As we all search for ways to better handle our everyday management responsibilities and challenges, one source of inspiration may come from the principles and practice of Kingian Nonviolence Conflict Reconciliation (KNV).

Kingian Nonviolence is an approach to conflict resolution that emerged from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ‘60s. The curriculum was first codified by Bernard LaFayette, an early follower of Martin Luther King Jr., working with activist David Jehnsen in the 1980s. The term Kingian is representative of a period in history and not just a single individual. The KNV theory and methodology utilizes the foundations of nonviolent and dialectical thinking of Hegel, Gandhi, and Judeo-Christianity, and recognizes the tremendous contribution of a great many civil rights leaders of the time. An introductory article about KNV appeared in the June 2024 issue of PM Magazine.

The following case study attempts to illustrate how the KNV principles might be applied in a real situation as one local government board attempts to base a key decision on nonviolence, reflection, and open dialogue.

The Case of the Nonviolent and Reflective Town Board

The TV station trucks were lined up in the town hall parking lot with antennas raised high to ensure good live transmission back to their studios. A press release from the volunteer fire department (VFD) had bloodied the water for the media “sharks.” As the 50 or so VFD members walked over to the town hall from the adjacent fire building, all in dress uniforms, you could see the TV reporters and cameramen drool while collecting the powerful images they were going to present on the 10 o’clock news.

It does not get much juicier than this in local government politics. A volunteer fire department threatening to walk off the job unless the town board reconsiders a hiring decision and chooses “the department candidate” for a new full-time position instead of hiring from outside the VFD. A history of resentment, poor communication, and mistrust has brought the board to this night’s reality: a closed-door negotiation session with 60 people crammed into a steamy room that was built for 45.

The media is not thrilled, but they have been relegated to the lobby, as Wisconsin closed-session statutes allow closing the doors of public meetings for sensitive personnel discussions. Inside the meeting room, the board bristles as VFD officers read their list of demands.

The town chairman and one other board member are former VFD members and not strong supporters of the current situation in the department, or their candidate for the new position. Interestingly both of the department’s harshest critics are out of the country on vacation, so the three remaining board members make up a quorum that must deal with the demands of the firemen. The sense that this walk-out plan may have been hatched while the VFD’s two harshest critics are on vacation, in order to gain an easier board capitulation, only further poisons the proceedings.

It seems the remaining three members of the board are leaning toward disbanding the VFD. They feel the department is being unreasonable in their demands, unfair in their accusations, and using blackmail to try and get what they want. The atmosphere is primed for a quick angry decision to show the VFD who is in charge.

The board has thoroughly researched their options. The acting town chairman has met with the county sheriff, as well as fire chiefs from surrounding communities, to ensure that fire and emergency response coverage will be handled should the board decide not to negotiate. At least two of the board members consider themselves strong financial conservatives, question the need for additional town fire truck purchases, and have discussed the regionalization of fire service based on the recent findings of a blue-ribbon panel. These emergency discussions with area departments have only strengthened some board members’ sense that the town could get along just fine, perhaps even better financially, if the VFD was dissolved and service was provided by a neighboring municipality.

After several heated exchanges and more demands by the VFD, the board retires to an interior office with the town attorney and town administrator to prepare a response to the demands that have been made. Initial energy is focused on some angry “beating of chests.” The board members “want blood.” They want to show the VFD, the town, and the entire metropolitan area of more than a quarter of a million people that they cannot be blackmailed, and that they are in control here, not the VFD.

Gradually, a different opinion begins to emerge. One board member speaks eloquently about the tremendous investment and sacrifices that most of the VFD members have made in the community over the past few years. He attempts to understand their insecurities, tensions, and fears and what has brought them to this point. Another board member sees clearly that if they respond in kind, they are likely to increase the cleavage in their broken community. He says as a board they need to be willing to sacrifice their current position in the interest of mutuality with the conviction that a stronger and better relationship and community can be forged in the future. He goes on to emphasize that some financial savings will be of little significance compared with the loss of volunteer service and loyalty of 50-plus community members.

With these thoughts in mind, the town board decides to negotiate with the VFD. When the board members return to the meeting room, they clearly explain their deep concerns about how the VFD has handled this situation, yet they express their willingness to hire the department’s candidate for the full-time position with several conditions.

The town board was willing to appear weak in the present with the hopes of creating a strong and prosperous long-term relationship with the department. In fact, their decision has paid off handsomely. Our community, 20 years after the proposed walk-out, has one of the best and most active volunteer fire departments in the state. The town benefits tremendously, not only from their contribution to the fire service and first responders, but to all the community events they organize and are involved in.

Public Decision-Making and Martin Luther King Jr.’s Principles of Nonviolent Resistance

Some readers may recognize my paraphrased language used to describe the town board’s discussion about how to respond to the VFD from Martin Luther King Jr.’s Stride Towards Freedom. One could argue that the board was using nonviolent resistance to what they saw as the “violent” walk-out proposal of the fire department. King’s basic principles for nonviolent resistance as delineated in his book are worth summarizing:

1. It is important to differentiate between a nonviolent resistance to perceived evil and a do-nothing pacifism. 

A nonviolent resister is not physically aggressive, but his or her mind and emotions are always actively seeking to persuade the opponent that he or she is wrong. The town board in the example did not just “cave” to the VFD’s demands. They established a list of requirements to help improve the long-term relationship with the department (quarterly meetings to maintain communication, official study of the VFD to ascertain needs, new chain of command, etc.).

2. A nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat an opponent but win friendship and understanding. 

The hoped-for end is redemption and reconciliation. The town board could have easily “destroyed” or defunded the VFD, yet they overcame their initial desire for quick revenge, which is so attractive to us when we get into an argument or confrontation.

3. Attacks are pointed at perceived evil actions, not the people who are doing evil. 

The nonviolent approach helps one analyze the fundamental conditions, policies, and practices of the conflict rather than reacting to one’s opponents or personalities.

4. There is a willingness to accept suffering without striking back. 

Unearned suffering is redemptive. At the center is the principle of love.

5. The nonviolent resister avoids external violence and internal violence of spirit. 

In our democratic form of government in the United States, we are lucky that external or life-threatening violence is not that frequent. Much more frequent is the internal, what I would define as violence of the spirit, when political opponents seek to destroy each other with deception and half-truths or public practitioners respond with little care, respect, or compassion for citizens.

6. Nonviolent resistance is based on the conviction and faith that the universe is on the side of justice. 

Those who believe this can have great faith in the future and are able to accept suffering without retaliation. They have faith that this struggle for justice has cosmic companionship, but also faith that the great majority of people in the world are seeking justice. Of course, those who have read the writings of MLK know his nonviolence emerges from the Christian and Gandhian tradition. The love expressed to an oppressor or opponent is not necessarily an affectionate love. It is agape love, or love within the human heart seeking redemptive good will. He describes it as overflowing love, purely spontaneous, groundless, and creative. It is not set in motion by any quality in the object or hope for something to be gained. Agape is not weak or passive love but love in action that seeks to preserve community. Agape means recognition that all life is interrelated and all men are brothers.

A public service practitioner may not see any application for King’s nonviolent principles in daily activities, or may disagree with his conclusions about the existence of agape love, but it is hard to argue with many of the practical results of the Civil Rights Movement in America that were guided by this philosophy. This slow but steady success deserves further study by public servants who are seeking strategies to deal with communities in the midst of conflict.

My hope is that the KNV principles and practices will broaden, enrich, and deepen the reservoir of love, faith, optimism, and energy that is available to public servants as they face the increasing demands of their jobs. I say more power to the practitioners who can add King’s nonviolent principles to his or her toolbox for improving management in the public sector. No matter how chaotic the national political scene may become, we local government managers must realize the importance of our wise and skillful front-line management of this democratic republic. We have a huge impact on how our residents will view, perceive, and trust the role of government.

If we choose to use MLK’s inspiration and story to help us build genuine and authentic communities, it is important to place his first principles in a historical context. Jonathan Eig, in his 2023 biography, King: A Life, by presenting previously sealed government information, as well as new interviews with civil rights leaders, reveals how shockingly difficult it was for MLK to maintain a hopeful vision for creating substantial change in his short life.

It should be understood that the original KNV principles, first appearing in MLK’s book, Strides Towards Freedom (1958), were written by an optimistic and idealistic 27-year-old following the successful bus boycott campaign in Montgomery, Alabama. It is interesting to note that this is the same age many of us end up entering our first professional practice of local government management, likely filled with tremendous hope for building great communities.

Yet, after some very significant legislative and civil rights campaign victories, like passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965 working closely with President Lyndon Johnson, we tend to forget many of the tragic events of MLK’s life as he tried to live out his first principles before his assassination at the age of 39. The eventual failed relationship with President Johnson because of his anti-war stance, the constant wiretapping and surveillance from the FBI due to their concerns about communist infiltration of the Civil Rights Movement, a failed first assassination attempt that nearly killed him, and the fracturing of the national civil rights coalition over philosophical difference with his nonviolent approach to change, represent only a few of the pressures suppressing MLK’s vision of building “beloved community.”

The big lesson I believe for local government managers, learned from the life and principles of MLK: as we age and mature in our positions and experience, we must hold on tight to our original idealism and optimism for building great communities, but be prepared for challenges, failures, conflicts, setbacks, and confrontation — and not give up. Always remember we have the ability each day to choose how we will respond to our circumstances, whether violently out of anger, pride, and selfish ambition, or nonviolently out of hope, patience, faith, and love.

DAVE TEBO, ICMA-CM (Retired) is owner of WI2 Community Consulting, LLC, in Greenville, Wisconsin, USA (dtebo.wi2@gmail.com).