'Gleeful' Begs The Question: How do we make room for accountability?
The Canadian Government sponsorship scandal is but one in a long list of failures in corporate governance. The list is growing - one suspects - in direct proportion to unprecedented public outrage. Enron, CIBC, Hollinger, Worldcom, even Martha Stewart: issues of corporate governance are not new. What is, is the entry into public consciousness of previously walled-off information. We are more savvy - more cynical some would say - and more willing to question authority.
Notice the degree to which issues of power and ethics - corporate and political - have entered popular culture. As readers we make Michael Moore a best seller. We pack movie theatres to watch nearly 3 hours of harrowing corporate abuse in The Corporation.
Everyday all forms of media lead with the latest details, or in the absence of details, speculation about wrongdoing. The headlines gleefully announce: LORD BLACK HUMBLED! And we the readers are equally gleeful in our response. We seem to relish the downfall of the powerful. Watch the Opposition during Question Period as they hammer away at the Prime Minister: there too you will see a startling delight on the faces of the Conservatives whenever they feel they've scored a point. (Of course the same pleasure would be evident on Liberal faces if they were the party in Opposition.)
Surely there is something wrong about all this glee. On the one hand we're genuinely distressed by misuse of power, misappropriation of public funds and cover-ups. But how does that square with self-righteous satisfaction? At first glance you'd think we were actually happy that our authority figures are screwing up.
And what do we want? Punishment, banishment, and a casting-out? Get the "bad guys" out of power, out of sight? Replace them with the "good guys"? Well, that presupposes that the lines are that absolute; identify an Alfonso Gagliano, send him off and it will all go away. As a symbol, there is no Denmark far enough away. Good guys with enough power, in a complex world with conflicting demands, can become bad guys; that is: they can and will err.
It is a primitive part of us that wants retaliation, and as an instinct it is utterly understandable. A wrong needs to be redressed, a conflict requires resolution. The question is: what does relatiation beget? Experience would suggest it begets defence, entrenchment and reciprocal retaliation. I suspect that what most of us are longing for is for someone, just once, to have the courage to stand up and say: "I'm sorry. I take responsibility. I will listen and learn and put in place practices that ensure ethical, responsible behaviour in the future." But let's try that on personally. How easy do you find it to withstand your own shame when you mess up? What's your instinct? Mine is to defend. When you tell me how bad or irresponsible I've been - especially when I've been working hard and my intent has been to the good - my first instinct is to provide all the reasons why you're wrong. And I don't think I'm alone in this. We are hard-wired for defence. The stakes are very high when career, reputation and livelihood are threatened. So by setting out to pillory miscreants, we actually reinforce that reptilian need to defend and thereby make impossible the owning of mistakes. And the greater the mistake, of course, the greater the defence.
Our political system supports criticism, not collaboration. Any effort at ownership is used to political advantage by the opposition parties. We long for that simple acknowledgement and yet our system makes it impossible. The Liberal Party itself continues to promise the punishment of those responsible. Heads must role in order to satisfy...who? The Canadian public? Frankly I'm not sure that that is precisely what the Canadian public is demanding. It is what the opposition parties are demanding in order to score political points. But let's not be naive; there but for fortune go the Conservatives, or the NDP, or the Bloc Quebecois. Any party with power has the power to mess up.
When we think of human development we tend to think in terms of individuals. But groups, communities, countries go through developmental processes as well. Those who have studied fields such as history or anthropology know this. If some of our illusions have fallen away, the hidden revealed, it signifies a new stage in our development. To see and observe with increased clarity is a mark of maturity. Acknowledging the body of evidence in front of us that organizations - be they business or government - are in ethical deep waters, is a requirement in our collective developmental process. Examples abound in stark relief. We are paying attention, asking questions and demanding that those in positions of authority act with integrity and honesty, and that they ensure ethical practices. We are demanding accountability and consequences, but there will never be enough rules and punishment to create the environment that fosters the very qualities we want embedded in that environment. Punishment and retaliation may promise to satisfy an instinct, but they will not further the requirement for restoration, nor will they raise our ethical consciousness.
My question is this: How do we begin to influence our collective environment in ways that promote this ethtical accountability rather than an entrenched defensiveness? How do we shift from criticism to collaboration? Do we even want to?
Notice the degree to which issues of power and ethics - corporate and political - have entered popular culture. As readers we make Michael Moore a best seller. We pack movie theatres to watch nearly 3 hours of harrowing corporate abuse in The Corporation.
Everyday all forms of media lead with the latest details, or in the absence of details, speculation about wrongdoing. The headlines gleefully announce: LORD BLACK HUMBLED! And we the readers are equally gleeful in our response. We seem to relish the downfall of the powerful. Watch the Opposition during Question Period as they hammer away at the Prime Minister: there too you will see a startling delight on the faces of the Conservatives whenever they feel they've scored a point. (Of course the same pleasure would be evident on Liberal faces if they were the party in Opposition.)
Surely there is something wrong about all this glee. On the one hand we're genuinely distressed by misuse of power, misappropriation of public funds and cover-ups. But how does that square with self-righteous satisfaction? At first glance you'd think we were actually happy that our authority figures are screwing up.
And what do we want? Punishment, banishment, and a casting-out? Get the "bad guys" out of power, out of sight? Replace them with the "good guys"? Well, that presupposes that the lines are that absolute; identify an Alfonso Gagliano, send him off and it will all go away. As a symbol, there is no Denmark far enough away. Good guys with enough power, in a complex world with conflicting demands, can become bad guys; that is: they can and will err.
It is a primitive part of us that wants retaliation, and as an instinct it is utterly understandable. A wrong needs to be redressed, a conflict requires resolution. The question is: what does relatiation beget? Experience would suggest it begets defence, entrenchment and reciprocal retaliation. I suspect that what most of us are longing for is for someone, just once, to have the courage to stand up and say: "I'm sorry. I take responsibility. I will listen and learn and put in place practices that ensure ethical, responsible behaviour in the future." But let's try that on personally. How easy do you find it to withstand your own shame when you mess up? What's your instinct? Mine is to defend. When you tell me how bad or irresponsible I've been - especially when I've been working hard and my intent has been to the good - my first instinct is to provide all the reasons why you're wrong. And I don't think I'm alone in this. We are hard-wired for defence. The stakes are very high when career, reputation and livelihood are threatened. So by setting out to pillory miscreants, we actually reinforce that reptilian need to defend and thereby make impossible the owning of mistakes. And the greater the mistake, of course, the greater the defence.
Our political system supports criticism, not collaboration. Any effort at ownership is used to political advantage by the opposition parties. We long for that simple acknowledgement and yet our system makes it impossible. The Liberal Party itself continues to promise the punishment of those responsible. Heads must role in order to satisfy...who? The Canadian public? Frankly I'm not sure that that is precisely what the Canadian public is demanding. It is what the opposition parties are demanding in order to score political points. But let's not be naive; there but for fortune go the Conservatives, or the NDP, or the Bloc Quebecois. Any party with power has the power to mess up.
When we think of human development we tend to think in terms of individuals. But groups, communities, countries go through developmental processes as well. Those who have studied fields such as history or anthropology know this. If some of our illusions have fallen away, the hidden revealed, it signifies a new stage in our development. To see and observe with increased clarity is a mark of maturity. Acknowledging the body of evidence in front of us that organizations - be they business or government - are in ethical deep waters, is a requirement in our collective developmental process. Examples abound in stark relief. We are paying attention, asking questions and demanding that those in positions of authority act with integrity and honesty, and that they ensure ethical practices. We are demanding accountability and consequences, but there will never be enough rules and punishment to create the environment that fosters the very qualities we want embedded in that environment. Punishment and retaliation may promise to satisfy an instinct, but they will not further the requirement for restoration, nor will they raise our ethical consciousness.
My question is this: How do we begin to influence our collective environment in ways that promote this ethtical accountability rather than an entrenched defensiveness? How do we shift from criticism to collaboration? Do we even want to?
posted by Pat Archer at 3:48 PM
0 comments
