Dr. Bruce Bayley
Ethics… when most officers hear that word, the hair on the back of their neck stands up — visions of Internal Affairs, departmental sanctions, and lengthy lawsuits racing through their heads.
Ethical behavior, however, is the foundation of any professional organization and as such, should be a re-occurring theme in every departmental training program.
There are many ethics programs out there with solid content, but one fundamental flaw pervades: the lack of instructor knowledge regarding the ethical ideologies of the officers he or she is teaching.
Recently, I took a number of my students with me to the Mock Prison Riot (MPR) in Moundsville, West Virginia to help me in the presentation of a new survey designed to examine the ethical orientation of correctional and law enforcement personnel. This new survey breaks down ethical orientations into four primary categories.
The intent of this article is to introduce these four primary ethical orientations, explain why discovering these philosophies is important, and review how you as an instructor (or department) can identify these orientations among your officers.
Where does your team stand?
In general, there are two dominant ethical frameworks from which the four ideologies derive.
The first of these is the concept of idealism. Those who hold an idealistic point of view believe that a desirable outcome can always be obtained by using the “right” or “correct” action. The challenge for these people, of course, is finding the “right” or “correct” action for a given situation.
The second is the school of thought known as relativism. The school of relativism acknowledges that while desirable outcomes are always preferable, everything is relative to a given circumstance and because of that, undesirable outcomes will arise – regardless of what action is taken.
According to a 1980 article in the Journal of Social Psychology by psychologist D.R. Forsyth, it is from these two ethical frameworks that our four approaches to making ethical decisions arise. These four approaches (or ethical ideologies) are:
1. Situationists – individuals aligned to this orientation tend to believe that everything is relative and, in turn, reject any type of universal moral rule or code. Their actions are often based upon an individual assessment of the situation.
2. Subjectivist – like the situationist, the subjectivist supports the relative nature of events and rejects the concept of universal moral rules or codes. Unlike the situationist, however, subjectivists maintain personal moral principles that they use to asses every event.
3. Absolutists – a strong supporter of idealism, the absolutist is grounded in the belief that the best possible outcome to any situation can be obtained by following a set of absolute universal moral principles.
4. Exceptionists – like the absolutist, the exceptionist is grounded in the belief that the best possible outcome to a situation can be obtained by following absolute moral principles. The distinction, however, is that the exceptionist believes certain situations require a deviation from those ideals.
Why this is important
Some of you might think this is just a bunch of academic mumbo jumbo, and as a former Correctional Officer and Deputy Juvenile Probation Officer, I can certainly appreciate this point of view. However, there are very practical reasons to learn and understand these belief systems. According to Joycelyn M. Pollock’s ethical pyramid from her book Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (below), an individual or organization’s ethical system is the foundation for moral rules and behavior.
While most departments have a Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct, the question must be asked, from which ethical system or ideology is this code derived?
Joycelyn M. Pollock’s ethical pyramid |
Without a firm grasp on this basic concept, the moral rules and judgments of your officers may be compromised because they don’t align with your general ethical philosophy. As such, ethical dilemmas and conflict can easily occur. To assist in aligning (or re-aligning) the ethical system, moral rules and moral judgments of your department and your officers, ask yourself these fundamental questions:
1. What is the primary ethical ideology of our department/unit?
2. What is the primary ethical ideology of our officers?
3. Is the ethical system or ideology of our command staff consistent with that of our line or field officers?
4. Is the ethical system or ideology of our department consistent with the legal expectations of our position?
5. Is the ethical system or ideology of our department consistent with the cultural values of those we serve?
Each of these questions carries with it a unique set of challenges and potential pitfalls that I will be addressing individually in future articles.
Discretion is one of the primary enforcement tools within the criminal justice system. As an instructor or department, a lack of understanding regarding the ethical orientations of your organization’s members can have a direct impact on how, when, and why they use discretion. For example, if you – as either an instructor or department – are teaching the use of discretion from an absolutist’s framework (one that believes the best possible outcome to any situation can be obtained by following absolute universal moral principles) and those within your class or department are more closely aligned to the subjectivist belief (one who rejects the concept of universal moral rules or codes and subjects each event to a personal assessment that is based solely upon his or her own moral principles), how effective will your training and officers be?
A new way to survey
To assist instructors and departments in assessing the ethical orientations of their officers and to help guide you in answering the questions mentioned above, a five minute online survey has been developed. Questions in the survey are designed to identify which of the four ethical ideologies your students, unit, or department are most closely aligned with. It’s important to note that results of this questionnaire do not determine whether the respondents act in an ethical or unethical manner.
Currently, this confidential survey is being used to assess the ethical orientations of academy cadets (and how their academy training does or does not affect their belief systems), correctional special operations groups, and criminal justice students. All results are presented in aggregate form (group, not individual data) and the survey and corresponding analyses are free of charge to any governmental law enforcement or corrections agency.
Should you require additional information or prefer individual analyses (such as that of your command staff), the questionnaire can be refined to meet your specific needs.
Lastly, if you would like suggestions on how to improve your ethics training based upon the results of your analysis, such recommendations can accompany the results.
For more information on the survey, ethics training, or how to acquire the survey’s access code for your class or department, contact the author, Dr. Bruce Bayley, at bbayley@weber.edu or by phone at 801-626-8134.
