Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Unmasking Administrative Evil (2).pptx
- 4. “Actions of human beings that unjustly or needlessly inflict pain and suffering on other humans.”
- 7. • • •
- 17. o o o
- 18. o o o
Editor's Notes
- Evil can have many definitions. But in the context of Administrative Evil, these are individuals who are committing evil acts within their normal profession, often without awareness. Administrative evil can be distinguished from other manifestations of evil and ethical failures because its appearance is masked, meaning that people can engage in acts of evil unaware that they are in fact doing anything at all wrong
- Adams and Balfour describe evil in their book “Unmasking Administrative Evil” as actions of human beings that unjustly or needlessly inflict pain and suffering (or death) on other humans.
- Erwin Straub describe evil in his book , as the obstruction of human beings. Straub discusses that evil is an action that has such consequences.
- Meanwhile, Claudia Card describe evil in the “The Atrocity Paradigm” as foreseeable intolerable harm produced by culpable wrongdoings.
- Evil is inflicting pain or harm on other human beings in an unjustly manner Some sources define evil more narrowly, as intentional or knowingly inflicting harm Administrative evil is systematic and uses normal people in their professional or administrative roles to inflict harm, and are not necessarily aware of wrongdoing.
- The common characteristic of administrative evil is that ordinary people within their normal professional and administrative roles can engage in acts of evil without being aware that they are doing anything wrong. Under conditions of moral inversion, people may even view their evil activity as good.
- Hoffman et. al. builds upon these characteristics in their article “The Ten Masks of Administrative Evil” In Adams and Balfour, it is suggested that administrative evil is accomplished by cloaking unethical actions behind a mask. Administrative Evil may hide itself behind one of these concepts or “Masks”. Euphemisms: The use of indirect or mild language to describe something that may have negative or harmful connotations, thus downplaying the true nature of the situation. Example: A government agency refers to a policy of segregation as "protecting cultural diversity" to downplay the discriminatory nature of the action. Compartmentalization: Viewing one's actions within a narrow context, often neglecting to consider the broader implications and ethical consequences. Example: A large corporation implements cost-cutting measures resulting in employee layoffs. Senior executives focus on financial gains, while compartmentalizing the human impact of job losses. Instrumental Rationality: Prioritizing efficiency and effectiveness in achieving goals while disregarding ethical values. Example: In the pursuit of scientific knowledge during the Holocaust, Nazi doctors conducted inhumane experiments on prisoners without regard for the ethical implications. Legalism: Justifying actions based on their legality, even if they may be morally wrong or harmful. Example: A corrupt political leader exploits legal loopholes to embezzle public funds for personal gain, arguing that the actions are within the bounds of the law. Accountability Structures: Defending one's actions by claiming they were following orders or adhering to the established hierarchy. Example: A military officer orders subordinates to carry out an unjustified attack on civilians, believing that they will not be held personally responsible due to their superiors' orders. Dehumanization: Treating individuals as less than human, often to justify mistreatment or exploitation. Example: In historical instances of slavery, slaveholders dehumanized their captives, viewing them as property rather than fellow human beings. Mission Supremacy: Believing that the pursuit of a particular mission or goal justifies questionable actions or collateral harm. Example: A government agency justifies conducting surveillance on citizens without proper oversight, claiming it is necessary for national security. Ethical Fading: Failing to recognize or acknowledge the ethical implications of one's actions, often due to situational or psychological factors. Example: A corporation implements a cost-saving measure that results in environmental pollution, failing to recognize the harm caused to local communities. Moral Inversion: Perceiving harmful actions as morally acceptable or even virtuous when viewed from a particular ideological perspective. Example: A terrorist organization commits violent acts, believing they are serving a higher moral cause. Reward and Punishment: Being motivated by the potential for personal gain or the fear of punishment rather than ethical considerations. Example: Soldiers are offered financial incentives for carrying out unethical orders, creating a dilemma between moral values and personal gain.
- Adam (2011) presents three major unique differences of the concept of administrative evil: The Modern Inclination to Un-name Evil - In contemporary society, there is a tendency to downplay or avoid labeling actions as "evil" due to various reasons, such as political correctness, fear of confrontation, or an emphasis on bureaucratic language. By avoiding explicit acknowledgment of evil, unethical actions may be masked or camouflaged, making it challenging to address and confront administrative evil effectively. Diffusion of Individual Responsibility in Complex Organizations: Modern bureaucratic organizations often have intricate and decentralized structures, with multiple layers of decision-making and authority. This diffusion of responsibility can create a situation where individuals involved in harmful actions may feel less personally accountable for the consequences of their actions. This diffusion makes it easier for administrative evil to persist, as individuals can pass the blame to others or claim that they were merely following orders.The way in which the culture of technical rationality has analytically narrowed the process of public policy formation and implementation so that moral inversions are more likely. Culture of Technical Rationality and Moral Inversions: The culture of technical rationality in modern organizations prioritizes efficiency, effectiveness, and quantifiable outcomes. In the process of public policy formation and implementation, ethical considerations can be sidelined or ignored, leading to moral inversions. Moral inversions occur when actions that are harmful or unethical are justified as necessary for achieving technical goals or organizational objectives. This narrowing of focus on technical aspects can lead to a neglect of ethical considerations and contribute to administrative evil.
- The Holocaust was a period in history at the time of World War Two (1939-1945), when millions of Jews were murdered because of who they were. The killings were organised by Germany's Nazi party, led by Adolf Hitler. Jews were the main target of the Nazis, and the greatest number of victims were Jewish. Nearly seven out of every 10 Jews in Europe were murdered because of their identity. The Nazis also killed other groups of people, including Roma ('gypsies') and disabled people. They also arrested and took away the rights of other groups, like gay people and political opponents. Many of them died as a result of their treatment.
- One of the most examples of administrative evil is The Holocaust. This state-sponsored and systematic persecution and murder of more than 6 million people, including Jews and other groups, was the direct concept of administrative evil. The most disturbing part of the Holocaust is that generally ordinary people fulfilling everyday roles committed such atrocious acts. Adams and Balfour discuss how the train station managers kept the trains running on time, but never asked where the trains going with all those people.
- The Milgram experiment was created to prove that Americans was less prone to the direction of authority than Germans, as was evident in the Holocaust. In the experiment there was a learner and a teacher. The learner was played by an actor, but there was the appearance of random assignment of the roles to test the subjects. The teacher would ask series of questions and if the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher administered an electric shock There was also a man dressed in a white lab coat who was seen as an authority figure. When the electric shocks was perceived to be too severe by the teacher and was hesitant to move on, the scientist would instruct the teacher to continue. Each time the teacher continued, despite sounds of pain from the learner. The experiment produced results and is an example of administrative evil.
- In another shocking experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment tested the limits of administrative evil. The experiment consisted of subjects who played guards and prisoners. Guards were told to maintain order and prisoners would follow orders from the guards. Interestingly, the roles instantly took hold and the guards became very aggressive towards the prisoners. The guards became more aggressive, the experiment had to conclude early. It was clear that the subjects adapted to their roles more quickly than anticipated. This showed that institutions, social roles and structure shapes behavior.
- In another shocking experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment tested the limits of administrative evil. The experiment consisted of subjects who played guards and prisoners. Guards were told to maintain order and prisoners would follow orders from the guards. Interestingly, the roles instantly took hold and the guards became very aggressive towards the prisoners. The guards became more aggressive, the experiment had to conclude early. It was clear that the subjects adapted to their roles more quickly than anticipated. This showed that institutions, social roles and structure shapes behavior.
- Balancing Compliance and Moral Reasoning: Responsible administrators must strike a balance between following overhead controls, rules, and procedures, and exercising individual moral reasoning. While adherence to rules is essential for consistency and accountability, administrators should also be empowered to make ethical decisions when faced with complex or ambiguous situations. Discretion and Accountability: Administrators often have discretion in decision-making, and responsible administration involves using that discretion judiciously and responsibly. They should be aware of the impact of their decisions on individuals and communities and remain accountable for their actions. Public Values and Social Equity: Responsible administrators should consider public values and societal goals, such as social equity, when making decisions. Upholding principles of fairness, justice, and equity ensures that administrative actions align with the broader welfare of society. Integrity Systems and Combating Corruption: Implementing integrity systems and anti-corruption measures are essential tools to prevent administrative evil. These systems create checks and balances to identify and address unethical behavior, promoting transparency and accountability within administrative processes.
- How to prevent administrative evil: According to the article Fending Off Administrative Evil, public administrators can work to fend off evil by understanding and practicing ethics in their professional develop. Some of the suggestions include: Keeping up-to-date concerning emerging ethical issues, practices and potential problems that could affect one’s performance and accomplishing the organization’s mission. Providing support and encouragement to others to upgrade their ethical competence and participate in professional activities and associations. Allocating time and resources for the ethical development of students, interns, beginning professionals and other colleagues. As good as these practices are, preventing administrative evil requires public administrators to focus on developing the habit of ethical deliberation in themselves as well as their colleagues. To this end, Raile suggests incorporating ethics programs that highlight personal accountability and trustworthiness among every member of the organization, including administrators, as well as opportunities to interact with ethics officials. While no administrative practice is guaranteed to prevent administrative evil, ethical deliberation and exposing those thoughts in public for commentary and critique during the decisionmaking process will go a long way to fend off, if not eliminate, administrative evil in public organizations. Then, as the habit of ethical deliberation is routinized in public service organizations, public administrators will be building a wealth of virtue and ethical capital in their organizations in a way that their professional knowledge, expertise, competence and effectiveness apparently do not.