Moral Mazes
This may at the same time be one of the most familiar and helpful articles in the entire text. Familiar because if you’ve ever worked in a company of any size you will recognize some of the features Jackall talks about in this article. Helpful because even if you haven’t worked in such a company you probably will at some point and will benefit from an understanding of the bureaucratic form of organization. It seems to me to be no mistake to call this a moral maze! Here once again we are treading on that thin line between is and ought. Jackall warns us at the beginning of his piece that he will not make any suggestions for reform. What he is attempting to give us is a clear outline of the form of organization that dominates the business world today. But, because we’re in an ethics course, we might want to also ask the question concerning what ought to be the case. As pointed out earlier in the book this is sometimes a difficult question for practically minded business people to ask. After all, what good does it do to ask how things ought to be if there’s no hope of changing them?
If you’ve not worked in an organization with a bureaucracy you may still recognize some of the features Jackall speaks about especially if you’ve read Dilbert! First, is the flow of credit and blame. We might call these corporate physics: credit flows up and blame flows down. That is, the higher placed executives get the credit for anything good that happens while lower placed managers or workers receive the blame for anything bad that happens. This can happen, as Jackall points out on page 288, because of the vagueness in policy statements.
Jackall talks about a related point under the heading “gut decisions.” Because of the form bureaucracies take the rules for successful executives when it comes to making decisions are: “(1) Avoid making any decisions if at all possible; and (2) if a decision has to be made, involve as many people as you can so that, if things go south, you’re able to point in as many directions as possible.” The point of decision making here is not necessarily to make the correct decision but rather to know “who is going to get blamed if things go wrong.” A cynical view perhaps but one which may explain a lot that occurs not only in the business world but also the world of government bureaucracy.
Another familiar feature is what Jackall calls “fealty to the ‘King.’” I experienced a very similar situation years ago working in retail. The President of the company was coming for a visit and everyone stopped what we were doing (including our actual jobs!) to clean up the store. While Jackall explains this behavior and even says that it “makes perfect sense,” I must confess a certain uneasiness about this. I can’t help imagining how I might behave if I were the President of a large company making such a visit. This example is very instructive for Jackall’s point. How would you want your employees to behave? You might say, as I do, I want them to continue doing their job and not stop to make unneeded improvements just because I’m visiting. I might even say this to the manager of the store I’m visiting. But, how should my employees respond to this? If they’re smart, they’ll ignore this! Why? Look at it from their perspective of having incomplete information. They can take me at my word but then they run the risk that I will become angry when I visit and see the place looking a mess. That might lead to firings. Or, they can ignore my word and make massive efforts to clean up. What’s the worst I would do in such a case? I could say something like ”you shouldn’t have,” but it’s unlikely I’ll become angry and fire anyone. So, this represents the moral maze of a bureaucracy.
This might make you think that competence is the last thing required to be a manager in a bureaucracy. Look at whose running things at Dilbert’s company! But actually, the reason competence is not emphasized as part of success (or failure) for upper-level management is that, as Jackall points out, it is already built into the system from the beginning. Once you attain a certain level in the company it is a given that you are intelligent, competent, effective. So, this being the case, further success is defined in more social terms.
These social terms do not surprisingly include such things as appearance and dress, self-control, being a team player, having a certain style, and also having what Jackall calls a “patron;” someone who is above you in the hierarchy who will act as a mentor. It is very important to remember that these social terms of success sometimes take precedence over more objective definitions of success such as “hitting your numbers.” You might be able to relate to your own experiences here to make sense of this point. Maybe you’ve worked with someone who is very efficient and good at their job but doesn’t get along with co-workers. Despite their efficiency, they still may not get promoted.
If you’ve read Scott Adams’ book The Dilbert Principle, much of what Jackall is saying sounds familiar. In one chapter of Adams’ book he addresses what he calls “great lies of management.” One of these is the claim that “performance will be rewarded:
Is it likely that this year the officers of your company will say, “To hell with the stock prices and our bonuses? What were we thinking? Let’s distribute more money to the employees!”?
Or is it more likely you’ll be put through a tortuous Performance Review process that would result in approximately the same tiny raise whether you were Mother Teresa or the Unabomber?”
As Jackall counsels when you go through such a performance review it is important to understand the real meaning behind certain stock phrases which he catalogs on page 297. Of course, two can play the language game! Here’s another insight from The Dilbert Principle:
“Exaggerate your talents:
Everybody exaggerates his or her talents. There’s no trick to that. You need to take it to the next level: complete fantasy. It’s not enough to say you performed well at your assigned tasks; you must take credit for any positive development that ever happened in the company or on earth.
What you did: Attended some meetings, ate donuts, nodded head to bluff comprehension.
What you can claim: Created a strategy to bring the company into the next century. Increased revenues by $25 million.”
Sort of reminds you of business bluffing again! Jackall has a section in his article titled “Playing the Game.” In particular, one aspect of playing the game well must be what he calls adeptness at the inconsistency. The real question in a business ethics class is whether “such adeptness at inconsistency, without moral uneasiness” should be “essential for executive success?” Jackall’s purpose is to point out that this is how things are; our question should be whether this is how things should be. Jackall contrasts protestant Ethics with Bureaucratic Ethics and illustrates their many differences. An important question this article raises creates a dilemma. The question is should we preserve bureaucratic ethics given its ethical problems. The dilemma is that if we eliminate the ethical problem we must eliminate the bureaucracy or radically change it. But this seems impossible in the business world as we now have it. Many people’s jobs depend on the existence of bureaucracy. So, we’re left with the question of how to navigate the moral mazes this creates.
If you’ve not worked in an organization with a bureaucracy you may still recognize some of the features Jackall speaks about especially if you’ve read Dilbert! First, is the flow of credit and blame. We might call these corporate physics: credit flows up and blame flows down. That is, the higher placed executives get the credit for anything good that happens while lower placed managers or workers receive the blame for anything bad that happens. This can happen, as Jackall points out on page 288, because of the vagueness in policy statements.
Jackall talks about a related point under the heading “gut decisions.” Because of the form bureaucracies take the rules for successful executives when it comes to making decisions are: “(1) Avoid making any decisions if at all possible; and (2) if a decision has to be made, involve as many people as you can so that, if things go south, you’re able to point in as many directions as possible.” The point of decision making here is not necessarily to make the correct decision but rather to know “who is going to get blamed if things go wrong.” A cynical view perhaps but one which may explain a lot that occurs not only in the business world but also the world of government bureaucracy.
Another familiar feature is what Jackall calls “fealty to the ‘King.’” I experienced a very similar situation years ago working in retail. The President of the company was coming for a visit and everyone stopped what we were doing (including our actual jobs!) to clean up the store. While Jackall explains this behavior and even says that it “makes perfect sense,” I must confess a certain uneasiness about this. I can’t help imagining how I might behave if I were the President of a large company making such a visit. This example is very instructive for Jackall’s point. How would you want your employees to behave? You might say, as I do, I want them to continue doing their job and not stop to make unneeded improvements just because I’m visiting. I might even say this to the manager of the store I’m visiting. But, how should my employees respond to this? If they’re smart, they’ll ignore this! Why? Look at it from their perspective of having incomplete information. They can take me at my word but then they run the risk that I will become angry when I visit and see the place looking a mess. That might lead to firings. Or, they can ignore my word and make massive efforts to clean up. What’s the worst I would do in such a case? I could say something like ”you shouldn’t have,” but it’s unlikely I’ll become angry and fire anyone. So, this represents the moral maze of a bureaucracy.
This might make you think that competence is the last thing required to be a manager in a bureaucracy. Look at whose running things at Dilbert’s company! But actually, the reason competence is not emphasized as part of success (or failure) for upper-level management is that, as Jackall points out, it is already built into the system from the beginning. Once you attain a certain level in the company it is a given that you are intelligent, competent, effective. So, this being the case, further success is defined in more social terms.
These social terms do not surprisingly include such things as appearance and dress, self-control, being a team player, having a certain style, and also having what Jackall calls a “patron;” someone who is above you in the hierarchy who will act as a mentor. It is very important to remember that these social terms of success sometimes take precedence over more objective definitions of success such as “hitting your numbers.” You might be able to relate to your own experiences here to make sense of this point. Maybe you’ve worked with someone who is very efficient and good at their job but doesn’t get along with co-workers. Despite their efficiency, they still may not get promoted.
If you’ve read Scott Adams’ book The Dilbert Principle, much of what Jackall is saying sounds familiar. In one chapter of Adams’ book he addresses what he calls “great lies of management.” One of these is the claim that “performance will be rewarded:
Is it likely that this year the officers of your company will say, “To hell with the stock prices and our bonuses? What were we thinking? Let’s distribute more money to the employees!”?
Or is it more likely you’ll be put through a tortuous Performance Review process that would result in approximately the same tiny raise whether you were Mother Teresa or the Unabomber?”
As Jackall counsels when you go through such a performance review it is important to understand the real meaning behind certain stock phrases which he catalogs on page 297. Of course, two can play the language game! Here’s another insight from The Dilbert Principle:
“Exaggerate your talents:
Everybody exaggerates his or her talents. There’s no trick to that. You need to take it to the next level: complete fantasy. It’s not enough to say you performed well at your assigned tasks; you must take credit for any positive development that ever happened in the company or on earth.
What you did: Attended some meetings, ate donuts, nodded head to bluff comprehension.
What you can claim: Created a strategy to bring the company into the next century. Increased revenues by $25 million.”
Sort of reminds you of business bluffing again! Jackall has a section in his article titled “Playing the Game.” In particular, one aspect of playing the game well must be what he calls adeptness at the inconsistency. The real question in a business ethics class is whether “such adeptness at inconsistency, without moral uneasiness” should be “essential for executive success?” Jackall’s purpose is to point out that this is how things are; our question should be whether this is how things should be. Jackall contrasts protestant Ethics with Bureaucratic Ethics and illustrates their many differences. An important question this article raises creates a dilemma. The question is should we preserve bureaucratic ethics given its ethical problems. The dilemma is that if we eliminate the ethical problem we must eliminate the bureaucracy or radically change it. But this seems impossible in the business world as we now have it. Many people’s jobs depend on the existence of bureaucracy. So, we’re left with the question of how to navigate the moral mazes this creates.