Ethical Authority: It’s not Legislation
Why should I act ethically? After all, if I can get away with a few short cuts here and there, my unethical behavior will serve me well. I will gain advantage over others. I may speed up the accumulation of power or wealth. So, why not? Apparently many others are stepping across the line. Why not me? What does it matter as long as I don’t get caught?
If you’ve never had a thought like this, you probably come from Mars. Every human being seems to face the ethical question at some point in life. It may be a small indiscretion or a major infraction, but the thought process is the same. It’s never a question of legitimacy. We all know that the possible action isn’t legitimate. It’s really a question concerning authority. And unless my perspective on authority is carefully considered, no amount of legislated morality will ultimately deter me. Why? Because legislated morality is about force and force is not transformational. Authority transforms. Force only compels.
Consider the difference between authority and force. I may use force to compel you to act in a certain way, but that does not mean I had the authority to make you act that way. Even if I don’t put a gun to your head, when I legislate action I create an environment of force. Instead of bullets, I substitute job loss or jail or financial punishment or some other punitive measure in order to get compliance. But in the end, these punishments are simply “risk factors” for those who decide to ignore them. After all, no one acts unethically with the intention of getting caught. Every unethical decision contains that logical step that the punishments do not apply to me because I will not get caught this time. That’s why legislation cannot prevent unethical actions. Legislation only works when it compels with force and it only works all the time when force is ubiquitously applicable.
We all know this and we all ignore it. If legislation were a sufficient condition for ethical behavior, we would all drive the speed limit all the time. The sign says “55 MPH LIMIT”. That’s the law. But we routinely ignore the law based on a “risk factor” assessment of the chances of getting caught. Cavalier behavior on the freeways is a very good indicator of the true role of force in ethics. Rules don’t matter when we think the risk is low.
Authority, however, is another issue. Authority is really about relationships. Authority can only be exercised over those who accept a relationship that either requires their submission or invites their submission. Authority is a relationship two-way street.
If we are going to really make an impact for ethical action, we must consider the role of authority. What we immediately discover is that there are two kinds of authority. The first form of authority is de jure authority. This is the kind of authority that is based on an agreed upon established set of rules that designate valid representatives of the rules. This is a policeman’s authority. He represents the rules insofar as he operates within the boundaries of his designated authority. If he steps outside his designated authority, that does not mean the rules are invalid. It only means that he did not have the right to enforce them as he chose. For a policeman to have this authority, we must fall under the agreed upon rules. We must be within the required and agreed upon jurisdiction.
In the business arena, the boss typically has de jure authority. This authority is conferred upon him because he represents an agreed upon set of rules that govern everyone in the organization. His authority, however, is limited. He is not free to sexually harass an employee. Such action oversteps his authority. There are other, higher rules in the agreement contract. Nevertheless, the boss has authority to command within larger ethical boundaries than the employee because he has been given his authority by a contractual agreement.
As an employee, I am asked to agree to this authority hierarchy. If I want to remain an employee, I will have to submit to this authority. Of course, I can choose not to submit, but I will probably not remain an employee. The limit of de jour authority in business is the limit of the contract obligations between people under the same ruling structure. A boss in a rival firm is not authorized to tell me what to do in my firm. De jour authority requires contractual (explicit or implicit) agreement.
Ultimately, de jour authority rests on the designation of the highest right to command. In the post-modern secularized world, this is usually some form of law (for example, the Supreme Court) accompanied by some order of force. But even this level of de jour authority can fall. In Christian doctrine, final de jour authority rests in God. God has command authority over everything because God is the Creator and therefore, by creative right, He exercises authority over what He creates. God also has power over all His creation. But for now, He operates on the basis of authority, not power. He could simply clean up the whole creation. He could wipe out sin and sinful men (He did it once before) through the exercise of His power. He has the right to do that. God’s de jour authority is unquestionable for Christians. The game is played by His rules.
But notice that the Biblical message does not emphasize this kind of authority at all. The Biblical message is quite different. Instead of commanding His will over creation, God exercises His authority by inviting voluntary submission to His claim of authority. This is the second type of authority: de facto authority. It occurs whenever one man recognizes the right of another to rule over him. De facto authority is the basis of voluntary submission and the basis of all transformational ethics. It has nothing to do with legislation or power. De facto authority is about choice, not compulsion. In Biblical terms, this is the authority based on what I ought to do, not what I am compelled to do.
Moreover, de facto authority does not depend on a previously agreed upon contract. De facto authority occurs when I recognize for my own reasons that I have a personal obligation to submit to someone else’s right to rule regardless of any contractual relationship. When my choices come from de facto authority, I behave according to a personal standard that I have incorporated as my own because it is the right thing for me to do. There is no question about “getting away with it” or about which rules apply. I recognize that someone else is entitled to guide and direct me and I follow because I decide to accept that entitlement. By another name, this is conversion, plain and simple.
The question for business leaders today is simple: what kind of authority do you exhibit?
Do you attempt to guide ethical behavior by contractual rules? Or do you lead from a position of personal submission? Do you respond to the world as one under another’s authority? Or do you operate on the basis of power?
Want a really quick way to tell the difference? De jure authority is about rules reinforced by power and power is all about control. If I am operating in business with an eye toward power granted by rules, I am probably exercising de jour authority. I can get results, but only as long as I have control over others. My rules will only be as good as another’s agreement to live under my rules. And they will not create transformation in ethical behavior. I will get ethical compliance only as long as people think my rules apply to them.
When I operate with de facto authority, things change. This is authority that rests on the voluntary submission of the other person. I don’t have to force rule compliance because rules are not the issue. People who lead with de facto authority are people who lead because others choose to follow them. They inspire rather than compel.
When I accept de facto authority, I accept the right of someone else to direct my behavior. I stop trying to find ways around the rules because I recognize the right of the other person to set the guidelines for me. I turn my ethical choices over to a “higher authority”. As a Christian, I look for the places where God has given me authority, not where I have the power to act on my own. And when I discover that authority is a gift, I realize that my authority depends entirely on what the giver allows. I stay within the bounds of my given authority because I am only a representative of the Ruler, not the Ruler.
Today’s concern with ethical business behavior is almost exclusively focused on de jour authority. But de jour authority will not rescue us from unethical actions. Unless human beings are transformed by choice, there will never be enough policemen to monitor every action. De facto authority is the only real option and that comes only with a change of inner direction. The real question for business leadership today is this: Are you a living example of personal de facto authority? If you aren’t, what makes you think you will ever see transformation in others?
