Integrity has been the subject of considerable debate in management and business ethics for a long time. In a complex business environment, accompanied by the loss of morality on various fronts, there is a need to reconsider the concept of integrity and its potential for a more realistic alignment between managerial practice and ethics (Solomon, 1992, 1999). Although there is strong consensus on the importance of integrity in personal and organizational situations, there is also much disagreement on the definition and the broader implications of integrity (Bauman, 2013). Undoubtedly, integrity is an inherently complex construct to define and measure. In fact, it has been defined in so many ways that the meaning of integrity and its implications have remained elusive (e.g., Audi & Murphy, 2006; Becker, 1998; Orlitzky & Jacobs, 1998; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002).
In this chapter, as a backdrop to the contributions made by the researchers in this volume, we first provide a brief sketch of the variety of ways integrity has been conceptualized and analyzed in the Management and Business Ethics literature. We then preview the individual chapters included in the book. As we argue in the following, each featured researcher in this volume emphasizes one aspect of integrity relatively more than other aspects, with the normatively loaded con ceptualization, numbered 3 in the following, being the most common in this book.
The Meanings of Integrity
Palanski and Yammarinoâs (2007) influential review of the organizational literature on integrity identified five different facets of integrity: (1) behavioral consistency, (2) steadfastness in adversity, (3) demonstrating moral or ethical behavior, (4) authenticity, and (5) wholeness. In the following, these five aspects of integrity are presented in the same order as the chapters focus on one of these aspects of integrity relatively more than the other four.
1. Behavioral Consistency
One meaning of integrity that seems very prevalent in the Management literature is consistency between words and actions, also known as behavioral consistency (Bews & Rossouw, 2002; Jensen, 2009; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Paine, 2005; Simons, 2002, 1999; Simons, Friedman, Liu, & McLean-Parks, 2007; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Worden, 2003). It includes both the perceived fit between espoused and enacted values and promise-keeping.
A possible and oft-cited criticism of this conceptualization is that, if integrity is defined purely as consistency between words and actions or explicit promise-keeping, it may also refer to promises that are unethical or immoral in nature. For example, I give my word to a potential contractor that in return of a kickback, he or she will be given the contract. After I follow through on this promise, can I be called a person of integrity because I kept my word and gave away the contract in return for a kickback? Such consistency would, according to some scholars (e.g., Badaracco & Ellsworth, 1991; Koehn, 2005), miss the true meaning of integrity. Therefore, one may argue that the content of the words and actions (see Aspect 3) must also be taken into account. However, other philosophers (e.g., Audi & Murphy, 2006; Cox, LaCaze, & Levine, 2016; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009) emphasize that integrity is morally neutral.
2. Integrity as Steadfastness in Adversity
Steadfastness in adversity is another important meaning of integrity in the literature (Carter, 1996; Duska, 2005; McFall, 1987; Paine, 2005; Posner, 2001; Worden, 2003) and implies the presence of a choice or choices, which may influence integrity. Conceptually, this view of integrity overlaps with consistency between words and actions, but the two conceptualizations are distinct. Steadfastness in adversity reflects the need to resist unethical temptations or choices, even at a high personal cost. McFall (1987) goes as far as to claim that if there is no adversity or moral temptation involved, then integrity cannot meaningfully be demonstrated. Although this conceptualization can be regarded as an essential feature of integrity, it arguably does not, by itself, fully encompass the meaning of integrity. So, it is usually argued that the nature of the values and principles be defined along with the moral content of the word given, which is the conceptualization previewed next.
3. Integrity as Moral or Ethical Behavior
This is the normative view of integrity as moral or ethical behavior, related to making a judgment about good or bad, right or wrong. A number of scholars have associated integrity with key moral values, for example, justice and respect (Baccilli, 2001; Bews & Rossouw, 2002; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2002; Rawls, 1971), empathy/compassion (Koehn, 2005; Lowe, Cordery, & Morrison, 2004), and trustworthiness (Baccilli, 2001; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2002; Trevino, Hartman, & Brown, 2000). In the organizational behavior, human resource management, and psychology literature on integrity and integrity tests, the value of honesty (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2002; McFall, 1987; Newman, 2003; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Posner, 2001; Trevino et al., 2000; Yukl & VanFleet, 1992) features most prominently. In addition, some authors have associated integrity with a general sense of morality and ethics (Baccilli, 2001; Batson, Thompson, Sueferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999; Becker, 1998; Carter, 1996; Lowe et al., 2004; Maak, 2008; McFall, 1987; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Newman, 2003). Murphy (1999) considers fairness, trust, respect, and empathy to be the core virtues of integrity. More generally, striving to achieve integrity is at once a moral, philosophical, and practical endeavor and suggests a sense of moral soundness (Badaracco & Ellsworth, 1991). Consistent with such a broad conceptualization, Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) argue that integrity should be based on a, or any, morally justifiable set of values.
There is an important stream of management literature that has attempted to identify and specify the content of the moral principles and values underpinning integrity (Becker, 1998; Locke & Becker, 1998). According to this Objectivist perspective (Peikoff, 1991), a morally justifiable code of principles and values is one that promotes the long-term survival and well-being of individuals as rational beings (Becker, 1998). According to the philosophy of Objectivism, the ultimate standards of morality are survival and happiness. The pursuit of self-interest for survival in the Objectivist view implies a rejection of the Christian and Kantian orthodoxy of altruism (Rand, 1964). Unsurprisingly, Beckerâs (1998) and Locke and Beckerâs (1998) Objectivist definition of integrity generated heated debate among scholars (Barry & Stephens, 1998; Orlitzky & Jacobs, 1998), who highlighted the limitations of the Objectivist perspective.
4. Integrity as Authenticity
Authenticity is another meaning of integrity found in the Management literature, which means being true to oneself (Baccilli, 2001; Calhoun, 1995; Cox, LaCraze, & Levine, 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1995; Kaptein, 1999, 2003; Koehn, 2005; Lowe et al., 2004; McFall, 1987; Morrison, 2001; Paine, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Posner, 2001; Rawls, 1971; Yukl & VanFleet, 1992). Being true to oneself means consistency between espoused values and enacted values. This conceptualization of integrity overlaps, at least to some extent, with the behavioral consistency and steadfastness in adversity definitions of integrity discussed before (Aspects 1 and 2 discussed earlier) because it means acting in accordance with a personâs espoused beliefs and values, irrespective of the circumstances or consequences of the action.
This meaning of integrity implies that a person may appear to be acting in accordance with their beliefs and values, but in reality this may be difficult to ascertain (like most psychological, intangible variables, of course). This intractability makes it nearly impossible for others to determine if the person is acting in compliance with his or her deeply held values. Often, the motives of an organizational decision can only be (imperfectly) inferred from organizational actions (for more details, see also Chapter 6).
This dimension of integrity has various terms associated with it. For example, Palanski and Yammarino (2007) call this aspect personal integrity. Personal integrity means the alignment of oneâs words, actions, and internalized valuesâwhich is different from public integrity, the alignment of oneâs words and actions only. Peterson and Seligman (2004) call it private and public aspects of integrity. This highlights the intrinsic nature of integrity, where only the person himself or herself can determine if he or she acted with integrity (Monga, 2016). Arguably, for integrity to occur, there needs to be a unification of personal integrity with public integrity.
5. Integrity as Wholeness
The fifth and final meaning of integrity is the broadest but probably also in closest alignment with its etymology. The Latin meaning of integer is closely associated with wholeness (see also Chapter 9), which can be applied to a variety of situations. It can be applied to an object, machinery, the natural environmentâand to humans. When applied to an object like a piece of art, it can mean intactness, completeness, or purity. Applied to wilderness, it indicates the most undisturbed wild natural areas left on Earth. Websterâs New World Dictionary defines integrity as the âquality or state of being complete: unbroken condition; wholenessâ and the âquality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty and sincerity.â So, this meaning captures the spirit of its Latin root integer most accurately.
When applied to a âperson of integrity,â the image that comes to mind is that of a person who acts in accordance with high moral standards and does so consistently even if challenged by unfavorable/adverse circumstances, which may result in some personal loss. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines integrity as âquality of being honest and having strong moral principles⌠the state of being whole and undivided.â Several scholars, such as Badaracco and Ellsworth (1991), Koehn (2005), Lowe et al. (2004), Trevino et al. (2000), Worden (2003), Kaptein (2003, 1999), George (2003), and McFall (1987), include wholeness as a key aspect of integrity. Integrity as wholeness also suggests that there are multiple aspects or dimensions to it that must be integrated to result in such a state of wholeness.
If we apply this meaning to human beings, it is nearly synonymous with character. According to philosopher Robert Solomon (1992, 1999), integrity represents the synthesis of virtues working together to form a coherent character, an identifiable and trustworthy personality, with moral courageâthe will and willingness to do what one knows one ought to doâas its key trait. Thus, integrity refers to a superordinate virtue, or supervirtue, characterizing someone who lives up to his or her own standards (Korsgaard, 1996). In an organizational context, the notion of wholeness points toward a personâs overall consistency of behavior, thoughts, and emotions across time and situations, characterizing the overall person and not only certain aspects of a person.
Audi and Murphy (2006) describe integrity as an adjunctive virtue, like courage and conscientiousness, rather than a substantive moral virtue, like honesty and fairness, which are morally good in themselves. According to these business ethicists, adjunctive virtues do not necessarily imply a commitment to moral standards; however, their presence may strengthen a personâs moral character. In the synthetic sense of integrity as wholeness, such an adjunctive virtue is important for adherence to high moral standards because it facilitates moral reasoning and ethical conduct.
The various meanings of integrity in the management literature fail to fully capture the meaning of integrity or wholeness. This conceptual shortcoming makes it essential to identify various dimensions or aspects of integrity that, when aligned and integrated, form a complete wholeâthe state of integrity. Maak (2008) has addressed this at individual and o...
