'Gleeful' Begs The Question: How To Make Room For Accountability?

The Canadian Government sponsorship scandal was but one of a list of failures in corporate governance. The list grew - one suspects - in direct proportion to unprecedented public outrage. Enron, CIBC, Hollinger, 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 truly disturbing corporate abuse in "The Corporation".

Everyday all forms of media lead with the latest details, or often in the absence of details, endless 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 MPs whenever they feel they've scored a point.

Surely there's 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 a 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's a primitive part of us that wants retaliation, and as an instinct it is understandable. A wrong needs to be redressed, a conflict requires resolution. The question is: what does retaliation beget? Experience would seem to 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 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. I think we're 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 our mistakes. And the greater the mistake, of course, the greater the defence.

When our organizational systems support criticism rather than collaboration, they support defence rather than accountability. When we seek solely to punish (blame, fire, sanction) we miss the opportunity for ethical reflection, learning and the enhancement of responsibility. And certainly when we smugly settle for "getting the bad guy" we miss another maxim: there but for fortune go you or I.

When we think of human development we tend to think in terms of individuals. But groups, communities, countries go through developmental processes as well. It follows, then that we are fortunate to be at a stage of development where things are no longer hidden, but are available for us to grapple with. To be able to see and observe is a mark of maturity. Acknowledging the body of evidence in front of us that organizations - be they business, associations or government - are in ethical deep waters, is a requirement in our collective developmental process. We are paying attention, asking questions and demanding that those in positions of authority act with integrity and honesty, and ensure ethical organizational 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 goal of restoring trust, nor will they in and of themselves, raise our ethical consciousness.

My question is: How do we begin to influence our respective environments in ways that promote this ethical accountability rather than an entrenched defensiveness? How do we shift from criticism to collaboration? Do we even want to?

[As published in The Association Agenda - May 17, 2004

An online publication of The Canadian Society of Association Executives (CSAE)]