1) respecting the processes that legitimate the actions of public officials, (2) serving the public interest, and (3) treating colleagues and subordinates with respect, honesty, and fairness. Hart (1984) argues that public administration is a “moral endeavor” that requires special moral obligations and unique moral character. While Stewart (1985) similarly notes that “the role of a public administrator carries a kind of moral weight not found in private sector counterpart roles”

Bailey (1965) suggests that the ethical dilemmas facing public administrators requires specific attitudes that must be aligned with unique moral qualities, and Waldo (1980) identifies more than a dozen sources of obligations relevant to the conduct of the public administrator’s role. Cooper (1987) further presents twenty specific virtues that directly relate to three broad “realms of obligation” for public servants, and Denhardt (1991) identifies the “moral foundations” of a public administrator’s role as honor, benevolence, and justice; while Cohen & Eimicke (1995) reduce Carol Lewis’ (1991) twenty-one rules of thumb for the ethical behavior of a public administrator to five simple principles: (1) obey the law, (2) serve the public interest, (3) avoid doing harm, (4) take individual responsibility for the process and its consequences, and (5) treat incompetence as an abuse of office. Warwick (1981), in identifying some of the common ethical dilemmas faced by public officials in the exercise of discretion, offers five ethical principles of guidance: (1) the exercise of discretion should serve the public interest, (2) public officials should push back bounds on rationality so that deliberation may take place, (3) public officials should provide truthfulness in the discharge of official responsibilities, (4) public officials should demonstrate procedural respect, and (5) public officials should exercise restraints on the means chosen to accomplish organizational ends. Warwick (1981) further specifies the four sources of ethical decision making by public-sector leaders as public interest, constituency interests, personal interest, and bureaucratic interest. Similarly Cooper (1990) identifies the sources as individual attributes, organizational structure, organizational culture, and societal expectations.