Chapter 2 I am Second: Ethical Leadership and Self-Denial

• Date: 25 July 2011
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2011)0000012005
• Published date: 25 July 2011
• Pages: 23-38
• Author: David C. Massey

CHAPTER 2

I AM SECOND: ETHICAL

LEADERSHIP AND SELF-DENIAL

David C. Massey

ABSTRACT

As public employees, police leadership needs to be able to deal with the

wealthy and powerful as well as the impoverished. Police Chiefs must work

within the ethical framework of three diverse goals: responsiveness to the

public, loyalty to the government they serve, and personal considerations of

the individual and the employees. These goals can provide an environment in

which leaders can sacrifice ethical principles for self-enrichment. For the

overwhelming majority of non-elected public officials who genuinely wish to

do the right thing, the high road of ethical aspiration can be obscure and

difficult to travel. Police Leaders must model ethical behavior for their

employees, gaining the trust and respect of the public. When confronting

the opportunities of self-enrichment that shall be offered them, they must

deny themselves, in favor of the ethical canons they preach to their

subordinates. Self-enrichment often leads to unethical and illegal behavior,

which destroys the ethical framework police leaders are sworn to uphold.

Today’s police chief faces economic and well as ethical challenges. Recent

downturns in our nation’s economy have forced leaders and governments

into a closer examination of operating budgets and pay scales. It is fair to

Leadership in Education, Corrections and Law Enforcement: A Commitment to Ethics,

Equity and Excellence

Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 12, 23–38

Copyright r2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2011)0000012005

23

say that ethical governance worldwide is challenged by elected and

appointed public officials who succumb to the power, privilege, and

opportunity of their offices to sacrifice the public interest on the altar of

private interest (Menzel, 2009). According to Cartwright (2010), agency

executives set the tone for what constitutes acceptable behavior. Therefore,

leaders must not only model appropriate actions, but ensure that personnel

who cross ethical lines face appropriate consequences. Otherwise, unethical

behavior will increase. Martin (2011) refers to a study conducted by the

International Association of Chiefs of Police, in which 7 of 10 of the top

issues determined as critically important to officers actively working in the

field involved ethics and integrity.

Setting a good example is the most influential of all leadership

characteristics and particularly relevant to safeguarding the integrity of

internal social relationships, according to Huberts, Kaptein, and Lasthuzeb

(2007).Mills (2003), states that in reality, the problem is that many leaders

take an ethically neutral stand. Ethical values and beliefs are seen as

subjective, impersonal and implicit. If a leader is truly going to lead by

example, then he or she must exhibit overt behavior to demonstrate visibility

and transparently what is and what is not ethically acceptable in relation to

ethical decision making within the organization.

Elder and Paul (2009) feel that it is impossible to develop as an ethical

person without facing the fact that every one of us is prone to egotism,

prejudice, self-justification, and self-deception and these flaws cause much

human suffering. Only the systematic cultivation of fair-mindedness,

honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of

others can provide foundation for sound ethical reasoning. Ethical reason,

they state, entails doing what is right even in the face of selfish desires.

What happens when the leader does not appear to act in an ethical

manner? A police chief in the small (population 38,000), mostly Hispanic

city of Bell, California was paid $457,000.00 in annual salary. As Palmeri

(2011) relates, this was more than the Los Angeles Chief of Police makes in a

city of 3.8 million people. In addition to this salary, which was double his

previous employment as police chief in a larger city, his hiring agreement

qualified him for a tax-free disability benefit of $205,000 per year. And this

Chief was brought in allegedly to end corruption within the Bell Police

Department!

A similar ethical impropriety occurred at a large California university

police department. The police chief ‘‘retired’’ with a $2.1 million retirement

package and then returned to the same job right away with more money

(Yollin, 2008). The University found a loop-hole in the retirement program

DAVID C. MASSEY24