You are here
Winter Reading: Switch IV - Ethics Reform
Thursday, February 14th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Why Scandals Lead to Poor Ethics Reform
In their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Crown, 2010), Chip and Dan Heath note that John Kotter and Dan Cohen argue in their book The Heart of Change that the sequence of change is not analyze-think-change, which is how most people (including me) try to bring it about, but rather see-feel-change. The thing that local government officials are most likely to see in a way that makes them feel strongly enough to embrace change is a scandal in their government organization, or even sometimes in the state or a neighboring government (Watergate raised such strong feelings that it had an effect at all levels of government).
The problem with change coming from scandal is that it points to a problem (often a mostly irrelevant problem), but not to an effective solution. When negative emotions are involved, the solution, according to Martin Seligman, is essentially removing a stone from one's shoe, not fixing the shoe itself. The response to negative emotions lacks creativity, flexibility, or ingenuity. So the results are not usually effective or well thought out.
Negative emotions can also be harmful to ethics reform after the reforms have been accomplished. Ethics programs that are created to prevent further scandals usually focus on enforcement. And it is enforcement that most strongly elicits the negative emotions (mostly fear of being the subject of an ethics proceeding) that lead officials to undermine an ethics program.
Negative emotions are not the way to improve a government ethics program. This can be done only by tamping down emotions and focusing on the positive feelings of pride and professionalism, that is, feelings associated with one's identity. A picture needs to be painted of the public respecting its officials and seeing them as heroes willing to give up benefits to themselves and those most important to them. This identity is not only valuable in the community, but can also be valuable when seeking state or federal office later on in one's political career. But this isn't easy to do without leadership from within the government.
The Heaths give an example of Microsoft software developers watching real users struggling with Microsoft programs. This made a huge difference in the quality of the work they did. It wouldn't be a bad idea for officials to ask members of the community to say how they feel every time they learn of instances of nepotism, contracts going to business associates, zoning approvals going to developers who make large campaign contributions, and the like. These feelings may be expressed in the blogosphere, but there is nothing like hearing it directly, feeling the lack of respect and anger and disgust.
It is much better for ethics reform that high-level officials hear a wide range of negative emotions at a time when there is no scandal, than to hear a narrow range of negative emotions in the midst of a scandal. A wide range of criticisms should cause officials to realize that true change will come not through more ethics provisions or penalties, but through a change in how officials approach conflict situations and through the creation of a quality, independent ethics program that can gain the trust of both officials and the public.
The Heaths note that "it can sometimes be challenging to distinguish why people don't support your change. Is it because they don't understand or because they're not enthused?" With respect to government ethics reform, I think it's best to assume that both are true. One must both enlighten and excite, which is not an easy thing. Scandals excite, but they don't enlighten. In fact, they usually get in the way of enlightenment. The appearance of acting quickly takes over. The window for enlightenment is narrow, if it opens at all. And then the reform is done, at least until the next scandal comes along.
What are ethics reformers to do? The best way to take advantage of a scandal is to have a reform plan ready in advance, do one's best to enlighten officials when they're not really listening, and then wait until a scandal gets officials interested. This is the kind of approach good government organizations are best at. It's a variation on the one at the beginning of this post: analyze-wait-change.
Shrinking the Change
People are much better at accepting small changes than big changes. They like to feel that they're close to a goal rather than that they have a long haul to get there. A long haul can feel like too much to ask. Why not take it just a little at a time? people ask. Therefore, shrinking the change, or making it look like the change is smaller than it is, can be very valuable to getting people on board important change. You want to present a raising of the bar as a bar that can be stepped over.
With respect to government ethics, however, small changes don't really change anything. That is why they are so popular.
But where there is no government ethics program, reform doesn't have to be sold as creating something where there is nothing. Most cities and counties have a code of ethics or, at least, a conflict of interest law. It may be a state law rather than an ordinance. But even where there is no state law, Robert's Rules has a conflict provision. And there are often more specific rules, such as a nepotism rule, procurement rules, and disclosure rules. In other words, there is a rudimentary ethics program.
Ethics reform can, therefore, be presented not as creating something new and different, but rather as a bringing together of rules and providing them with the administration of an independent body or office, so that officials can better understand the rules, get professional advice to help them follow the rules, and provide enforcement where necessary (since rules are meant to be enforced). Ethics reform can be presented as the completion of a project that the city or county government has already supported as valuable, but which has not been given sufficient resources to allow officials to understand or follow the rules.
Best Practices
The Heaths argue that resistance to change often reflects a lack of clarity. It isn't clear to people how they should change. In terms of ethics reform, providing clarity would be greatly helped by the establishment of best practices by government ethics practitioners. Best practices also deal with what the Heaths call "decision paralysis," what happens when there are too many choices available. The hardest, most paralyzing part of change is in the details. The critical moves must effectively be scripted, or they won't be done at all.
If there are no best practices, officials and government attorneys will take the most familiar path, which means a skeletal ethics program under the control of high-level officials, one that can easily be borrowed from a nearby city or county. That, in a nutshell, is the history of local government ethics.
Sadly, government ethics practitioners have done next to nothing about establishing best practices. It's something I have tried to do in the City Ethics Model Code and in my book Local Government Ethics Programs. But there is no consensus about what an effective government ethics program consists of. There isn't even a consensus on language. It's not that practitioners don't agree, it's that they don't talk or write about it much. The result is that there is very little guidance for creating a government ethics program outside of the City Ethics website. And that's not enough.
Best practices also help "shape the path" toward change by making it easier (1) for officials to know the changes that need to be made and to understand the nature of the change, so that they are not afraid of it and, more positively, so that it can be something they are proud of; and (2) for those who want a good government ethics program, including officials and good government groups, to put forth recommendations that have both legitimacy and strong arguments backing them up.
As it is now, there is no clear path to a quality government ethics program. Good government groups and government ethics practitioners have let their cause down by failing to even argue about best practices, not to mention set them out in writing for cities and counties (and states) across the country to embrace.
Click here to read the other six blog posts on Switch.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
In their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Crown, 2010), Chip and Dan Heath note that John Kotter and Dan Cohen argue in their book The Heart of Change that the sequence of change is not analyze-think-change, which is how most people (including me) try to bring it about, but rather see-feel-change. The thing that local government officials are most likely to see in a way that makes them feel strongly enough to embrace change is a scandal in their government organization, or even sometimes in the state or a neighboring government (Watergate raised such strong feelings that it had an effect at all levels of government).
The problem with change coming from scandal is that it points to a problem (often a mostly irrelevant problem), but not to an effective solution. When negative emotions are involved, the solution, according to Martin Seligman, is essentially removing a stone from one's shoe, not fixing the shoe itself. The response to negative emotions lacks creativity, flexibility, or ingenuity. So the results are not usually effective or well thought out.
Negative emotions can also be harmful to ethics reform after the reforms have been accomplished. Ethics programs that are created to prevent further scandals usually focus on enforcement. And it is enforcement that most strongly elicits the negative emotions (mostly fear of being the subject of an ethics proceeding) that lead officials to undermine an ethics program.
Negative emotions are not the way to improve a government ethics program. This can be done only by tamping down emotions and focusing on the positive feelings of pride and professionalism, that is, feelings associated with one's identity. A picture needs to be painted of the public respecting its officials and seeing them as heroes willing to give up benefits to themselves and those most important to them. This identity is not only valuable in the community, but can also be valuable when seeking state or federal office later on in one's political career. But this isn't easy to do without leadership from within the government.
The Heaths give an example of Microsoft software developers watching real users struggling with Microsoft programs. This made a huge difference in the quality of the work they did. It wouldn't be a bad idea for officials to ask members of the community to say how they feel every time they learn of instances of nepotism, contracts going to business associates, zoning approvals going to developers who make large campaign contributions, and the like. These feelings may be expressed in the blogosphere, but there is nothing like hearing it directly, feeling the lack of respect and anger and disgust.
It is much better for ethics reform that high-level officials hear a wide range of negative emotions at a time when there is no scandal, than to hear a narrow range of negative emotions in the midst of a scandal. A wide range of criticisms should cause officials to realize that true change will come not through more ethics provisions or penalties, but through a change in how officials approach conflict situations and through the creation of a quality, independent ethics program that can gain the trust of both officials and the public.
The Heaths note that "it can sometimes be challenging to distinguish why people don't support your change. Is it because they don't understand or because they're not enthused?" With respect to government ethics reform, I think it's best to assume that both are true. One must both enlighten and excite, which is not an easy thing. Scandals excite, but they don't enlighten. In fact, they usually get in the way of enlightenment. The appearance of acting quickly takes over. The window for enlightenment is narrow, if it opens at all. And then the reform is done, at least until the next scandal comes along.
What are ethics reformers to do? The best way to take advantage of a scandal is to have a reform plan ready in advance, do one's best to enlighten officials when they're not really listening, and then wait until a scandal gets officials interested. This is the kind of approach good government organizations are best at. It's a variation on the one at the beginning of this post: analyze-wait-change.
Shrinking the Change
People are much better at accepting small changes than big changes. They like to feel that they're close to a goal rather than that they have a long haul to get there. A long haul can feel like too much to ask. Why not take it just a little at a time? people ask. Therefore, shrinking the change, or making it look like the change is smaller than it is, can be very valuable to getting people on board important change. You want to present a raising of the bar as a bar that can be stepped over.
With respect to government ethics, however, small changes don't really change anything. That is why they are so popular.
But where there is no government ethics program, reform doesn't have to be sold as creating something where there is nothing. Most cities and counties have a code of ethics or, at least, a conflict of interest law. It may be a state law rather than an ordinance. But even where there is no state law, Robert's Rules has a conflict provision. And there are often more specific rules, such as a nepotism rule, procurement rules, and disclosure rules. In other words, there is a rudimentary ethics program.
Ethics reform can, therefore, be presented not as creating something new and different, but rather as a bringing together of rules and providing them with the administration of an independent body or office, so that officials can better understand the rules, get professional advice to help them follow the rules, and provide enforcement where necessary (since rules are meant to be enforced). Ethics reform can be presented as the completion of a project that the city or county government has already supported as valuable, but which has not been given sufficient resources to allow officials to understand or follow the rules.
Best Practices
The Heaths argue that resistance to change often reflects a lack of clarity. It isn't clear to people how they should change. In terms of ethics reform, providing clarity would be greatly helped by the establishment of best practices by government ethics practitioners. Best practices also deal with what the Heaths call "decision paralysis," what happens when there are too many choices available. The hardest, most paralyzing part of change is in the details. The critical moves must effectively be scripted, or they won't be done at all.
If there are no best practices, officials and government attorneys will take the most familiar path, which means a skeletal ethics program under the control of high-level officials, one that can easily be borrowed from a nearby city or county. That, in a nutshell, is the history of local government ethics.
Sadly, government ethics practitioners have done next to nothing about establishing best practices. It's something I have tried to do in the City Ethics Model Code and in my book Local Government Ethics Programs. But there is no consensus about what an effective government ethics program consists of. There isn't even a consensus on language. It's not that practitioners don't agree, it's that they don't talk or write about it much. The result is that there is very little guidance for creating a government ethics program outside of the City Ethics website. And that's not enough.
Best practices also help "shape the path" toward change by making it easier (1) for officials to know the changes that need to be made and to understand the nature of the change, so that they are not afraid of it and, more positively, so that it can be something they are proud of; and (2) for those who want a good government ethics program, including officials and good government groups, to put forth recommendations that have both legitimacy and strong arguments backing them up.
As it is now, there is no clear path to a quality government ethics program. Good government groups and government ethics practitioners have let their cause down by failing to even argue about best practices, not to mention set them out in writing for cities and counties (and states) across the country to embrace.
Click here to read the other six blog posts on Switch.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
