Ethical Leadership

1. The ethics of public leaders
Administrative ethics and policy ethics

2. The ethics of public leaders
Administrative ethics and policy ethics

3. What is ethics?
 Ethics: Values and principles that guide right and wrong behavior
 It is related to morals, which concern core beliefs about life. Morality can exist without a
behavior
 In public management…
 Most leaders/managers care about how to do things right (methods/tools). For example:
how to motivate employees with the right incentives?
 Fewer leaders/managers care about whether they do the right thing (logical or
philosophical reasoning behind an action). For example: is it the right thing to use
incentives, especially money, to motivate employees? Is it ethically permissible in public
service?

4. Why do we care about ethics?
 An ethical national leader is a role model who can
 Win citizens’ support (e.g., Gandhi).
 An ethical organizational leader a role model who can
 Win employees’ trust, and
 Create a culture that employees behave ethically, so we can
 Avoid possible unethical behavior (e.g. corruption) and enhance organizational
performance/productivity.

5. A dichotomy of public ethics: policy ethics
and administrative ethics
 Policy ethics (in policy making)
 It concerns whether a policy violates any ethical standards, such as justice, freedom,
and equity.
 You need ethical theories (e.g. categorical vs. consequential logical reasoning; theory of
justice) to make judgments.
 Administrative ethics (in organizational operation)
 It concerns whether a public manager behaves according to various public values, such
as transparency, accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, legality, neutrality…
 You need to consider whether values are absolute or relative (i.e. whether there is an
ethical standard that is universally acceptable).

6. Policy ethics
Public leaders making policies that meet ethical standards

7. Let me start with a few policy cases…
 Streaming policy in Singapore
 Education open to everyone (mandatory education)
 Competent students in high streams; less competent ones in low streams
 More resources allocated to students in high streams
 National competitiveness maximized
 Is it ethically acceptable? Based on what do you argue so?
 Two key points: (i) Is such resource allocation ethically acceptable? Is it just? Is it fair?
Based on what do you argue so? (ii) Is national competitiveness our overall concern? If
not, what is it? We discuss below.

8. The meaning of equity/fairness
 Which one refers to real equity? All of them?
 Those who get invitation can eat.
 Professors get more, students get less.
 Men and women get different shares.
 Some get more cakes to make up their loss in beef and broccoli.
 Those having diabetes eat less.
 Everyone gets a fork.
 Lottery.
 Everyone votes to decide.

9. The paramount concern: national
competitiveness?
 Is competitiveness our paramount concern?
 Is there anything equally important as (or more important than) competitiveness?
 If so, and this thing (this value) contradicts competitiveness, how do you make a
tradeoff?
 For example,
 Do you think fairness (equal distribution of resource) should outweigh national
competitiveness?
 If the country becomes competitive, but people are less happy (b/c of pressure), would
you still pursue competitiveness? Why?

10. University scholarship policy
 Scholarship policy in Singapore
 Everyone has the same chance to win the scholarship (we assume that).
 Scholarship is used to attract (buy) the most competent people.
 Scholarship is used to reward those who perform well academically.
 Ethical concerns (video, What Money Can’t Buy; Justice 8)
 Does it imply “as long as I have money, I can BUY whoever I want”? Does it also imply,
in education, we should allow market exchange? If so, should we charge students extra
money if they want to take a very popular course? More precisely, should we allow
market to come in to play in education?
 Is academic performance a result of one’s (i) effort, or (ii) talent? Should we award a
person simply because he/she is more talented?

12. Casinos policy
 Casino policy in Singapore
 We can increase employment rate by introducing casinos.
 The government will make a lot of money (from tourists) with casinos. Increased revenue
can improve the quality of infrastructures.
 Ethical concerns (video, Justice 2)
 Is gambling a noble pleasure? Should we encourage people to gamble just like we
encourage people to work out (e.g. playing balls)?
 Consequential vs. categorical reasoning: If 98% people will benefit, but only 2% people
will suffer, should we do it? Utilitarianism wins?
 Who is more likely to get addicted to gambling? Those who have good jobs, or those
who have low-end jobs?

14. Administrative ethics

15. Public values
 Administrative ethics concerns whether a public manager behaves according to
various public values.
 What are these public values?
 In the next slide, you will see 25 public values…
 You may want to pay attention some things:
 Are they exhaustive? There maybe even more…
 Universality: there might be some values universally acceptable.
 Relativity: People in different countries/cultures may have different priorities of these
values.

17. The 25 values can actually be reflected
in the 12 ethical obligations as you see
here. For example:
• Lawfulness: The Constitution/Law
• Expertise: Professionalism
• Loyalty: Nation or Country
• Obedience: Bureaucracy
• Serviceability: Public interest
• Honesty and courage: Religion/God
• Justice: Humanity/the World
• ….

18. Proper leadership: Based on universal and
culturally accepted values
 Sometimes ethical leadership is easy.
 There is one value to stick with.
 You follow the only rule/law/ethical standard.
 Sometimes it is not easy.
 In many cases, values clash with each other.
 You need to (i) be clear about your priority of these values, and (ii) explain to your men
why you take such an action based on the priority. You will then, in the future, (iii) be
consistent on the priority in your administration.
 We have a look at some cases.

19. A reminder
 I have no “recommended answer” in all these cases.
 Ethical training is all about…
 Brainstorming.
 Opinion exchange (especially with people having different backgrounds).
 Trying to have our views converge.
 Trying to find commonality and a mutually accepted solution.
 Trying to find a solution that you don’t regret after taking the real action.

20. In discussion…
 Please share with others…
 Your preferred action.
 Why do you prefer it.
 The public value(s) used to endorse your preferred action.
 Other public value(s) that may lead you to a different choice.
 The way you prioritize your selected public values. Is it based on (you think) a universal
standard, a culturally acceptable standard, or your personal standard?
 If there is an ethical dilemma, there may be a third way out. Please use your creativity
for solutions.

21. Buying a personal ticket using mileage
accumulated in business trips

22. Accepting personal 50% discount b/c of
huge group purchase

23. Will you penalize your man, or will you
penalize yourself?
 You are a commander. In your impression, one of your men lies a lot. One day, he comes to
ask for a night leave, saying that he has an emergent issue to deal with. You ask him how
emergent, but he doesn’t tell you. You disapproves his application.
 He sneaks out without your approval (breaking the rule). Later on, you get a call from local
police, saying that they get your man. They send your man back.
 Now he tells you the truth: His mother is a junkie. In the afternoon, he got a call from his
sister, saying that mother got high again and beat her. However, if she reported it to the
police, mother would be put in jail (according to the law in Singapore). His sister is too young
to live alone. He wanted to go out and tied her mother up, instead of reporting it to the police.
But eventually the police found out what happened.
 If you were the commander, will you penalize your man? Think about yourself: is your
decision (not letting him out) an ethical decision?

25. Fukushima explosion
 Minamisoma-shi (南相馬市) is 25km from Fukushima. The mayor’s name was Sakurai. Years
ago, the nuclear power plant in Fukushima exploded. Right after the explosion, Sakurai kept
calling the Fukushima government to ask whether they should evacuate. The answer was
NO NEED and STAY. He followed the order.
 Later on, both the US and S. Korea extended evacuation radius to 80km, but Japan still
insisted its 30km and asked people living within the 30km radius to STAY. The United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said the damage was far greater than what Japan
gov’t told the international press. There was a huge gap of assessment between the US and
Japan. People living within the 30km panicked. Some people even saw the army evacuated
as well.
 If you were Sakurai, would you evacuate people? Why or why not?

26. Killing shepherds?
 In 2005, Afghanistan, four US Navy SEALs were ordered to seek a high-rank leader loyal to
Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, two unarmed shepherds saw them, meaning that their
location was exposed. SEALs didn’t have ropes to tie these shepherds, so can: (i) Kill the two
unarmed shepherds, or (ii) release them. However, they could tell the Taliban, and their lives
would be in danger. If you were one of the soldiers, would you vote for killing, or not killing?
Do you have the third alternative?

27. Killing shepherds?
 About the story:
 They released the shepherds. An hour later, around 80-100 Taliban armed soldiers
attacked them with AK-47 and rocket launchers. Three (3) of them died. Taliban soldiers
also shot down a helicopter with 16 marines. This chopper intended to save the four
“stupid” SEALs. The only survivor is still remorseful for his lenient decision…
 It does not mean he is wrong, in fact…

28. An East German police shooting a man
trying to go to West Berlin in 1989

29. Inducing a 7-month old baby under the
One-Child policy in China

30. Summary
 Policy ethics
 Market, development, and justice
 Administrative ethics
 Dealing with conflicting public values
 We may not have a definite answer today, but it is a start.