El desarrollo económico desde una perspectiva ampliada

As with the discussion of frustrations at work, questions regarding ethical dilemmas were mainly raised in relation to working with the elected councillors. Why was so much negative energy reserved for councillors and their ‘frailties’? The question was asked of 16 of the 18 CEOs: ‘does the job bring up ethical dilemmas for you?’ Eleven CEOs answered, that, yes, ethical dilemmas occur all the time. The remaining five CEOs acknowledged that the potential for ethical dilemmas always exists in local government. Table 8.12 provides the CEOs’ responses.

Table 8.12 Ethical dilemmas

CEO Does the job bring up ethical dilemmas?

Don A All the time, in minor ways with councillors Bruce D Not really, but it’s hard working with councillors Greg C Na

Linda T Considerable problems with council leading to contract termination Peter S Always difficulties with ethics. Must be transparent and accountable Bob M Yes, especially when you live and work in same area

Tim K Every day. It’s about relationships, not codes. It’s lonely, it’s a judgement call

Anna P Na

Brian L Don’t know. Coming to terms with own behaviour and appearance to others Paul C Potential exists regularly, need trust and openness, not rules

Alan F Challenges are put to you. You only have your own integrity. Frailty and self-interest of councillors is a problem

Ed S Sometimes happens. Your own principles get you through it Chris F It does happen. You have to deal with the excesses of council

Barbara S It happens heaps. You have to implement your value set all the time. Happens most with council

Judy T Yes. We have clear guidelines in place. You have to protect staff from unfair requests by councillors

Graham R Clearly there are ethical dilemmas. Councillors have different values bases John D Yes. Corporate governance principles need a good ethical value base

Richard A There is a potential. I have a strong set of values. Councillors have two agendas (community good and getting re-elected)

There are two commonalities in this topic. Firstly all CEOs felt the dilemmas were generally about minor issues and, secondly, most (nine CEOs) were concerned with clashes between

the council administration and elected representatives. The results are consistent with a similar survey of local authority chief executives in Britain that found that the most difficult aspect of the work was interacting with the political sphere, which was characterised as having the greatest degree of ‘paradox, ambiguity and risk’ associated with it. (Broussine 2000:506). The results are contrary though, to those expected by the critics of Neoliberalism. A view has been put (see part four where it is discussed in detail) that introducing a business culture in public services may lead to public administrators feeling more free to ‘cut corners’ to achieve positive outcomes. It would not seem to be the case here. It is hard to know if CEOs would disclose evidence of this if it were happening. Yet it is fair to say, that they saw the administration as highly regulated and took pride in their adherence to the spirit, as well as, the letter of the law.

The type of conflict described by CEOs generally fell into the category of ‘ignoring wise counsel’ (Pollitt 2003) where CEOs felt that they were able to see the whole picture on a particular matter and the elected representatives saw only the aspect that related to their needs, and so they rejected the advice of the administration.

Examples of ethical conflicts include councillors holding meetings with potential property developers that the administration advises against because it sees the potential for councillors to be bribed and for the newspapers to see it that way. The councillors, however, see it as a fact-finding mission. Councillors might also reject advice to repair or replace ageing infrastructure in order to keep costs down for ratepayers, but they leave the administration with a health and safety risk of greater proportions. Councillors sometimes speak directly to staff to convince them to lobby the CEO for a particular decision. They ask staff to waive parking fines of political allies. They have been known to use council funds for their private use (mobile phones and cars) and use council newsletters to further their personal political aspirations. In some cases they have gone to the press to seek support for reversing a decision made by the whole of council.

Table 8.13 below shows all the comments made by CEOs in relation to ethical dilemmas. It shows that more comments were reserved for ethical issues in relation to council than for any other area. Again I have grouped the responses.

All of the strong value-based policies that were built in the City of X in consultation with the community, this group of councillors just pissed on as if they were

worthless. Linda T

Table 8.13 Ethical dilemmas with council

Ethics comments – in relation to council Ethics comments – other matters

We have guidelines in place to protect staff from undue requests from council

Every day, it’s about relationships, not codes of conduct

Not really dilemmas, but it is hard working with council

Have to come to terms with not just what you do, but how it appears to others Considerable problems with council leading

to contract termination (two CEOs)

Yes, especially when you live and work in the same locality

All the time in minor ways – with councillors Your principles get you through it How to deal with excesses of council is hard

when you have a contract with them

Need a good culture, not rules You have to implement your value set all the

time, especially with council

Challenges are put to you, councillors can be frail

Clearly there are dilemmas, councillors have different value bases

Conclusion

In all the themes touched on in conversation by CEOs, the common points were that management texts and theory cannot solve every problem encountered in the work. Similarly, codes of conduct cannot provide answers to every ethical dilemma faced. CEOs know that, in their day-to-day working lives, the ‘10 easy steps’ approach to management does not work. They articulated that working with people is far more complex. Yet they did, to some degree, follow models taken from the private sector. They did implement various management tools and techniques, including preparing strategic plans with statements of values in them.

However, they acknowledged that, writing down the values of the organisation does not automatically make the organisation live the values each day. Having a rational, codified

plan may be useful in some instances, but when making priorities and bearing in mind the more intangible meanings behind activities, the CEO is the embodiment of value for the organisation. What the CEO says and how she behaves gives congruence to the activities and decisions of the local authority. This situation means CEOs need to deal with unconscious projected material from staff, community and councillors.

The CEOs were aware of the contextual nature of ethical decisions. They were aware that compromises are made and lived with and that elected representatives have different priorities that shape their ethical stances. Every situation requires a moral judgement based in universal principles, but guided by the constraints of time and place.

These public sector CEOs work in the sector because it provides an opportunity (called a luxury by one CEO) to work in accordance with their values. Their values come largely from their families and early life experiences. They acknowledge that the day-to-day living of their values is difficult. Their honestly and integrity are tested by the actions of others, in particular, by elected councillors. This situation leaves them disappointed and lonely at times. It makes them question how well they are appreciated for the work they do.

Although most have limited experience of the private sector, the CEOs perceived that a leader in the private sector is more free to generate personal wealth, is more respected for the work she does and has a simpler task to perform – with a more supportive board. CEOs saw ruthlessness and desire for personal power and greed as motivators in the private sector and denied these feelings in themselves. Similarly, they minimised their own part in coercive, compulsory activities such as planning and building regulations, parking fines, fees and charges. Yet despite the regulatory nature of local government, several CEOs pondered whether they could have been successful in the private sector, and several thought there was one type of person who is suited to the private sector and another who is more suited to the public sector.

This view corresponds well with literature on the differences between the private and public sectors summarised by Pollitt (2003:21-22). Pollitt maintains that, while there is a good deal of information on perceived differences, research that actually measures the differences is very limited. There is evidence to suggest a public service ethos does exist and that managers perform in the public sector in the presence of intense public scrutiny, political

pressure and with expectations of higher levels of honesty, fairness and accountability. Their goals are also more diverse and services harder to measure, and their enterprises are more bound by red tape and reluctant to innovate than are their private counterparts.

Academics writing on the topic of the differences between the public and private sectors point out that the picture is by no means black and white (see Boyne 1995). There is a continuum between public and private enterprises: including privatised entities and private not-for-profit companies. There can even be differences between staff members within an enterprise depending on job type: a lawyer and a new products researcher in a private enterprise may hold very different attitudes to their work. What is interesting in the comments of CEOs in this study is the ease with which stereotypes were applied and the defensiveness of comments made about the differences between the sectors. Boyne (1995) summarises the key literature of the differences between the sectors – principally the work of Barry Bozeman and Hal Rainey. Both these researchers contend that there are major differences between the sectors, specifically the ethos of service. But Boyne concludes that the only clear evidence suggests that public managers are less materialistic, their organisations are more bureaucratic and they have less organisational commitment than their private sector counterparts. While the rhetoric and the perceptions of the differences between the sectors are common, the evidence is lacking.

The CEOs showed some ambivalence about their career choices, difficulty in acknowledging the power inherent in their positions and a sense that their skills are not widely appreciated. Yet, paradoxically, they are not, on balance, critical of the business model of management being adopted by public enterprises, despite the lack of natural competition or a profit motive and despite the human suffering brought about by the large scale and rapid introduction of the business model in the 1990s. They accept the conventional wisdom that change had to occur and that it needed to be done in the way it was. While they acknowledged the pain caused, they distanced themselves from personal responsibility (eight were CEOs in that time) and from any ongoing repercussions.

The next chapter looks at some of these ambiguities, paradoxes and the splits in the themes that I have introduced in order to provide a more rounded picture of the complexities of the local government CEO. It will also delve more deeply into socio-analysis to extract possible insights.

Chapter 9