Part 1: 
Overview of Module

Topic and Activities

Key Points

Ethics in Collaborative Negotiations

In a pluralistic context, multiple and divergent worldviews and values concerning resource use will inevitably lead to conflicts.  It is only through collaborative efforts between concerned citizens, environmental groups, industry and government that sustainable decisions and strategies will emerge.  By their very nature, all negotiations contain ethical dilemmas; in the case of resource management planning this is especially true because of the complexity of the issues and the affects of decisions on people’s livelihoods.  Negotiators are always faced with ethical decisions about how open and direct they should be about their interests and acceptable alternatives. 

  Joint solutions achieved through collaborative processes normally involve multi-interest constituencies and enjoy relatively broad community and stakeholder support, largely because of the complex moral deliberations that go into building such agreements.

Exercise – Group Discussion

Guided large group discussion (15 minutes)

What are some of the ethical considerations in collaborative negotiating and decision-making that you are familiar with?

Write suggestions on flip charts, post, and refer back to them throughout the module, if useful.

Part 2: 
Ethical Theory: An Introduction

Topic and Activities

Key Points

Introduce Ethical Theory demonstrating alternative frameworks for moral reasoning.

How does one make ethical choices in performing official duties?  How does one work through difficult moral dilemmas, such as potential conflicts of interest?  How much do you disclose during negotiations?

Ethical reasoning and decision making requires more than a simple belief in the importance of ethics.  It also requires sensitivity to moral implications of different choices, the ability to evaluate complex, ambiguous and incomplete information, and the skill and determination to follow-through on ethical decisions.  Ethical theory can assist with moral deliberation and ethical reasoning. 

  Ethical theory has traditionally been divided broadly into two approaches; consequentialist and non-consequentialist. (see Table 1 below).

Table 1:  Traditional ethical approaches

An alternative theory with relevance to public sector ethics

Virtue Ethics

Virtue theory is based on notions of “civic virtue” and a sense of public duty; “an informed commitment to democratic procedures and the interests of the community at large.” (Preston, 1998)   The development of virtue can be traced Aristotle’s original distinction between “external” and “internal goods.”  According to Preston:

The development of virtue entails the pursuit of internal goods that are available to all who engage in the practice that produces them, whereas external goods like fame and power can be possessed by a few only.  In the practice of public service for instance, an example of an internal good would be ‘respect for the system of government’, whereas an external good might be ‘the status that comes with government power.’  The virtuous public official cultivates and practices the former.  The latter is not denied but must serve the internal good if practice is to be virtuous. (Preston, 1998, 73)

  Virtue theory places a strong emphasis on the character of the individual and institution and takes better account of relationships than the more rationalistic consequentialist and non-consequentialist ethics.  “Integrity or honour are central virtues in the practice of public office because they eschew the dishonest misuse of power and exhort the avoidance (or at least declaration and management) of conflicts of interest.” (Preston & Sampford, 2002, 30)

  Major Weaknesses

  Application to Public Sector: 

Moral dilemmas

Many believe that ethics can be boiled down to a set of rules to live by… “Do not lie”, “Do not steal”, “Do not kill”.  Upon further reflection, however, many find that such rules can be considered overly simplistic in the face of real life situations and dilemmas.  Moral reasoning is much more complex and difficult in most circumstances, including the negotiating table.

Take a classic moral dilemma, for example.  Most people would consider it wrong to lie.  What if you were living in Nazi Germany, with a Jewish family hiding in your attic?  What would you say to the Gestapo if they came to your door?  Would it be ethically correct to lie in this situation?

Exercise – Group Discussion

Small group session: 40 minutes per group, followed by large group discussion for 15 minutes.

Have participants report their discussion to the large group.

In this exercise, ethical issues are drawn from individual experiences and participants are encouraged to:

o       would result in the greatest good for the greatest number (Ends-based); or

o       would create a suitable rule for others to follow in similar situations (Rule-based); or

o       would be in accord with the high standards of integrity and honour expected in serving the public interest (Virtue-based).

Part 3: 
Public Servants as Agents of the Public

Topic and Activities

Key Points

The Role of Ethics in the Public Sector

In a democratic system public servants act as agents on behalf of the shared interests of the citizens.  Public interests must come ahead of private interests.

The desire to serve the public interest is one of the “normative foundations ”for public employment, and any approach to public service that treats it as if it were the same as private enterprise risks undermining not only the structure of motivation for public service but, more important, its capacity to serve democratic government in an ethical and accountable manner.  The pursuit of the public interest over personal interest is both the reward and the price of public service. (Tait, 2001)

 According to John Uhr (1994, 166) “the primary ethics question for public servants is not: “what is my personal preference as to this or that course of action?”  Rather it is: “what is my duty or responsibility as a public official in relation to this or that course of action?” [emphasis in original]. 

 Uhr (1994, 167) states further that, “The relevant test of public or professional ethics is not that of satisfying one’s personal conscience, but of acting in such a way as to be able to justify the public trust placed in one, as assessed by some legitimate reviewer of official conduct…”

 At the same time, many would say that one’s personal conscience and ethical views should always play a role in deciding upon the ‘right’ course of action. 

Exercise –Group Discussion

Small group discussion for 15 minutes, followed by large group discussion for 10 minutes.

Questions for participants:

The Role of Core Values

Core values in the public service

Are there universal core values with particular relevance to a public sector ethics program?  Tom Sherman provides a listing of the more common values in public sector codes [of ethics]: 

 Numerous authors have argued that certain virtues play an especially key role; with integrity and honour often referred to as the central or “cardinal” virtues.

 Emerging at the core of the core virtues is the importance of integrity in public office.  Integrity is the unifying virtue of ethical public service. […]  In the moral life it signifies ‘integration of separable aspects of the self – notably faculties, desires, roles, life-shaping choices – into a self-consistent whole’. (Hart, 1994, cited in Preston and Sampford, 2002, 30)   Honour (or integrity) requires a commitment to something beyond oneself; in the case of public administration, this commitment is to the public interest in the context of democratic governance and the fundamental principles of the good society.”  (Preston & Sampford, 2002, 30)

Exercise –Group Discussion

Small group discussion for 15 minutes, followed by large group discussion for 10 minutes.

Discussion items:

·        Reflect on how you justify your official behaviour in the context of competing values, and discuss. 

·        Are there any core values for public service that the group can agree on?

·        Do you agree that integrity is the central virtue?  Explain why.

Part 4: 
Ethics in Negotiation

Topic and Activities

Key Points

Introduce ethics in negotiations

Ethical negotiations are based on a foundation of mutual trust.  When trust is present, communication and problem solving are more easily accomplished. When distrust prevails, these things are difficult and often seemingly impossible to achieve.

 The stakes can be high in negotiations involving land and resource use, often creating opportunities and incentives for people to violate personal, professional or institutional ethical standards.  People’s core beliefs can be “on the line” resulting in stalemates.  According to Lewicki and Robinson (1998) , negotiators evaluate tactics on a continuum of “ethically appropriate” to “ethically inappropriate”.  In the middle there’s a grey area in which tactics must be evaluated in a process of ethical reasoning and decision-making.

 Questionable behaviour in negotiations includes:

 Strategies for Determining Ethical Behaviour

Researchers have shown that ethics can be a problem in negotiations because of natural “psychological tendencies that foster poor decision-making.” (Thompson, 2001, 155)   People tend to believe they are behaving more ethically than independent observers would.  Some of the human biases that give rise to ethical problems in negotiation are the illusion of superiority, illusion of control and overconfidence (see Messick & Bazerman, 1996, cited in Thompson, 2001) . 

1.      Begin with the principles involved in Virtue-based ethics, by asking “would the proposed practice be consistent with the core virtues, especially integrity and honour, in fulfilling my professional obligations as a public servant?”  If possible, refer also to your organisation’s formalised Code of Ethics, as well as any professional Code that might apply.

2.      If the dilemma remains unresolved, apply the moral reasoning inherent in the Rules-based and Ends-based ethical approaches.

3.      Once a decision is reached, apply one or more of the tests in Table 2 to determine if an independent observer would agree with the ethics of your proposed action or statement.  Would you be able “to justify the public trust placed in one, as assessed by some legitimate reviewer of official conduct…”? (Uhr, 1994)

Exercise –Group Discussion

Small group discussion for 25 minutes, followed by large group discussion for 15 minutes.

Discussion items: 

·        What are some of the main ethical issues experienced during multi-party negotiations?

·        Apply the suggested framework to one such issue of the small group’s choosing.

Part 5: Case studies

Topic and Activities

Key Points

Exercise –Group Discussion

Two sessions.

For each case study:

Small group discussion for 35 minutes, followed by large group discussion for 20 minutes.

Case #1

In a move that ultimately led to the resignation and criminal investigation of the Fisheries Minister, the Fisheries Ministry disclosed to a salmon farming company details of an impending prosecution of that company by the Environment Ministry due to escapes of non-native salmon.  It was revealed that the Fisheries Ministry discouraged enforcement of regulations because it would send "conflicting messages" to an industry that the government was aggressively promoting. The Minister was quietly re-instated after the criminal investigation laid no charges.

 You are a Fisheries official involved in collaborative negotiations with environmental groups, community groups and industry on salmon farming policies and tenures.  You receive a phone call from your director to contact the salmon farming company as indicated above.  What is your response?  Discuss any moral dilemmas involved and how you would go about resolving them.

 Case #2:

A negotiator representing the Ministry of Environment is fairly certain that his director has purposely omitted findings from a draft report regarding wildlife habitat, because the director felt it presented a point of view that the government does not support.  The negotiator feels that these findings should not be kept from the public and, without authorisation, gives the findings to the other stakeholders at the negotiating table.  (adapted from Sarkissian et al., 1997)

 You are the negotiator.  Outline the moral considerations and deliberations involved in making the decision above (to give the findings to the other stakeholders).  Do you agree with this decision?