Managing Conflicts of Interest: Three Lessons from New York
Mar 8th, 2010 • Posted in: Commentaryby Rushworth M. Kidder
Want a barometer of a nation’s moral concern? Check out how frequently the word ethics appears in the news. Last Thursday, anyone counting would have scored a hat trick. On the New York Times front page that day, above the fold, were two sad and tangled tales of ethical lapses. In one, New York Gov. David Paterson quit his re-election campaign. In the other, New York congressman Charles Rangel relinquished the chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. A third piece, appearing in a box at the bottom of the page, involved Eric Massa, a freshman congressman from upstate New York, who resigned his position because of an ethics investigation.
Some readers rightly see these stories as additional nails in the coffin of our collective moral sense — proof that integrity is dead. Other readers, also right, see them as encouraging evidence that iniquity can’t be hidden — that the public cares enough about integrity to demand such exposure of unethical behavior.
But there’s a deeper significance here. Each of these stories is about conflicts of interest — which, simply defined, arise when people seek to exploit public positions for private benefit. The fact that these three public figures fell so easily into such conflicts reminds us that we’re not very good at training our leaders about ethics and integrity. Simply put, we give them few tools to defend themselves against three of the most corrosive influences in human experience — power, fame, and wealth.
These influences, if left uncontrolled, will generate an almost infinite number of conflicts of interest. But our public figures don’t necessarily come into their jobs prepared to deal with these conflicts. By the very nature of the democratic process, we push ordinary people into extraordinary positions — too often without the moral headlights to illuminate the approaching dangers. For all of the leadership training we do, we devote hardly a moment to discussing the conflict-of-interest issues that most easily could wreck their careers. Should it surprise us, then, that they run into the ditch or over the cliff with disturbing regularity?
Notice how it happens. Rep. Rangel did it merely by accepting personal gifts, including Caribbean travel, in situations apparently meant to influence his votes. Gov. Paterson accepted free tickets to the World Series, and tried to squelch an investigation of a top aide in a domestic violence case. Rep. Massa resigned after being accused of sexually harassing an aide. In each case, the positions these men held required of them an impartiality, a loyalty to the office rather than to the self, a judicious use of their influence for the common good. They were, in other words, trusted to do the right thing. When that trust evaporated, their reputations were shattered. It no longer matters that they are smart, savvy, sophisticated, or experienced. Being untrustworthy, they no longer are valued as leaders.
What lessons can we learn? Four come to mind:
- These men each came to grief over issues that, in the grand scheme of things, were pretty small: a few days’ vacation, a couple of phone call, several free tickets, some suggestive language. Conflicts of interest rarely involve high-stakes gambits. Instead, they usually hinge on activities that seem, to the person doing them, to be innocuous, commonplace, even trivial.
- Because of that apparent triviality, the last person to spot a conflict of interest is often the person engaged in it. Conflicts that are perfectly obvious to colleagues, friends, and acquaintances remain shrouded from the view of the actor himself. Such is the power of self-interest that we can see others’ faults far more clearly than our own.
- Conflicts of interest come in two flavors: actual and perceived. The perception of self-dealing can be just as damaging to a reputation as the real thing. That fact can be a curse if the perception is false and the accusation unjustified. But it also can be a benefit if it warns a public figure of a pending conflict and gives her time to avoid it.
- Conflicts of interest are inevitable. The people most suited to public leadership have extensive experience and wide personal networks, so they unavoidably will encounter situations where loyalty comes into conflict with truth. They’ll face dilemmas where their duty of fidelity to others stands at cross-purposes with their duty of integrity to their position. It’s not shameful to find oneself in such dilemmas. The goal is not to avoid conflicts of interest, but to manage these truth-versus-loyalty dilemmas so they do no harm.
How can they be managed? What’s needed is moral courage. To resist the seductive influences of power, wealth, and fame, our leaders obviously need to develop the moral courage to say no to temptation. More important, they need to encourage such courage in others. They need to surround themselves with colleagues who can point out the danger frankly and candidly before an apparent conflict becomes a real one. If Paterson, Rangel, and Massa simply had taken that last step, they might have remained effective leaders.
©2010 Institute for Global Ethics
Find this and previous weeks’ commentaries online as a podcast titled Ethicast™ now available on iTunes. Subscribe today!
Print This Story
Email This Story
As a conservative, I’m happy to see the Democrats embroiled in ethics problems. But experience tells me there is probably more to all this than meets the eye. Does the Democratic machine in New York want David Patterson out of the way so Andrew Cuomo can be elected governor easily? Is Rahm Emanuel really trying to get rid of Congressman Eric Massa so he can have a “yes” vote appointed for the health care bill? Who might benefit by getting rid of Charles Rangel as head of Ways & Means?
We don’t really know whether any of these guys actually did the things they are accused of or not — and we probably never will. More than likely, this stuff is so commonplace that the three culprits were only doing what they’ve see their mentors doing for decades. The difference this time is that people even more powerful than they wanted them out of the way, so this time the offense is punished. How else to explain the amazing ethical lapses of Bill Clinton, yet in his case, the powers who take it upon themselves to decide such things decreed that he was just the victim of a “vast, right wing conspiracy” and gave him an ethical pass.
I’d like to think that the careers of powerful people could swing on minor ethical lapses, but I doubt that’s really the case. It’s just so hard to know the truth that I hesitate to draw global ethical lessons from any of these political games.
The overt conflicts of interest that clearly enrich or empower the perpetrator or his/her friends are relatively easy to be outrages over. It is the fuzzy realm of the perceived conflict and the inevitability of some conflict in partisan politics that can get crazy. It is a fantasy to think a politician is going to impartially represent his/her constituents on all issues.
Corporations setup PACs to contribute to politicians in both parties to gain access. Contributors are going to get more access because that is the only product the politician has to sell in exchange for corporate contributions. Special interests will contribute to candidates who support their special position. Again the politician must maintain this position to get the special interest contribution regardless of his/her own position or where the majority of their constituents stand. The occasional free vacation or free dinner just becomes a gratuity among comrades.
When I was a design engineer, equipment sales representatives would occasionally take me to lunch or deliver a gift bottle of wine. I accepted these as compensation for the time I gave them and in the spirit of their gratitude that I was willing to patiently listen to their sales pitch. There was never the implication by either party that it was a commitment to steer business their way. Although, I can see someone could perceive this was the case or some salespersons wish it was the case.
In the mean time, the revolving door continues to be a huge conflict of interest problem. People enter government, make their connections, and walk into high paying privates jobs selling their potential bureaucrat influence to the highest bidder. It is not the corruption of the high-profile politicians still in government that is the biggest problem. It is what goes on under the radar via government procurements. We’re not talking free golf trip. Just look at the Boeing- USAF fuel tanker contract the had to be retracted because the purchasing officer became a Boeing executive within months of the award. Or the bank executives that get appointed into Fed regulatory positions.
Rush:
Your point is well taken and well explained. We certainly do nothing to warn, even to point out to, our newly electeds that there are a lot of things that are marginably acceptable in private life which become career kilers in public life. One can understand and have some empathy for a few of these neophites, but Charlie Rangel has been there before. Lots of times. Old behavior patterns are often hard to break.
The number of times that the issue of ethics is raised is not as important as how those ethics are defined. Nor is the frequency as important as whether people live by the ethics they proclaim.
All too often an undefined sense of righteousness fills the rhetoric of newsmakers on all sides of the political spectrum, leaving behind a vacuum of actual ethics. Politicians can’t possibly please everyone they represent, so sensationalist claims of lacks of morality are an easy tactic.
Unfortunately the recent Supreme Court decision allowing even further corporate influence over our politicians will put their ethics, and our patience, still further to the test.