Administration Ethics and Judgments of Utility: Reconciling the Competing Theories

Abstract

Administrative ethics in the 20th century is marked in part by the adoption of classic utilitarian decision-making techniques that try to maximize good effect in the lives of the citizenry. However despite a plethora of widely used quantitative techniques spawned by utilitarianism, the practical foundations of this ethical theory have been called into question with various discoveries by organization theorists that in actuality the classic theory is not a good general description of what successful managers do. This new model is often referred to as "satisficing." The new model also has a serious problem: No theory of satisficing has yet provided an understanding of how any decision making that is merely satisfactory can also be wholly ethical. This paper explores this tension and resolves it to some degree by arguing that the two theories are complementary, not competitive. We do this by relating each theory to patterned, or rule-guided, behavior and by examining how each contributes in its own way to a better understanding of managerial judgments of utility.