A compliance—integrity framework for ethics management: An empirical analysis of local government practice

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• Author: Bruce J. Perlman,Christopher Reddick,Tansu Demir
• Date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13610

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A compliance—integrity framework for ethics management:

An empirical analysis of local government practice

Bruce J. Perlman

1

|Christopher Reddick

2

|Tansu Demir

2

1

School of Public Administration, University of

New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

2

Department of Public Administration, College

for Health, Community and Policy, San Antonio,

Texas, USA

Correspondence

Bruce J. Perlman, School of Public

Administration, University of New Mexico,

MSC05 3100 1 University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.

Email: bperlman@unm.edu

Abstract

This article examines two approaches to ethics management found in the litera-

ture: compliance-based and integrity-based, often called the low road and high

road. It asks whether both approaches genuinely exist in practice as the literature

suggests and whether they are distinct. Data were collected in a national survey of

764 International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Chief Administra-

tive Officers (CAOs) on ethics management practices in their local government to

find evidence of the approaches. A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis

showed that CAOs use both compliance-based ethics, focusing on enforceable

rules, and integrity-based ethics, concentrating on instilling values. Our confirma-

tory factor analysis showed that both approaches are used in practice, are separate

and distinct, but that they are highly correlated. This implies that both approaches

are needed to understand ethics management properly. The results challenge

existing literature focusing on one approach being dominant and show that both

ethics management systems are essential.

Evidence for practice

•Local government managers use the compliance and integrity approaches in

ethics management but prefer the latter.

•Understanding public sector ethics management requires both compliance and

integrity approaches.

•A compliance approach to ethics management emphasizes mission and mecha-

nisms, while an integrity approach highlights leadership and openness but both

stress consequences for conduct.

•Ethics management in practice employs both aversive and supportive conse-

quences for ethics-related conduct.

•The integrity approach emphasizes ethical leadership, making it the key to effec-

tive ethics management.

There is a well-known early debate in public administra-

tion between Carl Friedrich and Herman Finer over

whether the promotion of accountability is achieved best

through the inculcation of internal mores or by promul-

gating external norms (Cooper 2006). The so-called Frie-

drich-Finer debate pits the idea that public servants are

best made responsible for professional ethical norms

through their felt integrity against the notion that this is

done most effectively by externally constraining them to

comply. Typically, existing research focuses on just one

approach to ethics management, either integrity or com-

pliance, or emphasizes them as prescriptive, conceptual

models rather than an empirical practice. We examine

both approaches empirically. Our research shows that

integrity and compliance are not just separate and dis-

tinct ideas but are related sets of practices that have an

empirical basis. Both of these need to be used to under-

stand ethics management in local government. Ulti-

mately, we contend that they must be taken together to

understand ethics management in government.

The proactive value of integrity, although discussed,

does not register much of an impact on existing empirical

research. In a survey examining the ethical approaches of

public administrators, Bowman’s(

1990) results showed

that organizations are focused on the detection of wrong-

doing. Prior research shows that reported ethics practice

Received: 18 July 2022Revised: 30 January 2023Accepted: 31 January 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13610

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:823–837. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2023 American Society for Public Administration.823