You are here
Nonviolence and Government Ethics VI – Integrative Power
Saturday, March 19th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Violence happens. The world is violent. People are naturally violent.
This is what people say.
Politicians are all crooks. Government ethics is an oxymoron. Don't be so naïve. This is what people say.
As Michael N. Nagler says in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, "when we have negative expectations, life obligingly fulfills them." We have a choice. We can speak in double negatives, like "Stop violence" (or "Stop corruption"). Or we can speak in positives, like "Let's cooperate, mediate, work things out" (or "Let's discuss what's in the public interest").
We also have a negative view of power. Power, we think, is used to oppress, to harm, to control. But as Nagler points out, there is more than one kind of power.
One is negative, "threat power," which says to others, "do something I want to or I'll do something you don't want." Threat power works less via punishment than via fear of punishment.
One kind of power is more neutral, "exchange power," which says to others, "give me something I want and I'll give you something you want." The reason this power isn't neutral is that there is such a difference in the valuation of what people have to give.
And one kind of power is positive, "integrative power," which says to others, "I'm going to do what I believe is right, and it will bring us closer." (For an extended look at these three kinds of power, see Kenneth E. Boulding's Three Faces of Power (1989).)
This description of integrative power sounds pretty naïve. Here's how Gandhi put it: "Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by fear of punishment, and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment."
In a government context, what does it mean to become closer, or to love? It has a lot to do with community, with bringing people together to solve the community's problems. Nagler refers to this sort of love as "self-sacrificing devotion." Isn't that what public servants are supposed to be doing? Isn't that why so many people in our country volunteer for the myriad of government boards and commissions? Are they seeking only threat and exchange power, not integrative power? Nearly all of them at least pay lip service to public service, to self-sacrificing devotion, to integrative power.
It could be said that conflict situations arise when people who accept a position intended to employ integrative power are actually seeking exchange or threat power. Unethical conduct occurs when officials want something for their devotion, and use their positions to do this. Unethical conduct occurs when officials try to rule rather than serve.
The Integrative Power of Government Ethics Practitioners
Ethics commission members are generally seen as people required to wield threat power against officials who violate the ethics code. This is why local government officials do not want to give ethics commissions more than minimal power. In this view, there is no question of an EC employing exchange power, and no way for it to bring a community together.
But as I keep emphasizing, enforcement is not an EC's principal role. Its principal role is to educate and advise, to do what it can to get officials to responsibly handle their conflicts and preserve the public trust. Even the use of enforcement is meant to prevent further unethical conduct through education rather than through fear, although in poor ethics environments, where there is no ethical leadership and the use of threat power prevails, fear may be the only thing that will work in the short run.
Enforcement is also intended to gain the public's trust by having the government show responsibility for at least somewhat righting the wrongs done by its officials, showing that the government cares and will not simply allow its officials and employees to use their positions for personal purposes.
At the beginning of an earlier blog post in this series I quoted Nagler as saying, "Anyone who plucks up the courage to offer an opponent a way out of their conflict can find herself or himself wielding an unexpected power." Not only is this a use of integrative power, but it also suggests an important way to sell government ethics, as a professional means of offering officials a way out of their conflict. This can be done by training, by advice, and by quickly reaching a settlement rather than allowing the official to dig himself deeper and deeper into defenses, denials, and cover-ups. It is rarely argued, but it is very true, that a good government ethics program is more helpful to officials than to anyone else, but not at the expense of public trust.
An EC uses integrative power especially with respect to the government organization, and those who do business with it. IN order to use this power, it is important for ECs to also gain government employees' trust and the trust of those doing business with government, because they are the ones who feel the full brunt of officials who use threat power, who lead through intimidation and employ pay-to-play (which is effectively blackmail) to get what they want. One way to do this is through strong whistleblower protection (although none is fullproof) and by encouraging anonymous tips and allowing the EC to draft its own complaint when it feels there is a likely violation that cannot otherwise be resolved.
But an EC can also reach out to the general community through talks to civic organizations, good relations with the press (teaching reporters about government ethics is important, because they can then educate the public), appearances on local TV and radio shows, and a website that not only provides optimum transparency, but goes out of its way to provide information that can be used by the public, including in schools and universities. ECs need to take an assertive and positive role, and change not only the tone of government ethics, but how and when it becomes a public issue.
In order for an EC or ethics officer to use integrative power, they need to be and to appear as independent as possible. Life in government can be so politicized, both in the personal and partisan senses, that any perception that ethics professionals are not neutral will make it difficult for many officials and employees to turn to them for help or trust what they say and do. Nor will the public trust them. Having ethics professionals who appear to be biased toward individuals or parties is probably the single most damaging thing an ethics program can do. It undermines even an EC's integrative power.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Politicians are all crooks. Government ethics is an oxymoron. Don't be so naïve. This is what people say.
As Michael N. Nagler says in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, "when we have negative expectations, life obligingly fulfills them." We have a choice. We can speak in double negatives, like "Stop violence" (or "Stop corruption"). Or we can speak in positives, like "Let's cooperate, mediate, work things out" (or "Let's discuss what's in the public interest").
We also have a negative view of power. Power, we think, is used to oppress, to harm, to control. But as Nagler points out, there is more than one kind of power.
One is negative, "threat power," which says to others, "do something I want to or I'll do something you don't want." Threat power works less via punishment than via fear of punishment.
One kind of power is more neutral, "exchange power," which says to others, "give me something I want and I'll give you something you want." The reason this power isn't neutral is that there is such a difference in the valuation of what people have to give.
And one kind of power is positive, "integrative power," which says to others, "I'm going to do what I believe is right, and it will bring us closer." (For an extended look at these three kinds of power, see Kenneth E. Boulding's Three Faces of Power (1989).)
This description of integrative power sounds pretty naïve. Here's how Gandhi put it: "Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by fear of punishment, and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment."
In a government context, what does it mean to become closer, or to love? It has a lot to do with community, with bringing people together to solve the community's problems. Nagler refers to this sort of love as "self-sacrificing devotion." Isn't that what public servants are supposed to be doing? Isn't that why so many people in our country volunteer for the myriad of government boards and commissions? Are they seeking only threat and exchange power, not integrative power? Nearly all of them at least pay lip service to public service, to self-sacrificing devotion, to integrative power.
It could be said that conflict situations arise when people who accept a position intended to employ integrative power are actually seeking exchange or threat power. Unethical conduct occurs when officials want something for their devotion, and use their positions to do this. Unethical conduct occurs when officials try to rule rather than serve.
The Integrative Power of Government Ethics Practitioners
Ethics commission members are generally seen as people required to wield threat power against officials who violate the ethics code. This is why local government officials do not want to give ethics commissions more than minimal power. In this view, there is no question of an EC employing exchange power, and no way for it to bring a community together.
But as I keep emphasizing, enforcement is not an EC's principal role. Its principal role is to educate and advise, to do what it can to get officials to responsibly handle their conflicts and preserve the public trust. Even the use of enforcement is meant to prevent further unethical conduct through education rather than through fear, although in poor ethics environments, where there is no ethical leadership and the use of threat power prevails, fear may be the only thing that will work in the short run.
Enforcement is also intended to gain the public's trust by having the government show responsibility for at least somewhat righting the wrongs done by its officials, showing that the government cares and will not simply allow its officials and employees to use their positions for personal purposes.
At the beginning of an earlier blog post in this series I quoted Nagler as saying, "Anyone who plucks up the courage to offer an opponent a way out of their conflict can find herself or himself wielding an unexpected power." Not only is this a use of integrative power, but it also suggests an important way to sell government ethics, as a professional means of offering officials a way out of their conflict. This can be done by training, by advice, and by quickly reaching a settlement rather than allowing the official to dig himself deeper and deeper into defenses, denials, and cover-ups. It is rarely argued, but it is very true, that a good government ethics program is more helpful to officials than to anyone else, but not at the expense of public trust.
An EC uses integrative power especially with respect to the government organization, and those who do business with it. IN order to use this power, it is important for ECs to also gain government employees' trust and the trust of those doing business with government, because they are the ones who feel the full brunt of officials who use threat power, who lead through intimidation and employ pay-to-play (which is effectively blackmail) to get what they want. One way to do this is through strong whistleblower protection (although none is fullproof) and by encouraging anonymous tips and allowing the EC to draft its own complaint when it feels there is a likely violation that cannot otherwise be resolved.
But an EC can also reach out to the general community through talks to civic organizations, good relations with the press (teaching reporters about government ethics is important, because they can then educate the public), appearances on local TV and radio shows, and a website that not only provides optimum transparency, but goes out of its way to provide information that can be used by the public, including in schools and universities. ECs need to take an assertive and positive role, and change not only the tone of government ethics, but how and when it becomes a public issue.
In order for an EC or ethics officer to use integrative power, they need to be and to appear as independent as possible. Life in government can be so politicized, both in the personal and partisan senses, that any perception that ethics professionals are not neutral will make it difficult for many officials and employees to turn to them for help or trust what they say and do. Nor will the public trust them. Having ethics professionals who appear to be biased toward individuals or parties is probably the single most damaging thing an ethics program can do. It undermines even an EC's integrative power.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
