The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government

by Rosemary O'Leary

Guerrillas in government are all around us. They can be as high profile as "Deep Throat," or as low profile as the bureaucrat who belligerently slows the processing of an application for a driver’s license. Their dissent stems from dissatisfaction with the actions of public organizations they work for, but they strategically choose not to go public with their concerns. Instead, they work against the wishes―either implicitly or explicitly communicated―of their superiors and run the spectrum from anti-establishment liberals to fundamentalist conservatives, from constructive contributors to deviant destroyers. Typically guerrilla government is undetected as it is woven into the fabric of the everyday, often mundane, world of bureaucracy.

Rosemary O’Leary shows that the majority of guerrilla government cases are the manifestation of inevitable tensions between bureaucracy and democracy, which yield immense ethical and organizational challenges that all public managers must learn to navigate. To illustrate these tensions and challenges, O’Leary presents three in-depth case studies and 21 mini case studies that showcase the range of guerrillas from an official at a regional EPA office to a doctor at a medical school to the director of planning in a county office. O’Leary’s fresh analysis, combined with great story-telling, underscores the importance of dissent and presents strategies for ways public servants can decide ethically to engage in guerrilla activity, while offering ways public managers can learn to tap into the potentially insightful, creative ideas and energy of dissenters in order to make constructive changes in the system.

Genres: Nonfiction, Grad School

160 pages, Paperback

First published December 15, 2005

About the author

Rosemary O'Leary is Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Kansas.

Reviews

[Len Lira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best Edition yet

I’ve read all of the editions of this book and this one by far has the best material…includes updated analysis of Snowden, Manning, and Kim Davis. We’ve often heard that there are only three options for dissent: Voice, subvert, or exit. O’Leary draws on extensive interviews and literature to show that there are many more options. Dissent is not a bad thing, but it could be…O’Leary demonstrates not only how context matters, but how managers and dissenters should think about how we manage, or express, dissent in a democratically based government. This is a great read for public managers, and should be assigned reading for public ethics or public management courses. I assign it in my Public Management Course.

[Marci · Rating 3 out of 5]

This year is a year for academic books apparently. It’s 3 stars because it’s just that- academic. But as far as arguing for dissent, this book does a good job of persuading me that dissent is not only often ethical, but also good for creating a culture of transparency and cooperation.

[Nicole Dobrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chapters about Manning and Snowden were def the most interesting but these policy analysis assigned books are kinda boring I’m ngl.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Have you ever wondered what you would do if the organization/company you work for did something kind of shady? Would you blow the whistle? Would you secretly try to sabotage it? Or would the fear of repercussions, or a simple lack of self-confidence, leave you silent?

These are exactly the kinds of questions that "The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government" makes you think about. This highly readable book is a series of case studies, in which various bureaucrats "went guerrilla" and undertook various measures (some overt, some covert) to stop their agency from pursuing what were, in their minds, unethical policies. It's written for a managerial audience, but is still solidly rooted in public administration theory.

As you might expect, the ethical issues involved can be thorny. What is the obligation of the public servant? On the one hand, their job is to carry out public policy. But what about when that public policy is wrong, and the Powers That Be won't tolerate criticism? (This happens.) I found myself hovering between admiration for the guerrillas, and annoyance with what sometimes came across as self-righteousness. What if they hadn't been right, just arrogant?

And in answer to the questions posed at the beginning of this review, I don't know what I would do in this kind of situation. My idealistic side likes to think that I would fight for what was right, but my realistic side knows that I'm much too timid and self-doubting to go TOO far with it.