Transcript Maladministration, *Passive Evil* and Insecurity in

Cases keep
emerging
Significant
literature on moral
leadership in
education
Not much on
maladministration
or “evil”
• Negligence,
mismanagement
• Unjust, immoral
policy
• Embezzlement, fraud,
conspiracy, abuse of
authority
• Mistreatment,
harassment, bullying,
mobbing, abuse
Profound negative
effects on people
and educational
organizations
Moral passivity is prevalent as
complement to administrative “evil”
• moral mutes are complicit in “cruelties and
moral lapses taking place within the ranks of
administrators” (p. 2)
Negative effects on psychological,
emotional functioning and security
• moral loopholes, defense mechanisms,
rationalizations
Need conceptual frameworks –
Habermas holds promise
• Social action and discourse ethics
Develop a conceptual framework based on Habermas’
Critical Theory to...
• illuminate dynamics of maladministration
• identify the strategies used to provide ‘cover’ for maladministration and
to ‘manage’ organizational members in light of it
• describe how these strategies ‘work’ on organizational members,
especially re: moral passivity
• generate guidance about dealing with maladministration and
recuperating a positive ethical climate and moral agency
Organizational and
broader
context
Sad, mad,
bad leaders
Conducive
followers
Maladministration
Based on Furnham, 2010.
Adapted from Habermas, 1984, p. 333
Valid
norms
• Derived from deliberative, democratic, pluralist procedures
(decentred subject, post-conventional ethics)
Principle of
discourse ethics
“Ideal speech”
conditions
Based on Habermas, 1990; Bernstein, 1995
• Valid norms=those that “would meet with
approval of all concerned if they could take
part in discourse”
• All affected have equal
opportunity for expression
• Each is motivated to
understanding/consensus
• Each is honest and sincere
• No one exercises privileges
e.g. Harassment
prevention policies –
“conduct that is
known or ought
reasonably to be known
to be unwelcome”
e.g. Conditions for
investigations into
wrong-doing and for
participatory
recovery efforts from
it (e.g. truth and
reconciliation
processes)
Goals: Close-off “discourse”; systematically distort
information, understanding, relationships, beliefs; recruit
colluders and victims, and promote conformity and passivity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e.g. de Wet (2010) – abusive
Disqualification
principals isolating victims and
Naturalization
undermining collegiality and
empathy
Neutralization
Topic avoidance
e.g. NY State embezzling superintendent
Subjectification of experience
who “convinced parents and board
Meaning denial/plausible deniability members that he, too, was a victim” (Vitello,
2006)
Legitimation
Pacification
Based on Deetz, 1992
Possible
responses
• collude
• resist
• conform /
remain passive
• run away
Possible
considerations
• self-preservation
• personal security
• power asymmetries
• duty to obey, loyalty to leader or
organization
• duty of care
• own character, values
• safety of recourse
• etc.
Systematic
distortions
• Moral loopholes
• Defensive routines
• Self-deceptive
rationalizations
Leadership
literature
• Preventative and counter-strategies re: sad, mad, bad
leaders
• Warning re: “attribution error” – not all based in
personality/character leaders (followers, context also
important)
Habermas
literature
• Healthy balance of communicative/strategic action
• Avenues for authentic ‘discourse’ (incl. conditions
resembling ‘ideal speech’)
Patently illegal,
wrong, egregious,
immediate action
needed
Ambiguous
• Act! (right away or with careful planning as appropriate – see below)
• Write down everything, collect evidence
• Make yourself aware of all applicable laws, policies, regulations
governing behaviour, and recourse avenues (incl. assessment of
fairness and safety of them)
• Become aware of different types of sad, mad, bad leaders (e.g. dark
triad) and perform a ‘diagnosis’
• Determine if you may be ‘exposed’ (e.g. a target of or threat to the
leader)
• Observe how others are responding (incl. other administrators) and
what this signals (e.g. any allies? any protection?)
• Evaluate your options and plan a response, including an exit strategy
• Openly oppose? Oppose through hidden means? Openly abstain from being
complicit? Absent oneself ?
• Target strategies of “discursive closure” and fight “systematic distortions”
Based in part on Samier (personal communication)
Goal: (re)generate
communicative
conditions (i.e. ideal
speech) and
orientations (i.e.
authentic expression,
reciprocity) to
experience goodwill
and moral obligation
• Discourse ethics as touchstone
• basis for critique of power and its effects, justiceoriented
• Supported with virtue ethics and
ethic of care
• basis for formation of moral character and empathy for
and obligation to specific others