By Kevin Duggan, ICMA-CM

No doubt we have all encountered organizational rules, policies, and procedures that we believe are unnecessary, cumbersome, inefficient, or unfair. And we certainly have a lot of policies and regulations in government recognizing that because public resources are at play there will be heightened scrutiny as we undertake our work on behalf of the public.

When we encounter a rule, policy, or procedure that we don’t agree with, or don’t think is reasonably applicable to the circumstances we are dealing with, it is often tempting to try to find a creative way to achieve our intended goal while “working around” the organizational constraint. Oftentimes, there may well be a creative alternative to achieve the desired outcome.

Achieving a goal through an alternative means is not in and of itself problematic. However, is there a risk of being a bit too creative? Can we inadvertently stray into unethical conduct as we attempt to achieve what we believe is an appropriate and reasonable outcome?

Creative Alternatives Can Cause Problems

Recent news reports concern a questionable practice undertaken by a federal government official where creativity, even if it was pursued for a good reason, went too far. A USA Today article, “Report: Pentagon Gave $280K in Bogus Pay,” tells of a senior Pentagon human resources official who authorized what were described as “fraudulent bonuses” ($40,000 each) to officials in her agency.

Early retirement buyout incentives were in place and could be authorized by this senior HR official for a large number of non-senior officials. These same incentives were available to senior staff as well, but required a higher level of authorization (by the undersecretary of defense). However, the process of getting this higher-level approval was described as “onerous” and “slow.”

The HR official in question described the situation as follows: “The juice ain’t worth the squeeze on this.” She developed what she believed was a creative workaround to this issue, advising retiring senior staff members to downgrade their positions for one pay period in order to allow them to qualify for her approval of the incentive.

However, once this approach became known, it resulted in a two-year investigation by the inspector general’s office that involved 16 witnesses and the review of 31,000 emails. The HR official in question justified her actions by saying she believed “she was acting legally and that there was no law or policy that prohibited her from temporarily downgrading senior officials to hasten their buyout packages.” Additionally, she reported that she had conducted similar downgrades at another government agency and that other employees told her the process was “not prohibited.”

However, the article interviewed subject-matter experts who variously described the conduct as “gross mismanagement,” “improper use of government resources,” and a “shell game.” While this HR official is still employed at the Pentagon (apparently not in her former position), final disposition of this issue is ongoing; at a minimum, this official’s career and reputation have been irreparably damaged.

Ethical Lessons Learned

This example offers some clear ethical lessons:

• Even if your intent is to achieve an authorized and appropriate outcome, how you achieve that outcome is critical. It is not only important that the goal you are attempting to achieve is consistent with policy intent, but also that the techniques you use to achieve the goal are consistent with organizational expectations and values.

• Avoid the temptation to conclude that something is OK simply because there is no rule against it. Our employers, including the public, have higher expectations of us in regard to our conduct and the use of public resources than simply those covered explicitly by a law, rule, or regulation.

• One of the most discredited, but still often cited, rationales for questionable behavior is “other people have done it or are doing it.” We all need to be responsible for determining the appropriateness of our own conduct, not setting the bar based on examples we can find in others.

• Always measure a potential action based on the assumption that it will be made public. Are you comfortable taking the action even if you knew it would eventually become public knowledge? When working for the public, assume that anything you do will.

• When evaluating a potential action to take, consider all the various stakeholders that legitimately can weigh in on the appropriateness of your action. Those other than yourself or your immediate coworkers will likely judge your actions. Could other stakeholders possibly reach a different conclusion regarding the correctness of your conduct?

The constraints of working in the public sector, and with public resources, can often seem (and may often be) time-consuming and even onerous. While it is appropriate to attempt to work creatively within those restrictions to achieve goals efficiently, it requires careful consideration regarding when creativity can transition into inappropriate conduct.

The next time you are frustrated by a procedure or regulation, thoughtfully reflect on what is the reasonable level of creativity you can use to address the challenge.

Kevin Duggan, ICMA-CM, is director, ICMA West Coast Region, Mountain View, CA (kduggan@icma.org) and a former manager of Mountain View.