Inspiring Ethical Leadership

This blog is about what an individual can do to fight corruption.

In my Policy Blog today on How to Fight Corruption, I discussed How to Strengthen Corruption Prevention Through Mid-Level Management.

There I discussed simple, but often ignored, diagnostic tools that can be used by a new executive in an institution to identify weak areas in the mid-level management of an organization that create parts of an organization that are susceptible to decay and corruption.  Each of the identifiers are known as 

The Empty Chair.

If you are a member of the public you, too can see that the mid-level management of a government organization is missing.

The lowest level of motivating an individual to change behavior is to simply observe that what they are doing is wrong.  Often, you don’t need to confront the person directly.

If that fails to generate any response, you can get a message to the person, either confidentially or otherwise that their behavior is known and that it would be a simple matter to make some small corrections to improve things.

Next, if you don’t have a blog yourself, you can take your observations to the media or your community bloggers.  They are often eager for material to write about.

But where an individual is doing something wrong – such as refusing to carry out their official responsibilities for the government and people, it is often more productive to inspire positive change by brining attention to the things they are doing well.

Indeed, bringing attention to the misdeeds of government officials is dangerous.  Even internal whistleblowers attempting to use “accepted” means of correcting problems are regularly attacked from the very organizations they seek to help.

Everyone wants to feel good about themselves, and generally object to negative criticism.

There is an excellent story used to teach this idea known as “The Two Wolves.”  

A short letter to a government official acknowledging their transparent handling of some manner can go a long way to inspiring positive change.

Brian J. Pinkowski

# # #   End   # # #

Social Media for the Individual Corruption Fighter

You can have an impact on corruption. 

But many people are overwhelmed by this idea.  Many of the comments I receive in How to Fight Corruption reflect frustration and a sense of hopelessness about the idea that corruption can be brought under control.  Indeed, its seems to be a basic assumption that the behavior of people cannot be changed.

I don’t believe that is true.

And I offer two simple activities that people can take that will increase the pressure to improve things in their communities and countries.

In the course of my own lifetime I have observed the increasing decay of the political process in the US.  And I have seen an increase in responsibility by parents about the behavior and education of their children.  Both are long term cultural changes that occurred INTENTIONALLY. 

Indeed, in nearly every country I have visited, parents are working harder to raise their children differently than was done by their own parents. (See We Can't Fix Corruption - It's Part of Our Culture.)

This is an ongoing effort to improve things.

Corruption and Anti-Corruption are no different.

One individual can inspire change by simply being willing to point out things that are not right. 

The most basic first step on the gradient scale of imposing justice is to observe that something is not right.  In anti-corruption, this should seem obvious.  But many people simply accept that “this is the way things will always be” and the stop seeing the wrongness and begin to accept it.

Thus, the first activity for any individual corruption fighter is to see that something is not as it should be.

Here are two things that one person can do that begin the pressure to change the status quo:

1.              Take pictures of things that are not right.  

Evidence of corruption is found in many forms.  Sometimes it is as simple as the cars driven by the family members of government employees.  Posting a picture on a Blog site with a short comment about who’s car it is, and what their government salary is . . . creates some small pressure on the situation.

In East Timor, the Minister of Finance was building a $5 Million home on Embassy Row.  Journalist took the pictures and wrote the story, and publishers were afraid to publish the pictures.  They understood that the pictures added power to the story and would increase pressure on the government to explain why a public employee, even a minister, would be allowed to spend $5 Million in government funds on a personal residence.  But the pictures leaked onto the Internet and the story was picked up and some pressure was brought upon the entire government.

2.              Start a blog – write stories and publish pictures.

In many countries passionate young journalists, despite their education and youth, believe that the local print media is the only way to have an impact.  They believe that they need permission from a publisher in order to let their voice be heard.

The same is true of the individual corruption fighters.  They do not take full advantage of the free tools available on the internet to let their voices be heard. 

Secondly, people sometimes believe that the internet is “too big” and that their voice will be drowned out in the noise of the global conversation. 

I have responded to that in another piece I have written on Social Media in the Fight Against Corruption.

The global online community is like any other community.  You begin to talk with people in the community and eventually people find the opinion leaders in their areas of interest. 

These are two simple steps that the individual corruption fighter can take that will create some pressure for things to improve.

Brian Pinkowski

# # #   End   # # #

How to Build an Integrity Standard

Codification of an integrity standard as the result of reasoned agreement is a good start, but there are many and significant cognitive and cultural conflicts that prevent people from following through.  I discussed this in Gradients in Anti-Corruption.

I am sure I am not alone in this, but I have run into many examples of government or business representatives that openly discuss the new and written rules and demonstrate apparent awareness of these required behaviors.  However, these same officials will turn around and carry out behavior that is in direct violation of those rules.

These individuals can be found in the governments of developing countries.  However, they are just as easily found in the government of “developed countries” and donor organizations.

It is an incomplete analysis to say that these individuals are corrupt or dishonest in their intentions.  While they may be flawed human beings (like the rest of us), they are basically good and decent people.  I believe the problem is more fundamental.  I find lack of awareness and the inability to reconcile the integrity standards with cultural norms for acceptable behavior.

I have see this borne out when I have discussed the seemingly contradictory behavior and been met with confusion from the officials.  They couldn’t see the contradiction.  It was as if I had begun speaking in a language they didn't  understand.  (For example the Anti-Corruption Official that provides his wife 100% personal use, including fuel and maintenance, of donor or government vehicle.)

Behavior that is acceptable within the cultural norms was cognitively “cordoned off” from evaluation of the behavior against the legal or newly codified integrity standards.

They were unaware of the contradictions and struggled with reconciliation of the evaluative criteria between culture and law.

Successful development and issuance of an integrity standard, whether a matter of criminal law or the softer notions of integrity, requires substantive attention to identifying and overcoming the “cognitive blind spots”, and reconcile personal and institutional behavior to alignment with the new standard.

Brian Pinkowski

# # #   End   # # #