The Ethics of the “Nevada Four” Guerillas

According to Rosemary O’Leary, a Public Policy and Administration professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, guerilla employees, are public servants who defy instructions from their superiors and work against the system. The “Nevada Four” Guerillas, is a phrase used to refer to one employee of the Nevada Department of wildlife and three environmentalists from the U.S. Department of interior who fought for the reclamation Nevada Wetlands which were facing an eminent environmental risk and even got the bill passed in congress. (O’Leary, 2013) These guerillas defied their superiors, who even testified against the legislation in the congressional hearings and forged ahead to agitate for their personal beliefs and dispositions.

According to Waldo’s theory of ethical obligations, a public servant should prioritize his or her obligations to the rules of bureaucratic organization. In this case the Nevada Four Guerrillas did not submit to lawful bureaucratic protocol but instead chose defiance over obedience. The impact of their actions was far-reaching because by doing so they openly undermined their superiors and went against public policy. (O’Leary, 2010) The organizations for which they worked for were also impacted significantly since more employees gained confidence to express themselves, question their superiors or even defy undesirable instructions.

Most ethical theorists contend that the ”Nevada Four” were unethical considering their stature and public positions. However, I disagree with this view because despite their defiance they made a landmark achievement that conserved the environment and benefited the public. Hence, I agree with Rosemary O’Leary that the ethics of what is right or wrong is more dependent on the outcome rather than the moral standards of conduct set by the society.

References

O’Leary, Rosemary. The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government. Cq Press, 2013.

O’Leary, Rosemary. ”Guerrilla employees: Should managers nurture, tolerate, or terminate them?.” Public Administration Review 70.1 (2010): 8-19.