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

Significant literature on

moral leadership in

education

Not much on maladministrati

on 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 intervention

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

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