Page 20 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Wright et al. 319

an individual the necessary subterfuge to both appear to be allow an actor to feign moral purpose, while actually serving
moral while actually serving his or her own self-interest. We his or her self-interest (Batson & Thompson, 2001).
have more to say about moral hypocrisy in the context of Alternatively, Kerr’s original fourth cause equates morality
Kerr’s fourth cause, the relative role of morality or equity with equity in contrast with efficiency. This comparison
versus that of efficiency. highlights the possibility of a more benign motivational
explanation for why an individual does not act morally. The
Moral Hypocrisy and Kerr’s Fourth concept of overpowered integrity occurs when an individu-
al’s initial and purported desire to be moral is overpowered
Cause by some form of self-interest (Batson & Thompson, 2001).
We find an excellent and ongoing example of the fourth The following question is highly relevant to our discussion:
“Folly” cause from our military, an updated version to the How can one determine which motivational process (moral
one shared by Kerr in his “In War” example of the inappro- integrity vs. moral hypocrisy) is in play? Perhaps there is no
priate reward system in use during the Vietnam War. The better example of this dilemma than the decades old debate
“Folly” we are witnessing today involves the reward system over universal health care.
in place to help the successful transition of our soldiers to
productive civilian lives after their wartime service. While Moral Integrity Versus Moral
the stated goal of such transition assistance programs as the Hypocrisy: The Debate Over Universal
Army’s “Soldier for Life–Transition Assistance Program” or Health Care
SFL-TAP is to enable the successful reintegration and
employment of millions of service members, we find record On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt told
numbers electing government-based veteran’s entitlement Congress that “If, as our Constitution tells us, our federal gov-
benefits instead of seeking gainful employment (DeGroat, ernment was established among other things ‘to promote the
2016). Veteran unemployment rates, discouraged worker sta- general welfare,’ it is our plain duty to provide for that secu-
tus, service-related disability ratings, and utilization rates of rity upon which welfare depends” (Myers, 1993, p. 16). Three
Post-9-11 GI Bill education benefits clearly indicate that the weeks later, on June 29, 1934, President Roosevelt formed
reward for accepting entitlements greatly outweighs the per- the Committee on Economic Security to initiate the develop-
ceived benefits of a true transition. ment of a social insurance system for the United States.
Perhaps Kerr’s discovery of causes for such a flawed Signifying a much simpler age, the Committee’s executive
reward system that encourages seeking entitlements rather director, Edwin E. Witte, was advised that he would only have
than succeeding in occupational transition programs is best to take a one semester leave from his job as an economics
understood as rooted in the Army’s “emphasis on morality professor at the University of Wisconsin to complete the
rather than efficiency” (the fourth and final original cause; Committee’s task (amazingly, their report was filed on
Kerr, 1995, p. 13). Senior military and Defense Department January 15, 1935!). A further interesting historical note, the
leaders appear to be more morally concerned with ensuring Committee’s chairperson, Frances Perkins, was the first ever
that every departing veteran has access to his or her earned woman to serve in a presidential cabinet—as secretary of
government benefits than they are with developing and labor under President Roosevelt.
assisting his or her long-term, productive participation in the Initially, it was proposed that a health care component
workforce. Anecdotal evidence confirms that soldiers report would be included within the Social Security framework,
spending more time receiving resources and advisement on something like Medicare (which came 30 years later in 1965)
how to apply for government entitlement programs, such as or even a program designed to cover the entire population.
unemployment compensation-ex-military (UCX) and These ideas were soon scuttled because of concern that these
Veteran Affairs (VA) disability rating systems, than they do aspects would be sufficient cause for the entire program to be
receiving the necessary skill-based programs needed to get defeated. Unlike in more recent times and even amid often
them workforce-ready (DeGroat, 2016). As a result, we find bitter, even vitriolic, debate, the bill was passed by voice
ourselves “rewarding” our veterans for their valuable service vote, with overwhelming bipartisan support, in both the
by an overreliance on government-based entitlement benefits House (91.9% in favor) on August 8, 1935, and in the Senate
and programs, while “hoping” that they find gainful employ- (92.8% in favor) on August 9, 1935. After the final approval
ment and true reintegration back into the civilian society in both chambers, President Roosevelt signed the Social
from which they came. Security Act into law on August 14, 1935. More than 80
As with Kerr’s original Causes 1 and 2, the reader will years later, Social Security provides telling testimony to the
notice a similar degree of overlap between Causes 3 and 4. benefits of Roosevelt’s New Deal platform. Moral hypocrisy
Evidenced both in the Kerr interview and in the present anal- may help explain why the Affordable Care Act (or
ysis, clearly underlying original Causes 3 and 4 is the issue Obamacare, as it is more commonly known) does not enjoy
of moral intent. Regarding moral hypocrisy, the intent is to similar bipartisan support.