Chapter 4: Corruption in the System
Chapter Abstract
The material in this section deals with corruption, understanding life events may cause a good person to do bad things, and corruption is not a term dedicated solely to illegal acts. The Transformational Leadership Style is outlined briefly. History does not provide a direct line to current events; nor does democracy; nor does leadership techniques or skills. Each has its own ups and downs and move at the will of those in a society. Ethics follows the same path although one may think it is consistent throughout time. Transformational leadership has the best fit probability to meet the changing tide of life and history.
Defining Corruption
Beginning this section with a question seems appropriate, especially since ethics and ethical decisions use differing approaches, therefore can corruption be viewed with the same vitriolic scorn in every situation? Is a free cup of coffee to a police officer being on the take? Is a favor to someone because of your position a form of corruption? Is contempt for corruption situational or exact?
According to Webster the term corruption is: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers): depravity; or inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery) the corruption of government officials; or a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct the corruption of a text the corruption of computer files; and finally, decay, decomposition the corruption of a carcass.
Examining the definition from the viewpoint of the CJ System a derivative of the definition may fit in some form in all aspects. This includes the system as a whole, individuals as a part of the system, leadership within the system, and government entities that may overlook the activity. However, at this juncture I caution readers to remain objective, remembering America’s physical fitness program, jumping to conclusions and leaping to suppositions. What makes the decision ethical or not?
Corruption in a System
Speaking to one portion of the CJ System, Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Roles Aronson, (1977) concludes that two significant models exist, they are: Situational and Systems Model. As examples of each he provides that confidentiality of attorney-client relationships or information obtained may be sacrificed when other’s interest are at stake. The latter model of Systems is more absolute detailing confidentiality as a duty and would be always wrong if compromised. This is not unlike teleological or deontological approaches previously discussed. Defense attorneys must zealously approach each client’s case. Their duty is to represent each client with sufficient capacity that is fair and reasonable. Nothing exhibited in an attorneys Canon of Ethics states that all defendants are innocent and it is the duty of all defense attorneys to end a trial in that result. Likewise nothing is listed that indicates a prosecutor must find all defendants charged guilty (Ortmeier, & Meese, 2010).
Continuing with defense and prosecutors to examine this ethical situation, two phrases come to the forefront. They are plea bargaining and prosecutorial misconduct. At first blush the reader may say well obviously a prosecutor not conducting her/himself appropriately is much worse (objectivity and not jumping to conclusion is necessary in this discussion). A defense attorney owes a client (particularly in a criminal case) to name a few, duty to investigate, control direction of litigation, trial conduct, appeals and plea bargaining (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). Prosecutors are obligated to represent the government and ensure justice, not convictions. To this end, exercise restraint in use of power, share information, base decisions on probable cause, and provide timely information to the defense. This system is considered an adversarial system. Parties to the criminal prosecution (defense and prosecutor want to win). Both entities must be cognizant of conflicts of interest and confidentiality. Influences that may enter into the defense/prosecutor discretion is political, economic, prison overcrowding, severity of the offense, public outcry to name just a few (Fagin, 2015; Pollock, 2010).
Pleas bargaining is essential to the American jurisprudence system. The system would collapse under its own weight if plea bargaining was impermissible. Generally good cases do not normally go to trial as evidence may weigh against the right of a day in court. The defendant must agree and waive her/his right to a public trial. Often court dockets necessitate plea bargaining and the judicial triad (Judge, Prosecutor, and Defense Attorney) agree to pleas. Problematic to the system is that defense attorneys, especially Public Defender Offices, have extremely heavy caseloads and over whelming pressure to settle cases. Prosecutors may slide less desirable cases into the mix that may not make it through a trial. Plea bargaining is rife for unethical behaviors by both side, either in form of misconduct or neglect.
Although starting this discussion relative to the BAR (defense and prosecution attorney participation), Aronson specifies that Situational Model and Systems Model are significant to these two roles; I submit the models are a good fit, a fair representation of the over-all CJ System. Discretion in this framework is not a stranger to other systems within the other CJ system. Police are distinguished as the gate-keeper of the CJ system, (strict interpretation of the law or spirt of the law), which crime to enforce and which to provide a stern lecture. Supervisors have latitude in which policy indiscretion must receive a formal reprimand compared to a lecture. Judges, correctional, probation and parole employees are confronted with discretionary use of authority. Sklansky (2006) maintains that diversity hiring has all but eliminated the “blue wall of silence” in the policing profession.
Courts are not immune from unethical or illegal behaviors, as seen in the “Kids for Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania Courts. A bribery scandal involving Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced to 28 years in prison in connection to a bribery scandal involving his acceptance of one million dollars in bribes from developers of private juvenile detention center. In return the judge would sentence juveniles to those private facilities in those cases that Ciavarella presided over (NPR.org). The case came to be known as “kids-for-cash.”
Government Misconduct
Albanese (2012) contends “Corruption lies at the core of virtually all major governmental problems, and ethical misconduct underlies corruption” (p.127). The misconduct can be measured in the enforcement of arbitrary laws, self-interest overriding public interest, lack of oversight, transparency, and bidding processes (Albanese, 2012). Cultural and sub-cultural philosophies may aid positively (misconduct prevention) or negatively (organizational misconduct) on this conduct. Additionally, falling prey to a group-think mentality. The term encompasses compliance and conformity to the decision making process. Originally derived from George Orwell’s 1984, later researched by Irving Janis (1971) examining some of America’s well publicized blunders using the Groupthink process in decision making. Two examples is the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (1961), sponsored by the United States and the space shuttle Challenger (1986) catastrophe.
Janis developed the process incorporated in the term groupthink in groups seeking decision making consensus. Particularly those groups that agreement seeking is the prevailing factor. Groupthink has a tendency to overshadow critical thinking that ignores alternative possibilities. Janis (1971) provides seven missteps in Groupthink and these are:
- Illusions of invulnerability-creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Unquestioned loyalty- belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
- Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
- Mindguards- self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information (p.85-88).
First in order to guard against this dynamic, leaders must insist on tell me what I need to hear; not necessarily what I want to hear theory. Second, assign a devil’ advocate that will ask the tough questions in every group. Third, encourage the questioning of the group results and process. Fourth, when a leader assigns a policy-planning scenario, he/she should remain neutral and not state a preference. The group should set up outside evaluation mechanism to test the decision and finally, test it with subgroups in the organization (Janis, 1971). Government misconduct and group misconduct may be viewed as organization culture and sub-culture and the conflicts within government also follow the sub-cultures of CJ agencies.
In some instances of police use of force, testimony, falsified evidence or other questionable police conduct may fall under the term “Noble Cause Corruption” (Pollock, 2010, p. 267). Noble Cause Corruption means that a police officer may conduct them self in a fashion considered unethical. This may be due to those criteria previously discussed. Although generally accepted as reoccurring in the police profession to this date, it has been dramatically reduced. The “Blue Wall of Silence” once contributing to further enabling of police misconduct has been reduced. Again, Sklansky (2006) attributes minority hiring (Females, African-American, Gays/Lesbians, Asian populations) into the ranks of policing as a milestone in diminishing the code of silence and noble cause corruption. Prior to the diversity in hiring, policing was primarily the “Good-Ole White Boys Club”. The noncompliance to old rules is principally due to new employees do not worship at the altar of the bargaining agreement, paying homage to the group leaders and they are not going to lose their job over something that someone else has done. The Groupthink mentality was more prevalent in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s than is current. However has it answered the sub-culture metamorphosis?
Was Hitler an effective Leader?
The answer is yes. As was Jim Jones and Charlie Manson, Hitler was an effective leader, but each for all the wrong reasons. Albeit each operated under morally bankrupt leadership style these were all effective leaders. Perhaps each possessed traits and qualities that great leaders have in common, they seized power for immoral purpose, and they did so using coveted leadership styles (Ciulla, 1995). Each of the mass murders identified, used their influence to dominate their membership. Hitler of course gained power then crushed all opposition which converted his status to tyrant (Ciulla, 1995). Hitler not only coveted malignant views but sought methods for furthering his beliefs, first he believed that the end justified the means; second he had contempt for peace; and third his influence was in the form of propaganda embracing total distortion of reality (Gardner, 1990). Hitler distorted an entire ethnic population (Jewish) misleading the German population providing them someone to blame for their own misgivings.
Power is ethically neutral, it can be used for good or bad purposes and therefore leadership must be addressed from a moral framework (Gardner, 1990). Why is it then that so many people obey when they feel coerced? A social psychologist from Yale University, Stanley Milgram studied this very topic in 1963. He advertised for ordinary men to participate in a learning/memory experiment based on paired words (Milgram, 1974).
The participants (teachers-recruited persons) were led to believe they were assisting in an experiment that measured retention of material recently taught to a student (actor-confidant of the experimenter). What Milgram was measuring was the level of obedience to an authoritarian figure, regardless of personal convictions or personal conscience. The teacher (recruited participant) was advised to induce an electric shock to the student (affiliate) for each wrong answer from 15-450 volts. In reality the shocks were fake and in fact had they not been, they would have been fatal in the upper range (Blass, 1999).
Milgram concluded that everyday people will follow orders given by an authoritarian figure. Obedience is ingrained in humans from birth through socialization of members in society. This response to legitimate authority is generally learned from person’s family, school, and workplace. Most will obey others if the authority is recognized as legitimate and morally correct and based in some legal foundation (Milgram, 1974).
Leadership Addressing Corruption
The two basic types of ethical systems are deontological ethical system-intent of the act will determine whether an act was good or bad and teleological ethical system which judges the outcome of the act or end justifies the means (Pollock, 2010). The transformational leader practices the former along with his/her vision the creation of values for the organization. There are three core themes to vision construction through values and they are: High performance standards; caring about people in the organization; and a sense of uniqueness and pride (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Hitler was of the teleological view that the end justified the means and was willing to sacrifice all German people to save his own portrait in history. Hitler is the antithesis of the definition of character. Character is about doing good rather than harm to others whether the harm is intentional or not (Zigarmi, Blanchard, O’Conner, & and Edeburn, 2005). Although Hitler possessed many of the traits that you may recognize in respected leaders, his motives were ill conceived. Leaders of a transformational style are able to influence members to achieve the goals and vision of the organization but do so with benevolent intent rather than malignant malfeasance.
The personality traits of the Transformational Leader strikes me as the over-all style fitting for most situations, but having said that I must preface remaining remarks with the fact I feel successful leaders have co-existing styles and draw on them dependent upon the context. The transformational style is capable of producing higher level of performance than previously thought possible and by expressing personal standards are able to achieve change and unite followers (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
An innovative organization engages everyone and the leader must create the atmosphere for change and develop middle management for the challenge (Behn, 1995). Different leaders can accomplish similar purposes with different strategies and styles. The preceding is intertwined with the Constructive Theory that leaders emerged from personal experience and their social and interpersonal environments is how they approach leading (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). The constructionist and the transformational leader are similarly situated and often in an ongoing learning experience and must be willing and fortified with the ability to subject the experience to the correct ethical approach.
A socio-psychological profile designed to afford a person of strengths and weaknesses is Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness (DISC). A self-analysis profile that provides the learner of strengths and weakness as is in my case. DISC is fashioned to arm the leader with a better understanding of his/her strengths and weaknesses. DISC is a personality assessment with regard to leadership styles. DISC provides the opportunity for leaders to become more efficient. Leaders today may be efficient with things, but they must be effective with people, particularly in a very labor intensive environment such as the CJ system. Motivation and influence of members is the key as police officers won’t tolerate autocratic management style (ACJS, 1984). The leader that is better armed is better prepared to accept responsibility of leadership and to understand those he may lead.
An example of the DISC profile I offer myself. As a result of taking this profile on more than one occasion, I have been dubbed the Promoter Pattern. I found agreement with the majority of the analysis. What I have learned as a Transformational Leader and from frequent DISC self-analysis that my style does not fit every person I come in contact or the situation. If a leader understands self and can understand which pattern or preference the membership is situated he/she can better lead armed with this knowledge. Leadership development is self- development (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Personality is a combination of life experiences, a behavior manifestation of “who you Are”, (Zigarmi et. al., 2004). DISC is a self-analysis that provides an opportunity to develop strengths and overcome weaknesses. The transformational leader motivates and influences members to take on the difficult and accomplish tough goals (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Not every leader has developed the necessary traits to make this happen and again DISC is most helpful to further a leader’s development. I find this particularly true in an ever changing environment in police leadership. Police officers will not tolerate autocratic management style (ACJS, 1984), therefore a police leader today must be cajoling, influential and a motivator. Behavioral adaptability is not selling your soul or losing your identity, but rather willingness and ability to use behaviors not necessarily characteristic to your preference bias (Zigarmi et. al., 2004).
Your personal traits, how you as a leader can massage them and overcome weakness develop your personal style. I am of the firm belief that no one style is a standalone style but they co-exist and if not by choice then from necessity to meet each differing situation. Leaders learn to lead by understanding what is important to them (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Thereby as a transformational leader attaches moral importance to a deontological approach, but does not necessarily prevent a quick trip to the consequentialist side for a brief stay. The successful leader may cross over to the teleological approach and move back into the deontological before it is noticed.
Police work has a broad definition. Police organizations must deal with crisis both internal and external. Contemporary organizations often are described as hostile, complex, uncertain, and changeable. The leadership that develops from crisis situations is better suited to overcome a singular crisis and how the organization prepares for the next crisis. The leader guides the internal dynamics of the group to include motivation, and communication patterns; specifically the flexible and participative leader appears more effective (Jin, Sun, & Kim, 2010). Leadership may be defined in terms of facilitation, vision, motivation, authenticity and advocacy, and encouragement of others. Role modeling is critical for the development of future leaders and the profession (Gibson, Dollarhide, and McCallum, 2010).
Assuming the reader agrees with the preceding then it should not be difficult to connect the dots between the importance of leadership style, ethical approaches, flexibility within the leader and her/his style and the ability to celebrate crises as a learning experience to build upon the next. Regardless of the type of CJ practice one may find them self. Then might one’s life as well as leadership style require the ability to move back and forth between ethical approaches from time to time?
As provided in the opening salvo, History has not provided a clear straight line from our beginning to this juncture in time. Again as previously discussed in previous sections, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle produced in their works a philosophy that has passed the test of time. Mills, Bentham, and Locke have added to the discussion that has supplemented the original works. Certainly time has demanded the bar be raised in leadership and consistently sought characteristics desirable in a leader that is beyond what general society is willing or capable of living up to and they are willing to criticize a leader when their personal life goes awry.
Embedded throughout our discussions to this point is the fact that ethics, virtue, morality, and character are obvious in the written word of our Constitution. The founding fathers did not provide an article or section stating that the document is designed to make your life easier. However what is crystal clear is that the document provided a pathway that permits all citizens to be part of the debate. Have United States citizens demonstrated the personal and ethical courage to maintain their role in the debate?
References
Academy of Criminal Justice Science (1984). Police officers will no longer tolerate autocratic leadership.
Albanese, J.A. (2012). Professional ethics in criminal justice: Being ethical when no one is looking (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aronson, R. (1977). Toward a rational resolution of ethical dilemmas in the criminal justice system. In Criminal Justice Planning and Development, (ed.) A. Cohn, 57-71. CA: Sage.
Behn, R. D. (1995). Creating an innovative organization: Ten hints for involving frontline workers. State and Local Government Review, 27(3).
Blass, T (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29 (5). doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.
Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5-28. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5953981&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & and McCallum, L. J. (2010). Nontenured assistant professors as American counseling association division presidents: The new look of leadership in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(3), 285-292. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=52425738&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Janis, I. L. (November 1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today. 5 (6): 43–46, 74–76.
Jin, N. C., Sun, Y. S., & Kim, M. U. (2010). How do groups react to unexpected threats? Crisis management in organizational teams. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 38(6), 805-828. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.805
Gardner, J. W. (1990). John W. Gardner on leadership. (p. 169-170) New York: The Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & and Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenges (4th Ed.). San Francisco: Josey-Boss.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4306717&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Merriam Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.
Ortmeier, P.J., & Meese, E., III, (2010). Leadership, ethics, and policing: Challenges for the 21st century (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pollock, J.M. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sklansky, D. A. (2006). Not your father’s police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(3), 1209-1243. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21820080&site=ehost-live&scope=
Zigarmi, D., Blanchard, K., O’Conner, M., & and Edeburn, C. (2005). The leader within: Learning enough about yourself to lead others. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall.
