The slides from Greg Weinman’s presentation from the 2011 OGE conference are available at the OGE website. There’s supposed to be a video, too, but as I write the YouTube connection is not working right. Here’s the OGE summary:
10. Ethics as Education: How to Turn Ethics Training into Professional Development
This session will help ethics officials step back a bit from the minimum regulatory training requirements, examine their true training objectives, and look at ethics training from a different perspective: that of ethics training as education and professional development, not merely technical instruction or the minimal fulfillment of a requirement. The session will include a discussion of what really works to accomplish a true understanding of ethics among employees, provide dozens of immediately useful teaching tips and exercises for trainers and ethics officials, and review some of the collateral benefits of a professional development ethics program.
Greg Weinman, United States Mint
The use of slides like this has its limitations. They are often prepared to accompany an oral presentation, and don’t make sense viewed in isolation. I could make out enough to see real value in one of Mr. Weinman’s slides:
Present as an Honest Broker
- If a rule is potentially illogical, don’t deny it, but explain the risk is in ignoring it.
- If you can, explain how it got to this point and what the arguments are (pro and con) for the policy in question
Especially true with the risks associated with the Hatch Act
I present myself as NOT part of senior leadership, but rather a third party servant
- “My job is to help keep you out of trouble”
Watch the Confidentiality Question
This is great practical advice. More than one ethics rule appears inconsistent and illogical. Denying this runs the risk of losing credibility as a trainer. In these situations, present yourself not as an advocate for the illogical rule, but a neutral guide to the rule, with the key pragmatic goal of helping the audience stay out of trouble. Finally, don’t give the audience the impression any admissions of wrongdoing they might make in criticizing the rule would be confidential.