Commentary: Ethical Leadership in Public Service: A Solid Foundation for Good Government

• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12226
• Author: Hugh Weinberg
• Published date: 01 May 2014

Commentary

Hugh Weinberg worked as staff

attorney and then as deputy counsel to the

New York City Conf‌l icts of Interest Board,

and later as counsel to the Queens Borough

President’s Off‌i ce in New York City. He also

serves on the Government Ethics Committee

of the Association of the Bar of the City of

New York.

E-mail: hbweinberg@aol.com

344 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 3, pp. 344–345. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12226.

Hugh Weinberg

Association of the Bar of the City of New York

The article “Does Ethical Leadership Matter

in Government? Ef‌f ects on Organizational

Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness

to Report Ethical Problems” by Shahidul Hassan,

Bradley E. Wright, and Gary A. Yukl posits three

hypotheses about ethical leadership that lay a solid

foundation for larger studies. Further study should

utilize a broader cross-section of public servants and

cut across job descriptions and ranks of employees.

Researchers also should examine the ef‌f ects of demo-

graphics and geography more closely.

“ e f‌i sh rots from the head” is an adage that is most

often heard in a political context, and it ref‌l ects the

public notion that ethical leadership in government

does matter. Certainly, recent history is rife with

examples of government leaders implicated in bribery

schemes, caught up in sex scandals, or perceived as

bullies. While misconduct at the top can set the tone

for subordinates’ work environments, we have to be

careful about drawing a direct correlation between

unethical leadership and the ef‌f ectiveness of its staf‌f .

While the f‌i sh might indeed rot from the head, it

does so only gradually and might taint only those

who work most closely with unethical leaders. Most

public servants appear to remain committed to their

jobs; their conduct and ef‌f ectiveness most likely are

not af‌f ected by ethical lapses on the part of their

leadership.

 e article’s f‌i rst hypothesis, that ethical leadership

increases the willingness of public sector employees

to report ethical violations to management, should

be further explored in the context of smaller town

or municipal governments or government agencies.

Most state governments and larger city governments

have independent or separate investigative or ethics

agencies to which ethical violations can be reported

conf‌i dentially and without fear of reprisal. In addi-

tion, these days, most employees are protected by

whistle-blower laws. In these larger jurisdictions, eth-

ics training is often mandated for all or most employ-

ees.  e extent to which leaders participate in, and

encourage participation in, these training programs

can af‌f ect sensitivity to actual and apparent ethical

problems. Personnel of smaller, local governments

might not have the same ability to report ethical viola-

tions anonymously. In all cases, there might also be a

cultural aversion to informing on (or, in the common

vernacular, “ratting out”) fellow workers.  erefore, to

further test the validity of the f‌i rst hypothesis, future

researchers should look at a greater variety of agen-

cies, in terms of their size, structure, and perhaps their

function, and the degree to which their leaders sup-

port ethics training and education programs.

 e second hypothesis, that ethical leadership increases

the organizational commitment of public sector

employees, can be further tested as well. Employees’

commitment to their organizations can only be

enhanced if they are made to understand, through

training and education, that ethical conduct protects

the integrity of the organization’s decision-making

process and increases the public understanding of

and appreciation for that process. Also, the size and

mission of the employees’ government agencies

probably af‌f ect the degree to which those employees

demonstrate organizational loyalty and commitment.

In elected of‌f‌i cials’ of‌f‌i ces, for example, the of‌f‌i cials’

staf‌f s are closely identif‌i ed with, and perhaps seen as an

extension of, the of‌f‌i cials themselves.  us, if elected

of‌f‌i cials conduct themselves unethically, then their

staf‌f s are more likely to become demoralized and work

less ef‌f ectively. On the other hand, in larger, multi-

purpose government agencies, where most employees

neither see nor interact with their agency heads or the

agency heads’ inner circles, employees are more likely

to be unaf‌f ected by their leaders’ unethical conduct.

In my many years of public service, I have seen this

happen numerous times. Again, to further examine the

authors’ second hypothesis, it would be useful to focus

on ethics training and to look at the kind of govern-

ment agency being studied (i.e., whether the agency

is headed by an elected or appointed of‌f‌i cial, among

other factors), as well as at the size and mission of the

particular government entity.

Ethical Leadership in Public Service: A Solid Foundation for

Good Government