ABSTRACT
Except for a few public management scholars, the subject of principled organizational dissent has received little attention from public management scholars (O’Leary, 2017a, 2017b; Thompson, 1985). Since the Watergate scandal, however, public ethics scholars have heavily emphasized educating career public servants about their ethical responsibilities (Reynolds, 1995). This includes arguing that career public servants are morally obligated to act against illegal and unethical conduct within their organizations. Yet, other public management scholars have argued that career public administrators must adhere to the “ethic of neutrality” (Thompson, 1985). This doctrine requires career public servants to carry out their orders and if they cannot, for ethical reasons, to quit their jobs. This dichotomy puts a career public servant in a challenging position. However, few public scholars confront career public servants’ obstacles if they engage in principle organizational dissent. This chapter argues that the discipline of public administration has a moral obligation to help public servants learn how to evaluate the costs and benefits of engaging in principled organization dissent (Martin & Rifkin, 2004). This chapter also argues that increased efforts by elected and appointed public officials to pressure career public servants not to adhere to the ethics of neutrality concerning orders they receive will force many more career civil servants to decide whether to remain silent, quit their jobs, or engage in some principled organizational dissent.
