Page 21 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

320 Journal of Management Inquiry 27(3)

Table 1. “Folly” Causes: Original and Revised.
Original “Folly” causes Revised “Folly” causes
Fascination with an “Objective” criterion Overemphasis on objective, highly visible criteria or behaviors
Overemphasis on highly visible behaviors
Hypocrisy Moral motivation
Emphasis on morality or equity rather • • Moral integrity: Occurs when one’s stated goal (“to be moral”) is also one’s
than efficiency operative goal
• • Overpowered integrity: Occurs when an actor’s stated goal (“to be moral”) is
overpowered by the operative goal (“act in one’s self-interest”)
• • Moral hypocrisy: Occurs when the stated goal (“to be moral”) is not simply
overpowered, it is displaced and replaced by the desire to maintain complete control
over the desired (but unstated) outcome (“act in one’s self-interest”)

In 1935, the Senate was considered to be a relatively col- staffers the opportunity to draft the bill in secret. This deci-
legial body, one in which the ability to compromise in the sion to pull the bill and secretly draft it is a primary reason
interest of the common good was not considered a vile or the program remains highly unpopular today. Not one
dirty word. This long-standing practice to ensure bipartisan Republican Senator voted for it, and as a point of reference,
support was instrumental in the success of Social Security, only six Senators voted against passage of the Social Security
and also Medicare, Medicaid, and the Civil Rights Act, to Act in 1935. As Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus
mention just a few landmark pieces of legislation. More told the New York Times in 2013, “One party can’t jam legis-
recently, under the Clinton Administration, much meaningful lation down the other party’s throat . . . It leaves a bitter
legislation was passed because many power brokers from taste.” History has again repeated itself early in 2017.
both parties were consistently able to collegially work Republican congressional gatekeepers, including House
together in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, bipartisan- Speaker Paul Ryan, espousing the vision of repealing and
ship played no such role in the passage of the Affordable replacing the Affordable Care Act, drafted their initial bill
Care Act. What role did moral hypocrisy play? attempt in secret.
The key difference between moral integrity and moral
hypocrisy is the actual intent of the participant(s) when con- Moral Motivation as the Second Revised
fronted with a moral dilemma. In the case of moral integrity,
the intent is to act morally. In the case of moral hypocrisy, the “Folly” Cause
intent is to appear moral, yet avoid the cost of being moral Consistent with Kerr’s admonition that it is valuable to mea-
(Batson & Thompson, 2001). Thus, the key question becomes sure what is important to measure, we suggest the combina-
one of determining which of these motives is operating when tion of Kerr’s original Causes 3 and 4 (see Table 1). This
one is faced with a moral dilemma. For Batson and Thompson second revised cause of the “Folly” involves moral motiva-
(2001), it all comes down to whether or not the intent of the tion. Within the framework of moral motivation, we have
actor is to ensure a fair and moral process, as opposed to three components (cf. Batson & Thompson, 2001). The first
maintaining control over the desired outcome by whatever involves moral integrity. As considered by Kerr, an actor
means necessary. A number of Democratic congressional practices moral integrity when his or her stated goal (“to be
gatekeepers, including Senator Harry Reid, the majority moral”) is also his or her operative goal. This is an ideal situ-
leader of the Senate from 2007 to 2015, were confronted ation. The second component is overpowered integrity.
with just such a moral dilemma during the passage of the Overpowered integrity occurs when an actor’s stated goal
Affordable Care Act. These gatekeepers fervently espoused (“to be moral”) is overpowered by the operative goal (“act in
the vision of government-sponsored, universal health care. one’s self-interest”). Finally, the third component of moral
When, per Senate custom, the bill was being drafted in com- motivation involves moral hypocrisy. In moral hypocrisy, the
mittee, the Democratic leadership became concerned that the stated goal (“to be moral”) is not just simply overpowered, it
bill would become watered down, and they were faced with is actually displaced and replaced by the desire to maintain
two choices. They could play by the rules in place, act with complete control over his or her desired (but unstated) out-
moral integrity and leave the bill in committee, knowing full come (“act in one’s self-interest”). As we will see, overpow-
well that the final committee bill would probably be less than ered integrity may prove easier to address than moral
optimal from their perspective. Or, they could refuse to com- hypocrisy. Further confounding the issue, a fascinating body
promise, unilaterally change the rules to their advantage and of research on psychopathy/sociopathy suggests that moral
take the highly unusual step of having the Senate majority motivation may not be either a stated or operative goal for a
leader pull the bill from committee and afford the senate growing segment of the population.