Ethical Leadership and Performance Combine to Rebuild Trust in Government

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Stephen M. King
September 20, 2024

In my June essay, I argued that ethical leadership is a key influencer for building and, most importantly, rebuilding citizen trust in government. Ethical leadership focuses attention on leaders’ development and application of character, use of authority and regard for community responsibility as three primary contributors for enhancing citizen trust. In other words, ethical leadership is not only directed toward restoring public trust in government leaders and administrators, but in government organizations and institutions, too. Likewise, the practice of ethical leadership allays citizen’s fears that government at any level, but especially at the federal level, is out of touch with their concerns.

For this essay I would like to discuss the results and implications of a recent Deloitte (2021) report highlighting that the 2020 pandemic—a crisis if there ever was one—demonstrated the “rallying around the flag” effect; meaning that when citizens looked to their governments for assistance, their governments responded. Yet, when the global crisis dissipated, citizen trust levels again dropped to pre-crisis levels. The authors conclude that despite the 2020 bump in citizen trust, the overall trust levels, including both fiduciary and social trust (i.e., citizen trust in each other, and social institutions, including families and education, for example), indicate “America is experiencing a crisis of trust.” Their question is simple: “How can the US government rebuild declining trust,” implying what can governments do to stabilize, and even enhance trust levels, particularly fiduciary trust, over the long term?

Deloitte cites survey data strongly suggesting that citizens believe that trust can be rebuilt, but that “governments must work both to increase perceptions of its trustworthiness as well as the organizational capabilities to…deliver services…” The Deloitte report focuses on four “trust signals,” including “humanity, transparency, capability and reliability.” Humanity demonstrates care, primarily through quickly resolving issues, and showing that “government values and respects everyone.” Transparency indicates openness, “sharing and communicating information” to not only recipients of policies, but the broader public. Capability reflects capacity, which means “performing at a high level.” And reliability shows a “can do” spirit; one that “consistently delivers programs…and improves the quality of services.”

The first two factors “reflect intention of action” and the second two factors “show an organization’s competence” in completing tasks and delivering services. According to Deloitte, these four “trust signals” are “statistically validated as contributors of trust for customers and employees” and “can be measured and…improved through various government actions and activities.”  My question is, “Is there also a relationship between enhanced development and practice of ethical leadership and improving the “action and competence” of government organizations?” I believe there is.

The trust signal “humanity,” for example, is anchored in not only the “value and respect” of all individuals equally, but the “greater good for society.” Furthermore, government agencies that value their employees, and put structure and processes in place that advocate for both the citizens who receive government services and the government employees who deliver the services, are now operating in moral unison. This cannot take place without the ethical leadership of government administrators and managers who put the good of the citizens and the society ahead of personal or professional interest, those who recognize that government “competence” (i.e., “capability and reliability”) is as equally a moral value as is “intention of action” (i.e., “humanity and transparency”).

Further, the Deloitte report demonstrates that different government agency “archetypes” reflect different levels of citizen trust on the various trust signals. For example, agencies that perform “retail” functions, such as provide services directly to customers, whether in competitive environments (e.g., USPS), or in monopoly environments (e.g., DMV), receive higher levels of trust scores related to the “capability” of delivering the services, while agencies that perform “innovative, educational and regulatory” functions or services tend to be comparatively higher in trust scores related to the “humanity” trust signal. Receipt of the service or good is critical, certainly, so it makes sense that agency “competence” is going to be generally reflective as most important, but the way in which the service is rendered, i.e., the value of attention to both the citizens’ needs as well as the value of the “greater good,” also demonstrates that ethics of process (i.e., how the service is delivered) and leadership (i.e., who oversees and directs how the service is delivered) are interdependent functions, and akin to what James Burns called “moral agency.”  

In conclusion, according to Deloitte, the principal answer to rebuilding and maintaining citizen trust is through a comprehensive assessment of “government mission areas,” providing insight into “an agency’s relationship with its customers,” with an eye toward enhancing performance. As I have said here and in other contexts, improving government performance is certainly a critical variable, but citizens respond not only to what is achieved but to how it is achieved. In other words, citizens place a great deal of importance on the ethical dimension of their government leaders, or what Deloitte referenced as the “human dimension.” So, if we want to see reversal in the trust factor at all levels of government, whether in crisis or non-crisis situations, we need to not only ensure our governments, agencies and programs are performing at a high level, but that their performance is overseen by men and women of character, moral authority and a responsibility to the “greater good.”   

---

Author: Stephen M. King is Professor of Government at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. He teaches undergraduate courses in American politics, state and local government, and public policy, and graduate courses in public policy analysis and ethical leadership and administration. He frequently publishes on the topics of ethics and public administration and leadership, and spirituality in the public workplace. He was elected President-Elect (AY23-24) for the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA. He also serves on the Advisory Council for SEIGov, ASPA. His recent book, Ethical Public Leadership: Foundation, Organization, and Discovery, published by Routledge, came out in September 2023. Contact him at [email protected].

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...