View
60
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Maladministration, “Passive Evil” and Insecurity in Educational Organizations. Peter Milley, PhD University of Ottawa pmilley@uottawa.ca CASEA/CCEAM Conference, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, June 7-9, 2014. The problem. Samier’s intervention. Research goal. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Maladministration, “Passive Evil” and Insecurity in Educational
Organizations
Peter Milley, PhDUniversity of Ottawapmilley@uottawa.ca
CASEA/CCEAM Conference, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, June 7-9, 2014
The problem
Significant literature on
moral leadership in education
Not much on maladministration
or “evil”
Cases keep emerging• Negligence,
mismanagement• Unjust, immoral
policy• Embezzlement,
fraud, conspiracy, abuse of authority
• Mistreatment, harassment, bullying, mobbing, abuse
Profound negative effects on people and educational
organizations
Samier’s interventionMoral 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,
rationalizationsNeed conceptual frameworks – Habermas holds promise• Social action and discourse ethics
Research goal
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
Concepts – Toxic/derailed leadership
Maladministration
Conducive
followers
Organiza-tional and broader context
Sad, mad, bad
leaders
Based on Furnham, 2010.
Concepts – Habermas’ social action
Communicative action=authentic expression, reciprocity, mutual understanding
Strategic action=goal directed Necessary, dialogical relationship Too much strategic action creates
“pathologies” Discourse=questioning
validity/legitimacy (truth, rightness, truthfulness)
Systematic distortions=fabrications, false consciousness, preclude access to valid, reliable, truthful insights/beliefs
Adapted from Habermas, 1984, p. 333
Concepts – Habermas’ discourse ethics
• Derived from deliberative, democratic, pluralist procedures (decentred subject, post-conventional ethics)
Valid norms • Valid norms=those that “would meet with
approval of all concerned if they could take part in discourse”
Principle of discourse
ethics• All affected have equal
opportunity for expression• Each is motivated to
understanding/consensus• Each is honest and sincere• No one exercises privileges
“Ideal speech” conditions
Based on Habermas, 1990; Bernstein, 1995
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)
Maladministration and ‘passive evil’ in educational organizations are dysfunctional phenomena stemming from the “strategic action” (Habermas, 1984, p. 333) practiced by sad, mad or bad leaders (Furnham, 2010) and influenced by organizational and broader contextual factors.
8 strategies sad, mad, bad leaders use for ‘cover’and to ‘manage’ organizational members
• Disqualification• Naturalization• Neutralization• Topic avoidance• Subjectification of experience• Meaning denial/plausible deniability• Legitimation• Pacification
Goals: Close-off “discourse”; systematically distort information, understanding, relationships, beliefs; recruit colluders and victims, and promote conformity and passivity
Based on Deetz, 1992
e.g. de Wet (2010) – abusive principals isolating victims and undermining collegiality and empathy
e.g. NY State embezzling superintendent who “convinced parents and board members that he, too, was a victim” (Vitello, 2006)
Organizational member response to strategies
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
Unmasking maladministration, recuperating moral agency
•Preventative and counter-strategies re: sad, mad, bad leaders•Warning re: “attribution error” – not all based in personality/character leaders (followers, context also important)
Leadership literature
•Healthy balance of communicative/strategic action•Avenues for authentic ‘discourse’ (incl. conditions resembling ‘ideal speech’)
Habermas literature
Dealing with sad, mad, bad leaders
Patently illegal, wrong, egregious, immediate action
needed
• Act! (right away or with careful planning as appropriate – see below)
Ambiguous
• 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)
Preventing and unmasking maladministration through democratic governance, culture and procedures
Guidance Leadership teams to temper
strategic/instrumental reasoning with moral reasoning focused on public good based in democratic values (Adams & Balfour, 1998).
High levels of centralized discretionary power is correlated with bad leader behaviours (Furnham, 2010); therefore, distribute power, put in protective layers.
Pay close attention to how leaders are selected and managed.
Pluralistic, democratic workplace structures that push authority and control downwards and values rights and contributions of members (Dillard & Ruchalla, 2005).
Practices Pick leaders with virtue and character in mind
(Lipman-Blumen, 2005) Manage well the full cycle of leader recruiting,
selecting, developing, ‘transitioning’ leaders (Furnham, 2010)
Reliable, complete info flows; symmetrical connections to constituents; checks/balances; strong independent boards or advisors; fair/safe recourse mechanisms; impartial third parties for intervention (Kellerman, 2004).
Diversity in leadership teams and organization – bring different perspectives, raise inconvenient truths (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Workplace structured with high control jobs, clear roles and responsibilities, functional accountability mechanisms (de Wet, 2010).
Recuperating moral agency through increased humanization of the workplace
• Discourse ethics as touchstone• basis for critique of power and its effects,
justice-oriented• Supported with virtue ethics and
ethic of care• basis for formation of moral character and
empathy for and obligation to specific others
Goal: (re)generate
communicative conditions (i.e. ideal
speech) and orientations (i.e. authentic expression,
reciprocity) to experience
goodwill and moral obligation
Recommended