- Introduction
- Background
- Practical applications
- Concluding remarks
- Works Cited
Introduction
Cooper (2006) says that responsibility evaluates action and attributes while otherwise remaining ambiguous (Cooper p.6). It would seem that the vagueness of ethics became encased in the structure of bureaucracy and administrative processes in such a way that ethics have been either removed or ignored in a variety of cases.
This has been argued to be responsible for increasing levels of immorality or even “evil” in many administrative actions, while the social circumstances in many cases do not provide adequate freedom for change.
The change of one’s ethics from good to evil, in any situation, termed the “Lucifer Effect” helps to reveal the underlying causes in the processes of administration which are in need of change. With realization and effort, the “Lucifer Effect” can be employed to use the same forces which help to mask administrative evil while further catering to it in order to understand, remove, and seek the positive results of any administration with a greater accuracy.
Background
The concept of administrative evil is not commonly considered in administrative bodies in any way whatsoever. While ethics are more commonly considered in many facets of administrative processes and development, unethical behavior is not generally referred to as being so wrong that it is on par with being evil.
While some areas in administration such as conflicts of interest or patronage may effectively be middle grounds with regards to ethics, these areas can be more deeply explored to consider how errors, bad judgment calls, and general neglect cater to intentional effort towards subverting, defrauding, or covering up (Canadian Journal of Urban Research p.1).
While the notion of “evil” is technically objective in any case, the actions of intention deception and manipulation with counter-productive intentions are commonly considered to fall into this category. As Adams and Balfour (2004) argue in their book Unmasking Administrative Evil, the nature of the definition of the word evil creates a challenge it making distinctions between it and general and non-serious misconduct.
Zimbardo’s (2008) new theory in this respect aids in removing the concept of evil from a more general and objective notion while breaking it down so that not only the intentions can be located in administration, in the ways applied by Adams and Balfour, but also serving the purpose of understanding why and how people intentionally take these courses of actions.
Zimbardo’s theory asks many basic elemental questions about humanity in general, giving most consideration to ordinary or even formerly good-natured people who later choose to become “evil” by nature. The attempts at comprehending such concepts and deviant or unusual behavior commonly lead people to make the mistake of emphasizing only factors such as genetics, demeanor, or character while not adequately considering what gave rise to changes in behavior or function.
Zimbardo generally challenges readers to think about their own personal inner workings as well as to consider how much faith they have in themselves to be stubborn with their beliefs and values in any circumstance.
Administrative evil is not thought to be common place in that it is rampant, but nonetheless a pressing issue because it is so commonly ignored even when it is found. The concept as presented by Adams and Balfour (2008) assumes that most public servants have good intentions and are competent, however, while even when there information is debated or considered incorrect the actions are not commonly considered unethical and certainly not evil.
Despite this, the resultant rationalization aids in a bureaucratic foundation that effectively removes the consideration of ethics at a fundamental level (and hence evil being “masked”). This differs from the more classical notion of “dirty hands” where consideration is given to ethics, and seemingly substitutes the ethics for hardwired efficiency and effectiveness.
Practical applications
Zimbardo’s “Lucifer Effect” (2008) promotes a series of inquiries with regards to ethics at both a fundamental level and with regards to business situations. The psychological processes that occur in evil situations is considered, while he both directly and indirectly presents cases that can be further applied to the same administrative scenarios as Adams and Balfour for an increased understanding.
According to Zimbardo, social forces are the typical causes that spark actions that could be considered by evil from anyone within the business world or otherwise. The fact that some people are inherently evil and thoroughly evil is considered, however the general assumption is that outside forces are what cause most people to show similar behaviors.
Most of the negative actions evoked by people could not have taken place without people choosing to take part, or rather refuse to deviate from, certain actions that involve massive numbers of local populations. Hitler and others were able to carry out their missions through the support of millions of people.
Of course, while the causes of such evil may be able to be blamed on a handful of specific people, the entire set of actions as a whole survived and were carried out by a large number of people, and as such, the actions are best explained by the mentality of the groups rather than only the initializing individuals. In the business world, actions are just as relevant or even more relevant.
Consider Wal-mart as only an example, assuming the stance that Wal-mart is a heartless an unethical business responsible for evil on personal, social, and economic scales. Whether or not this is actually true is entirely debatable, however assuming for these exemplary purposes that those claiming it is unethical and evil are correct, we consider those assisting Wal-mart’s actions.
These include people on a scale more massive that Hitler’s support group both in terms of sheer number and types of people. Hitler had millions of soldiers, some curious scientists, and local citizens supporting the actions. Wal-mart has billions of consumers funding the actions while supporting the existence, employees, and others in the business world and governments supporting their growth.
Even if Wal-mart soon became considered “evil” on a larger scale to the point it was socially acceptable, the fact that it provides employment to people seeking it, provides low prices and convenience to consumers, and provides mutual benefits to some in the business world, it would still continue to grow as people need jobs, people arguably need low prices and convenience dependant on circumstance, and business need partnerships.
So, we can see how such a concept as Zimbaro’s “Lucifer Effect” can be applied to the evil in the administrative world, as social forces and everyday needs and desires cause people to act in ways which they know deviate somewhat or even far from their personal ethical values.
The Lucifer Effect considers the common and everyday possibility for someone to lose their ethical values, and thus take part in a transformation from good to evil, as did the Biblical character Lucifer in becoming Satan. Surely people vary in regards to how ethical or “good” they may be.
However, over 50 years of research in social psychology has came to the general conclusion that it does not take much for even conditions which could otherwise be considered trivial to bring out highly negative behavior from people, while it is considered commonplace for people to act in a negative manner under specific circumstances. This has been, as Adams and Balfour mention of Adolf Eichmann’s trial, more commonly referred to as the “banality of evil.” (Adams and Balfour p. xviii).
Work situations commonly have these conditions, and it seemingly takes what President Bush famously referred to as a “smoking gun” before people in a business environment will have so much negativity that they are willing to put their jobs and reputations on the line to see changes. Frankly, people are commonly too afraid of losing their jobs or walking on eggshells to be promoted to question the ethical values of their immediate supervisors or otherwise.
Zimbardo (2008) questions what specifically makes people act in such a way they had never previously imagined. Essentially it becomes apparent that social situations and the related psychology cause the majority of evil actions and events.
Of course many situational conditions and psychological elements are relevant here, and nearly all of these are directly applicable to administrative entities and actions. Social influences are evident in administrative processes and though the social structure is not the same as was in Germany during Hitler’s reign, for example, the structure often is affected by social pressures from outside as well as inside.
Departments may pressure one another into taking action differing from ethical norms, management may enforce certain actions, the market demands may even force a company to change its focus, all the while employees may take on new mannerisms or simply allows others to take place out of fear for causing problems or even not doing what they are told.
According to Cooper, administrators have no difficulty in identifying when someone is acting unethically or illegally in the general case (Cooper p. 42). Luckily, according to Zimbardo, the same social mentality that brings out the worst in people can also be reconfigured and instead tailored to support the most positive traits in people.
Since altruism, similar to evil, is to blame for the effects of circumstance in any pressurizing scenario, it can thus be a resource for the potential in a positive light. This is as easily applied to administrative processes as any process.
Concluding remarks
The administrative process is a hierarchical one, commonly criticized both for its design in this manner of being top-down and now in more modern cases even for “masking evil” with regards to many circumstances. As the immoral actions of one person reflect towards not only another individual or process but on the whole organizational policy, clearly the immoral actions of a few can become a great entity when entire bodies of subordinates and others are giving life to them (Cooper p.42).
As the bureaucratic actions of modernized company realize their flaws, as realized with any system with time, it is evident that even people with good intentions and even positively attempted efforts can ultimately be responsible for a great deal of negativity. The “Lucifer Effect” provides a great deal of insight in the effort to “unmask” “administrative evil,” as with the understanding of it while making use of altruism can aid seeking positive processes and effects.
While most systems of the past have found their faults and were forced to reform, so will these new flaws in administrative processes. Fortunately the continuing research and will to change when necessary will allow for positive change.
Works Cited
Adams, Guy and Balfour, Danny, Unmasking administrative evil, M.E. Sharpe, 2004.
Cooper, Terry, The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role, Jossey-Bass, 2006.
“Unmasking administrative evil”. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. FindArticles. 2009. Web.
Zimbardo, Philip, The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil, Published by Rider, 2008.