Moral Engagement – it’s a Walk in the Park

By Steve Davies

A User Guide for Great and Caring Government

People in Australia and, for that matter, in other democracies know there’s a lot wrong with politics and the conduct of government itself. Trust in all of our institutions has fallen.

This has not happened out of thin air. There is a strong sentiment that politicians, in particular those in the major political parties, are in it for themselves. That ‘the system is broken’. That sentiment extends to mainstream media.

There is a strong sense of not really being listened to. People look at the negative consequences of policies, poor implementation and an endless stream of failures that see harm being done to people.

They see failures of accountability within government and, indeed, people suffering and even deaths. Within Australia the latter was graphically exposed by the Royal Commission into the RoboDebt.

We could go on and on, hey?

The bottom line? The collapse in trust is a sure sign that people have given up. That they feel (and they are), disempowered.

In one way or another people are wondering what the hell has happened to politics and government.

What is very clear is that people want great and caring government. They want to see behaviours and practices that reflect moral engagement.

They want to see moral engagement at an individual, organisational and whole of government level. They want to witness and experience great and caring government 24/7.

And that has not been happening for a long time.

Instead, for a long-time people have been witnessing and experiencing a system riddled with moral disengagement.

About the mechanisms of moral disengagement

The mechanisms of moral disengagement lay at the core of the lifelong and world-renowned work of Professor Albert Bandura (1925-2021).

The thrust of his work is simply expressed in the subtitle of his book; How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves.

That subtitle poses the very problem and challenge we face with the Australian Government today. It is very important to note that this is not about psychoanalysing individuals.

Rather it is about the normalisation of behaviours and practices characterised and driven by the mechanisms of moral disengagement.

That normalisation occurs at the individual, organisational and whole of government level. And it is that normalisation and socialisation is that makes it so insidious and dangerous.

The Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement:

1. Moral Justification:

Behaviour is reframed as serving a higher moral purpose or social good. An individual might convince themselves that the end justifies the means.

2. Euphemistic Labelling:

Using sanitised or less offensive language to describe harmful acts, which makes them seem less severe. For example, calling layoffs “downsizing” or “right-sizing.”

3. Advantageous Comparison:

Comparing one’s actions to more severe acts, making the act in question appear less harmful. “At least what we’re doing isn’t as bad as what company X did.”

4. Displacement of Responsibility:

Shifting the blame to others or claiming that one is merely following orders. “I was just doing my job,” or “My superiors made the decision.”

5. Diffusion of Responsibility:

In group settings, responsibility is spread across members, reducing individual accountability. “Everyone was involved, so no one person is to blame.”

6. Distortion of Consequences:

Minimising or ignoring the harm caused by one’s actions. “The impact wasn’t that big,” or “They’ll recover quickly.”

7. Dehumanisation:

Viewing others in a way that reduces their human qualities, making harmful actions seem less wrong. “They’re just numbers on a spreadsheet.”

8. Attribution of Blame:

Blaming the victims for their misfortune, thus justifying harm done to them. “If they had performed better, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Bureaucratic Example:
Imagine a government agency responsible for environmental regulations:

• Moral Justification: The agency might justify ignoring certain regulations by arguing that bending rules helps stimulate economic growth in a region, which is considered more important for the “greater good.”

• Euphemistic Labelling: Instead of saying they are “violating environmental laws,” they might describe their actions as “creating regulatory flexibility for economic recovery.”

• Advantageous Comparison: They might compare their actions to those of other countries with worse environmental records, thus making their decisions seem relatively benign.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Bureaucrats might claim they are just following directives from higher political authorities or that their hands are tied by political necessity.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: In a large agency, decisions might be made in committees where no single person is clearly responsible for the final outcome, thus diluting personal accountability.

• Distortion of Consequences: They might argue that the environmental impact is not immediate or significant, or that future technology will mitigate any issues caused.

• Dehumanisation: The communities affected by environmental degradation might be described in terms that depersonalize them, such as “affected areas” rather than communities with people.

• Attribution of Blame: They might blame local communities for not adapting to new industrial practices or for not lobbying effectively for their rights.

Through these mechanisms, individuals within the bureaucracy can engage in or endorse policies and actions that might otherwise be at odds with their moral standards, thereby reducing the psychological discomfort associated with ethical violations.

Empowering people to take action

Thank you for reading so far. Now for what you can do – individually or in groups. What community groups, professional group, government agencies, whistleblowers, the legal profession, trade union officials, any organisation can do to shift the dial to moral engagement.

What you can do anywhere. And it’s literally a walk in the park.

Some close colleagues and I have been experimenting and practicing using Grok AI in conjunction with the mechanisms of moral disengagement to assess moral disengagement in relation to politics, government and more. Our focus is positive.

The mechanisms of moral disengagement provide a powerful lens through which to make such assessments. Whether it be a government policy, media release or public statement made by a politician or public official. In fact, anyone. There are no limits to the boundaries of this.

The instructions you give Grok just need to follow this pattern.

Grok. Please assess insert link or text against the mechanisms of moral disengagement.

What you can also ask Grok to do after your statement (at the same time) is “ In your conclusion please also consider the impact on …

You can also ask Grok to suggest solutions at the same time.

The advantage of focussing Grok on the mechanisms of moral disengagement is that it opens the door to focussed and collective assessment, feedback, discussion and action. A common lens.

Doing so is essential if we are to get great, caring and healthy government. It empowers people by enabling focused feedback and assessment 24/7.

To reinforce the point. If this was in place during RoboDebt in all probability people would not have died.

There is a dark, morbid and controlling mindset within the Australian Public Service and indeed within politics that sees information technology and data as instruments of power and control.

They are risk averse to the point of paralysing and corrupting paranoia. I know this mindset and just how far its proponents will go very well. My focus is on the present and the future. However, if I have to expose just how far they will go I will.

The fact is that the Australian Public Service should be encouraging public servants to use the mechanisms of moral disengagement via Grok to assess policies, processes and actions. They could even use it to co-design with the public. And, of course, how it manages its own staff.

The fact of the matter is that moral disengagement in government poses a severe threat to government itself and the people of Australia today and into the future.

The ultimate goal or vision as discussed with a colleague. A harmonious country. A morally engaged government connected with and trusted by people.

Below are some assessments I have done. Along with some developmental work.

Moral disengagement in economic policy

Note the last sentence.

Dutton Government priorities and moral disengagement

Note the last sentence.

Peter Dutton’s speech: Moral disengagement analysis

Albanese speech: Moral disengagement analysis

Moral disengagement in Australian politics

Moral engagement in government policy

Jim Chalmers and Andrew Leigh media release “Measuring what matters”.

Note: This media release actually signals a significant shift towards moral engagement.

Mechanisms of moral engagement

Important: There have been a number of iterations this. It shows that the mechanisms of moral disengagement can be used via Grok to shift the focus to moral engagement. That provides a platform for developing solutions. Yes. I’m doing more work on that.

Treatment of whistle blower David McBride: Moral disengagement analysis

Treatment of whistle blower Richard Boyle: Moral disengagement analysis

 

Also by Steve Davies: The Morrison Government: A textbook case of rampant, moral disengagement

 

Steve Davies is a retired public servant. His expertise is in the areas of organisational research and people development. He’s always been attracted to forward looking work. He’s a vocal critic of destructive, cruel and backwards looking behaviours and practices.

Over the years he’s spoken in depth with whistleblowers and advocated the use of technology (including social media tech) to empower people to do great things together.

His thinking and work have been heavily influenced by such great thinkers and researchers as Shoshana Zuboff, Albert Bandura and Peter Senge for decades.

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969