Strengthening and understanding our economic and social spheres of life is based in our ability to ensure that we are continuously improving and adjusting the functioning of the whole. We can also learn about values, philosophy, science, and justice around learning examples designed to help us move into deeper more complex concepts that underline the foundations of society. It is less about the conclusion around a key definitive answer and more about awareness of the deepest values we share among each other. Those shared values have an economic benefit in fostering a growth-oriented environment and institutional performance that enhances that growth (economically and socially). Exploring ways to strengthen those values within our decision making and within institutional performance can help to continuously tweak systems toward their ideal goals and purpose. As a society we are a single people who share a destiny and are all responsible for fostering a future where the next generation can thrive. It is ok to disagree or agree because the purpose is not a specific conclusion but to simply think. cogito, ergo sum
The example used below is one in which people with a history
of poor behaviors and dark triad traits were allowed to use their employment
position and close friend network of corrupted officials to enrich themselves
through threats of violence, bullying, rumor spreading, and much more. It was
well known by people in the community that some were "immune" from
misbehaviors and some could be targeted. Despite the initial defaults and long-standing
protections of corruption it is also one of community triumph and resilience.
The story includes pieces of drama and hardship where normal rights and values
were circumvented and people could openly enrich themselves through hate,
aggression, manipulation, and pseudo cleansing type activities. No amount of
evidence or detail could convince justice decision makers there is a much
higher principle at play and so poor behaviors were normalized within local
decision making networks. Dehumanization made the wrong acceptable and what is right is
disdainful. Moral conscious was lost.
Financial Considerations and Social Ties of Corruption
Systems that function at their highest capacity should do so
with a strong sense of ethics which helps ensure long term trust and behavioral
alignment with shared values. Ethical standards and expectations impact
decision making and often create specific outcomes which can be positive or
negative depending on the beliefs of those involved. Part of business and
economics is based on how we support the fundamentals of society and the medium
of trust by which people engage in everyday exchanges. Those exchanges range
from smiles all the way over to formal signed business contracts. The root of
those transactions is based on societal assumptions that add up to create a
flow of economic activity (Some theorists have mentioned this flow.). Economics,
a science of human behaviors delves into choice and why some manage with
integrity and why some may not. Whether you are talking about a company or an institution,
the ability to align activities to stated goals and missions is important. When
we don't do that, we have a potential problem as choices and outcomes vary
further from the true north creating misalignment. Poor administrators and
those with ulterior motives can have a corrosive effect on the environment and
limit the potential for higher levels of performance. We make the general
assumption that choice is rational and therefore goal directed outcomes are in
part related to intention (The intent to harm, help, etc.). Where the
intention is good, we should expect a good outcome and where intention is distorted,
we will often find poor outcomes. Performance and outcome are based on the
quality of leadership, commitment to mission, and the overall functional health
of a system.
Integrity and Institutions
Institutions are designed to provide guidance on what
societal exchanges are ok and which ones are not. It is the same for the
banking system as it is for the justice system as it is for all of the other
systems (There may be an exception, but I can't think of one at the moment.).
Such systems are seen as governance systems that provide direction and oversite
to others. In a democracy, we generally have more influence over law creation
than in other places and that is a powerful concept (Generally, means that
is the way it is supposed to run but there are times when that doesn't happen.).
The broad desires of society often act as a wider check and balance if the law
doesn't function over a period of time as intended. (i.e. corruption, mass
fraud, etc.). It is a slow process but eventually the pressure to change
rises as people begin to see the collective benefit of effective management and
preserving the value of institutions from generation to generation. (In our example,
hate, rumors, threats, bullying, aggression, corruption were used to enrich a
friend network and people knew it but failed to protect the victims
highlighting some open opportunities for adaptative improvement. It makes the
assumption that the goal is truth, justice and societal health versus clan-based
enrichment and open corruption of choice.) While these things may happen
infrequently, or frequently depending on who you talk to, they are still
the rotted part of the apple and allowing it to sit with the rest of the bushel
will damage the bunch (i.e. the perpetrators used bigoted rumors that could
and some cases could have paved the way to bigger crimes beyond attempted
violence and violations of basic human rights. Wrong situation,
word, time, act, etc. create risks for the victims. A situation that was
created by hate and corruption).
Ethics and Values
To further delve into ethics and the values of institutional
effectiveness I am using a philosophical theoretical hypothetical thought
experiment for learning purposes that delves into hate and corruption as a
detractor to society strength (Some argue it is acceptable, and they
encourage it but I'm taking the theoretical example that it is not helpful.)
Exploring how corruption may function on a couple of different levels and how
that impacts both economic health and social cohesion (vs. ostracization and
split peoples) creates a stronger dynamic the comingling of corruption and
hate (Two pathways of a similar root problem). Thus, to highlight this I
provide an example of people known as "The Clan" who engaged in all
types of bullying that includes in some cases potential criminal misbehaviors
that rewarded associated affiliates through the misuse and misallocation of
public resources (a type of cartel). To further the richness of the
example, there was strong undertone of superiority and "better than
thou" antics toward those deemed as out-groups (...typically marked by
race, religion, social network and politic). Furthermore, anyone who
complained of blatant mistreatment or who sought to protect others was put on a secretive target list and secretely ruled against quickly.
Misbehaviors continued through blind eye justice warping aspects of the
institution. Victims ranging from sexual exploitation to elder abuse had
few rights per the decision-making process. In our example, despite being
recipients of all types of mistreatment the victims could find no recourse. The very root of hate
impacting outcomes through biased choices (...not necessarily race, politic
or religion specific but good dependent on who one may like or dislike)
(Remember, that it may or may not be that but it is one lens by which to see
a problem. There are likely different lenses at play. If you ask corrupt
officials and perpetrators they may have a different perspective or if you ask
the average citizen who generally would dislike corruption they would also have
a slightly different perspective. This is why such issues are often hyper and
polarized versus strategic and collaborative. As a general rule in most cases,
strategic and collaborative gains more followers and creates well rounded
decisions. ).
Closed Systems
Closed systems intentionally have few checks and balances so
behaviors persist in creating numerous victims over time and missed
opportunities to fulfill one's duties. One might fathom this as a type of gross
negligence that didn't appear to improve until the wider stakeholders (outside
perspective) encouraged a higher value system (Theoretically, moral
conscious...collective conscious).. For one reason or another (depending
on how someone interprets it) the decision makers in our learning example,
felt that certain types of people were more worthy than others in society as
recipients of institutional outcomes even if such proceeds came from a very dark
place. In other words, for some decision makers the display of general poor
behavior is of higher value when compared to publicly stated values and oaths.
It is an important lesson because the misuse of authority and outcomes is a
common trait of clan based closed systems where corruption is indicative of
the long running potential social variance to system purpose (There are ways
one could test for this but it would take a lot of time and hundreds of hours
to evaluate a wider pattern. The data is technically there. Its
a big data world so it is possible if one has access to the public information to
theoretically crowdsource a review following a particular logic algorithm that could be
statistically analyzed. Many of the different data points may show
statistical significance of unofficial policies and behavioral choices as a
reflection of values. It may also show all is good and highlight some important strengths others can learn from.)
The Motives
What makes the example interesting is that each of the
actors had different interests of which some were financial, social,
altruistic, legal, criminal, revenge, mental health, religious, racial, etc.
The collective efforts of people create pressure for officials to do the work
to the benefit of people/community and work less on the behalf of their social
networks and extreme ideologies (It created change through a broad-brush stroke,
but good leaders and administrators will need to fine tune the people's handy
work. i.e. the purpose of law versus its technicalities used
to insulate corruption, creating a wider risk of ongoing misbehaviors toward
others. Technicalities are often where corruption is easy to hide but when you
take technical decisions and compare it against the purpose of the law you may
find they don't match well. Do that enough and you find a pattern and that
pattern can determine intent. A blueprint of corruption). Without checks
and balances those who engaged in criminal acts and those who allowed and
rewarded corruption are cut from the same type of cloth. Their values to higher
principles or commitment to their communities are limited and therefore they
may not be qualified for their roles if they are unable to see the greater
purpose of their mission and how that should be in alignment with the needs of
the whole society as a collective people who rely on those institutions (organizational
alignment around the mission of justice, liberty, etc.).
A Higher Value System
In part of that exploration, we can look at studies to help
highlight how this example may fit within modern literature. That helps us
understand the underlining factors of corruption and find solutions so that
actions and behaviors of individuals, groups or those we trust with institutional
decision making are working on the behalf of the greater needs of society. In
other words, that they are servants of people, and they fulfill their duties
with integrity and nobility (Philosophically, nobility of behavior comes
through serving others while nobility of position comes through social networks
and wealth.). While the vast majority of people within institutions
throughout history have generally tried to do the right thing, there are times
where poor actors have carved out variances (typically around social,
ideological and financial/resource considerations). Knowing and
understanding some of the dynamics of a misalignment can help in preventing
such derailment of purpose and trust in the future (Theoretically. We have
to make the assumption that high functioning systems is a worthwhile pursuit
and that would be a goal of most administrators.).
The article below discusses how bribes and social ties may
influence people's decisions when thinking about in and out-group members. From
a general perspective we should be aware that within clan networks bribes might
take more of a form of helping each other achieve financial and social goals or
actual exchange of items of value. It is a process of reciprocation and social
expectation. Poor decisions wouldn't have been made if those financial and
social considerations were not present in a way that warped the whole decision-making
process. Those risks are magnified when the perceived superiority and
differences between perpetrator and victims is projected across a long time
period of time against various peoples. Limited internal world views and
general lack of exposure to other types of people can be a deficit in judgement
because they lack understanding of normal behaviors and responses outside of
their sliver of life (The broader the world view, typically the more similar
people appear through universal truths that apply to all people's.).
Magnify lack of understanding of others with unfair protections and preferences
in justice outcomes and we have a moral and legal default. One in which it creates a
quagmire of liberty (the higher principle of improvement) or
liability (the lower principle of victim blaming and blind eye).
Looking at this example and studies slowly starts to define how such long-term misbehaviors and lack of checks and balances may occur for years if not decades. Poor decisions and poor outcomes. It also helps us understand how crimes can be repeated in closed systems when lower forms of values, bigotries and false ideologies are encouraged among self-interested actors. Imaging a world where illegal and immoral behaviors in any society are normalized and rewarded in a way that it encourages others to do the same through social learning. (Social Learning. Monkeys do it and we do it! Also some indication that other creatures like orcas do it as well to different degrees. Its a function that if more frequent eventually becomes normalized and this is why we can learn how that works so as to dissuade such serious misbehaviors least they hamper our economy, damage belief in justice and impact other social exchanges. Remember that economics is a study of human behavior and choice so understanding the long-term implications of protecting hate and corruption is important as well from a theoretical aspect. Some argued that a decline in institutional trust may be related to micro choices and exchanges.). In our learning example, victims were created and more victims in the future will create unless commitment to the highest principles emerges on top of the debate. Without change it is only a matter of time unchallenged patterns will reemerge (In our example there were multiple waves with periods of time in between). If corruption and hate further becomes embedded then it may take additional commitment to correct so it is important to root it out where it is found. Such closed systems present a type of risk to society because the stated social contracts and the realized outcomes may be different in such places where members have taken on unethical or misaligned values as "normalized".
Let us work off of an assumption that clearly wrong occurred
on some level and there were poor actors and poor choices involved in our
learning example. Don't get hung up on which type of people, what their
religion is, what their race is, or what their politics are because hate and
corruption is a phenomenon that can apply to any people at different times. A
free people should always support freedom for all members of their society and
foster those lofty values in others even when they don't completely agree or
understand "others". Most societies and peoples have experienced
mistreatment one time or another so open corruption is not an impossibility even if unlikely.
Such differentiation of human life and rights should not be so easily dependent
on those differences (Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) or (race
or tribe based). It is not that people can't act in a biased and
self-seeking manner but how we handle that and strive to reach above such
people that counts when these behaviors occur. An essential question
being what checks and balances are present when people do act in such a way? We
can adapt or we do not adapt. Therefore, think of the knowledge gained from our
thought experiment in their generalized form so we are able to apply the
principles learned to any such similar situation where they may be found and
seem similar. New knowledge often leads to more learning and that leads to
preserving liberty and freedom. The question on what should happen when
intentionally illegal, immoral, and corrupt misbehaviors have been openly
protected and some people in the community have talked about those 'above the
law' and/or 'protected' by the network and those who we would expect to serve
the full community. Perhaps in some ways causing an economic decline that
impacted the community for a long time until local stakeholders successfully
challenged such open corruption and voted in some new people in a way that economic
prospects began to return through greater thoughtfulness purpose of systems (You
won't be able to convince corrupted souls they are a big part of everyone's
pain. It is indicative of the rationalization process that allowed the choice
to engage in corruption and/or use threats against others in the first place.
So it is wise to take decision making out of their hands least such decision
making becomes illegitimate.) Let us say victims have no recourse due in
part to the self-interested thinking and aggressive tools along the same lines
of choices and behaviors that caused the issue in the first place.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking that created them" Einstein.
The concept of tackling corruption has significant historic, philosophical, symbolic and moral anchoring and that it has lasted hundreds of years. While times have changed, the very importance of encouraging higher respect for our history and liberties has not. We should reflect on the shared values that we all believe in and their cohesive assumptions that form the basis of any society. If we believe in our society and are faithful to that society, we will do what is right and if we don't then we won't and the proof in pudding is the choices we make regardless of how we come to them. Freedom belongs to us all and we earned it not only in current generations but also from the many generations that came before. Ponder how important certain freedoms were to some of our early founders. Let us not sell out what they were building and ride the sands of time versus being swallowed by them. Always make decisions that encourage high values.
“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” John AdamsA Few Thoughtful Ideas to Explore
A number of questions to sort of think about where hate and
corruption doesn't have a check and balance,
1.) Is it moral to reward poor behavior, fail to protect
victims, and make no changes? Let us assume bullying, threats, attempted
violence, and serious legal misconduct was known and financially rewarded. If
we knew there were mistakes made and victims created and we made no change we
would likely see more victims in the future. However, morally if there was
greater alignment between the purpose and the behavior then one would likely
find less intentional/unintentional mistakes. There may be a debate on whether
mistakes happen everyone once in a great while or all the time but that doesn't
take away from the responsibility to improve when they are found no matter the
frequency. Moral authority is power with while legal authority is power over.
Legal authority should seek to best reflect moral authority for maximum support
and effect. What happens if immorality mixed with misuse of authority was found
to be protecting poor behavior? What would this say about trust? Is that trust
deserved on a human-to-human exchange level? What happened in history when
clearly immoral and illegal behaviors were fostered and power was used to make
it "ok"? What would it say on a Constitutional level about those who
it gives a green light to mistreat? If it is allowed in one place, can it be
allowed in others and does it create a type of foreshadowing precursor to a
future unknown? (Sociologically in our hypothetical example we may be
dealing with two different sets of rules and in essence two different social
exchange systems and outcomes.)
2.) How is trust built from micro exchanges everyday and is
there importance in ensuring those with integrity move up within an institution
and those who lack integrity down or out? Consider how positive behaviors lead
to increased positive micro exchanges while negative behaviors lower the
quality of micro exchanges and in turn reflect on the positive or negative
impression of an institution ( If you listen to most secular and religious philosophers,
they have versions of the Golden Rule and how to treat others positively.).
The path that leads to seems to support the most positive outcomes would be
ensuring hiring the personalities that improve on positive micro exchanges for
both internal and external health.
3.) What checks and balances does society or systems have if
misbehaviors and rewarding misbehaviors becomes normalized (even if repeated
at other times in history.)? This is where a debate on too much and not
enough checks-n-balances comes into play. In our example the perpetrators
clearly put kids at risk and the sick with a history of doing so and those
behaviors were protected and rewarded based on social exchanges of the
"hometown" team. A balance that ensures an effective system while
safeguarding their moral purpose is helpful for long term support. When people
discuss the differences in outcomes based on what social group they belong it
typically means a central group of poor actors are involved and warping the
outcomes. Checks and balances may help in ensuring such groups don't create
even more victims due to foot dragging and general disrespect toward societal
contracts by some administrators and decision makers.
4.) How might a perception of fairness in society, business,
and life influence economic expansion and social growth? In third word nations
it may be more normal to not have recourse. However, a lack of strong
functioning institutions often leads to a decline in investment and GDP growth.
Does integrity and faithfulness to certain shared societal principles (oaths,
pledges, etc.) help improve institutional quality and does that have an
impact on societal investment? Can we include an economy by maximizing
commitment to central values and encouraging full engagement?(Very long wide
lens. There is some support for that idea. Some research supports the
connection of economic health and institutional health.). Are there long-term
issues if certain types of people are blocked from contributions to maximize
the benefits for all of society (versus the few)? What does a fully
engaged society with maximum human capital look like? Keep in mind in our
example that hate based rumors damaged reputations, encouraged broad
aggression, blocked people from jobs, etc. Such behavior may have robbed
society from contributions from some members based on superficial
justifications (Even with hate and what we might conceive as a type of evil,
based on how you define it, you will also find that the best path is to encourage
a better world and forgive. One should never forget the crimes allowed,
encouraged, and rewarded. The mistakes that were made were indicative of
something much deeper, had a history to it, and will rear its head in the
future because of the underlining lack of respect for our historical values and
the sacredness of human life. Acceptance of their values in a social context of close associates).
5.) Understanding how some are treated, and some are not
treated and the various factors involved helps to gain a fuller understanding
of the different perceptions and perspectives. A single perspective of
improvement and fostering the highest functioning systems we can seems to be in
everyone's interest. What type of checks and balances do we need to implement
if there are instances where those who feel such systems belong and should
function on behalf of their in-group? We are talking about rewarding people who
engage in intentional misbehaviors that would normally be illegal if justice
followed normal expected societal values. How could close friendships mixed
with ethnocentric hate and corruption warp institutions? Do we have the
responsibility to fix mistakes and uphold the spirit (versus technicalities)
of the law when serious crimes have been committed against innocent people and
whistle blowers? Something like disclosure of relationships and friendships
might be necessary to dissuade intentional poor judgement. Especially if people
are talking about how those close networks change things. This may be
especially true where people are openly discussing and complaints were lodged
against conflicts of interest and "protected" clan members in
multiple venues. (Remember that it is possible to test for this if you
have access to the data and it was presented in a way that was organizable.) It
is not so much that corruption exists or that people who engaged in poor
behaviors could easily warp the system through employment and social
friendships but that it could be done so openly, blatantly, rapidly, with no recourse for
victims, little respect for the law and less respect for human life. In these
situations and places the law is subjective and it harms the perception of the
whole (It should reflect on decision makers more because they have a moral
obligation if they stay true to the oaths of their office and its obligation of
correcting. Contrary to some's thinking, the worst behaviors and values is not a sign of
strength but one of decline, fear, and grasping at misuse of power to keep the
truth at bay. Putting people in positions in which they make decisions based
out of that distorted sense of self and "other" indicative of a much
deeper problem of merit and long-term competitiveness and resilience of moral
conscious during difficult situations. Strengthening institutions means
supporting their highest state and adjusting to get closer to that ideal
point.)
6.) What do you think is functioning well or could be hedged
for improvement? To fully understand a situation, one should also think of the
positive strengths systems currently hold and what can be used to walk toward
their core mission. If we have situations where people are coached on how to
target others, provide financial incentives for doing so and do not correct
these mistakes we are making a mistake in moral and legal judgement (...the
purpose and not the technicalities where corruption often hides).What is
sometimes a weakness can also be a strength and knowing what behaviors can be
built on provides a well-rounded perspective. Adaptable organizations improve
on what they do well to create competitive advantages and they improve their
weaknesses to reduce risks. If some are being mistreated to help others then it
would be a weakness if we assume the risk is judged by movement toward the
stated mission. When people can derail the essential purpose of system because
they wanted something or have destructive tendencies what does it say about the
capacity to protect people? What does it say about the commitment around a bigger
purpose? Does that bigger purpose even matter if it can be openly thwarted with
no consequence or correction? All philosophical questions.
7.) Why might it become increasingly important to teach
about values that will strengthen institutional health and maintain higher
value systems for the next generation (i.e. freedoms in general, democracy,
human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.)? What are the
fundamental values of society? What do we do when people blatantly violate good
judgement and the laws (reward them isn't generally the first thing one
would think of.) How might those prone to making decisions for hate based
and corruption oriented perspective undermine the health of the whole system?
What do we all believe in? What do we value? What makes us...us? This is where
you should think about your personal values unhinged to the tempest of the
times. What would happen if more judgements default the laws to reward criminal
behaviors? Perhaps delve into hate and third world extremism and clan behaviors? It
may be wiser to first honor the sanctity of higher values and then support,
live by, and share such knowledge with the next generation. The chain of
development should be unbroken by passing the torch just a little brighter from
old hands to young hands. We should always seek to improve least we become
complacent and accept a lower version of ourselves. That starts with the
illumination and enlightenment of learning and human freedom. Celebrate
Lady of Liberty
*This is a hypothetical philosophical thought
experiment on the ethics and value systems. It is ok to disagree and have
alternative points of view. That is the point. It is a type of discussion, a
moving story that helps us understand ethics from a granular perspective. Since
we can write this story anyway we want there will be a very positive outcome.
Feel free to leave a comment. Barba non facit philosophum (Sorry learning Latin so
I can read old text and thought it was a nice touch.)
No comments:
Post a Comment