Maladministration, “Passive Evil” and Insecurity in Educational Organizations

1. Maladministration, “Passive Evil” and Insecurity in Educational Organizations Peter Milley, PhD University of Ottawa pmilley@uottawa.ca CASEA/CCEAM Conference, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, June 7-9, 2014

2. The problem

3. Samier’s intervention

4. Research goal

5. Concepts – Toxic/derailed leadership Based on Furnham, 2010.

6. Concepts – Habermas’ social action • Communicative action=authentic expression, reciprocity, mutual understanding • Strategic action=goal directed • Necessary, dialogical relationship • Too much strategic action creates “pathologies” • Discourse=questioning validity/legitimacy (truth, rightness, truthfulness) • Systematic distortions=fabrications, false consciousness, preclude access to valid, reliable, truthful insights/beliefs Adapted from Habermas, 1984, p. 333

7. Concepts – Habermas’ discourse ethics e.g. Harassment prevention policies – “conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome” e.g. Conditions for investigations into wrong-doing and for participatory recovery efforts from it (e.g. truth and reconciliation processes) Based on Habermas, 1990; Bernstein, 1995

8. Maladministration and ‘passive evil’ in educational organizations are dysfunctional phenomena stemming from the “strategic action” (Habermas, 1984, p. 333) practiced by sad, mad or bad leaders (Furnham, 2010) and influenced by organizational and broader contextual factors.

9. 8 strategies sad, mad, bad leaders use for ‘cover’and to ‘manage’ organizational members e.g. de Wet (2010) – abusive principals isolating victims and undermining collegiality and empathy e.g. NY State embezzling superintendent who “convinced parents and board members that he, too, was a victim” (Vitello, 2006) Based on Deetz, 1992

10. Organizational member response to strategies

11. Unmasking maladministration, recuperating moral agency

12. Dealing with sad, mad, bad leaders Based in part on Samier(personal communication)

13. Preventing and unmasking maladministration through democratic governance, culture and procedures Guidance Practices Pick leaders with virtue and character in mind (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) Manage well the full cycle of leader recruiting, selecting, developing, ‘transitioning’ leaders (Furnham, 2010) Reliable, complete info flows; symmetrical connections to constituents; checks/balances; strong independent boards or advisors; fair/safe recourse mechanisms; impartial third parties for intervention (Kellerman, 2004). Diversity in leadership teams and organization – bring different perspectives, raise inconvenient truths (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Workplace structured with high control jobs, clear roles and responsibilities, functional accountability mechanisms (de Wet, 2010). • Leadership teams to temper strategic/instrumental reasoning with moral reasoning focused on public good based in democratic values (Adams & Balfour, 1998). • High levels of centralized discretionary power is correlated with bad leader behaviours (Furnham, 2010); therefore, distribute power, put in protective layers. • Pay close attention to how leaders are selected and managed. • Pluralistic, democratic workplace structures that push authority and control downwards and values rights and contributions of members (Dillard & Ruchalla, 2005).

14. Recuperating moral agency through increased humanization of the workplace