Integrity and Contractarian
洪一碩
“In evaluating people, you look for three questions: integrity, intelligence,
and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”
----Warren Buffett (1997).
Abstract
Viewing from the perspective of contractarianism, this research attends to the
contradicting and confusing concerns in integrity research. A better understanding of
integrity is highlighted through exploratory studies aiming at the differences and
contents of integrity, and a study viewing contracts under layers of social environment.
Leader integrity is a leader’s constant contracting process to keep morality and
authentic beliefs intact under embedded surroundings.
INTRODUCTION
Leader and leadership studies are in a constant exploration for “better ways” to
increase the effectiveness of leader behavior and to enhance workgroup productivity.
Trevino, Brown, & Hartman’s (2003) maintained that a leader with integrity could
gain credibility and predictability from subordinate perceptions, and which are
certainly the base of trustworthiness valuable for effective leadership. In their study of
interviewing corporate ethics officers and senior executives, a participant proclaimed
“integrity is…consistency…a pattern that…people believe it because historically
when you’ve said it, you’ve followed through (p.18).” Trevino et al believe that
leaders should be honest, trustworthy with integrity and leaders can and should
provide the ethical tone for that organization (Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003).
Sims and Brinkmann (2002) declare that “leaders shape and reinforce an ethical or
unethical organizational climate by what they pay attention to, how they react to
crises, how they behave...” (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002, p. 327)
Integrity has shown its advantageous gains in consequences with better trust,
trustworthiness, and even better profitability (cf. Simons, 2010). Empirical studies
found that behavioral integrity is the antecedent and has great impact on leader
trustworthiness. (e. g., Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2009;
Palanski, 2008; Simons, Friedman Liu, & McLean Parks, 2007). Carey (2008) says
that if trust with someone is broken, trying to rebuild trust may be in vain or at least
time consuming. Thus he maintains that a leader operates without integrity is a waste
of time and that integrity brings the fruit of trust, influence and even repeat business.
Although the advantages and well-beings of leader integrity seem to have been
gaining its recognition, a closer investigation will learn that the research and findings
may not build on the same ground. To be exact, definitions on integrity vary with
research and scope of the integrity study extends broadly. Research anchored in a
more popular definition, the consistency of a person’s words and actions (e. g.,
Palanski & Yammarino, 2007; Simons, 2002) attains prosperous achievements.
Nevertheless, it calls for further advancements beyond existing scope and a clear
characterization of the integrity concept. Leader integrity is under challenge when
ethical or moral dilemmas arise. To survive, a leader may break his/her integrity. On
the other hand, to sustain one’s existence necessitates one’s integration of all viable
means and resources to be hold, directed, and allocated. Does a leader’s constant
confrontation to ethical dilemmas consolidate ones integrity or destroy it? The
formation of social contracts and socialization is a process (Myyry and Helkama,
2002) and changes develop during these processes. From this perspective, whether it
1
is possible to find a balance for leader’s integrity becomes an important issue.
It is arguably that the term of integrity is the most agreed and yet the least agreed
on, that is, we all agreed on its importance but less agreed on actually how it works, or
even what it is. The first confusion of integrity research comes from its definition.
Integrity is such an age-old term that can be traced back to its Latin origin, and for its
broad, vague nature (cf. Mcfall, 1987). The second confusion steams from its
divergent disposition. Is strict integrity good? People know integrity is inherently
unchangeable, and should not be changed. On the other hand, intrinsically, people also
comprehend that strict rigidness of integrity application is not only impractical but
also undesirable. Leaders hold their integrity to gain trustworthiness yet at the same
time leaders have to change their behavior to adapt to situations. Therefore, a strict
rigidness of integrity application is not only impractical but also undesirable (cf.
Barry & Stephens, 1998; Becker, 1998).
Are there ways that we can “learn” to be a leader? We can learn “managing” but
can we learn how to lead? This study seeks to apply a contractarian approach to the
intimation and implications of leader integrity. The contractarian approach suggests
the desirability of a system of integrity notions which provide leaders with significant
influences on subordinates while at the same time maintain the core merit of integrity
and morality. It speculates as to what kind of leader integrity should, and could have
in facilitating better leadership in contextual, social settings. Normative implications
for leader integrity are discussed. By theoretically clarifying the confusing nature of
integrity research, this new understanding brings practical implications, guidelines or
steps, from basic to higher, for leaders to behave in integrity.
Specifically, this research tries to answer the following questions: What is
integrity? What does integrity looks like? Does integrity change? Is integrity different?
How do leaders implement integrity for better leadership? How do leaders behave in
contingent to their environments while maintaining their integrity? That is, how do
leaders retain a dedicate balance between total rigidness and liberation of integrity and
explore possibilities for principles to utilize the virtue of integrity?
I believe that integrity is not merely a moral virtue that only certain individuals are
born with and have the privilege to capitalize it. The leader’s integrity may not only
be a personality trait but a desirable quality that can be educated, developed, and
further exercised for better leadership.
Perceived or not perceived
Integrity has multi-facets, which means that it can be looked at from various
angles and perspectives. Whether the integrity is from within—an individual’s inner
2
self, or from without—what other people perceive, should be clarified. A school
maintains that the perceived behavioral integrity (PBI) is for all intents and purposes
the resolution for a leader to maintain one’s integrity (e.g., Simons, 2002, 2007). This
PBI creates confusions should audiences under this perspective are not previously
acknowledged of its relatively narrow definition and its limited application. The PBI
looks in only one direction—from the observer to the observed. And the PBI singles
out the consistency between word and actions, which seems clear at first yet more
discussion on other facets of human actions are leaved to be desired.
To be or not to be
If we see leader integrity as merely matters of words and actions, and believe
what a leader’s subordinates sees is all that counts for one’s credibility, then there is a
room for manipulation like “impression management” (cf., Bolino, 1999),
“self-monitoring” (cf., Snyder, 1974), or “personal branding” (e.g., Lair, Sullivan, &
Cheney, 2005). Those above are basically benevolent yet there certainly remains the
dark side—manipulations that are deliberately to gain what they want regardless of
means and ethical concerns. This research believes that there are far more better ways
for a leader to achieve better perceived integrity. Therefore, the issue of manipulation
is not in the realm of this research. The major thesis of this research is that integrity,
when clearly recognized, would come naturally and exert its power of influence.
Level of analysis
Integrity issues cross many levels, there can be in the individual, group, or
organization levels. Although ultimately a multi-level conceptualization of integrity is
needed (e.g., Palanski & Yammarino, 2009), this research focuses on the individual
level, looking from an individual through different layers of contexts. It is necessary
to set back a step further for a better understanding of integrity before leveling up to
the higher echelons.
In summary, this research concentrates on the individual level of leadership study.
Starting from a leader’s standpoint, this research looks at the whole picture of
integrity rather than at partial aspects like behavioral integrity (BI), or perceived
behavioral integrity (PBI). Further, this research does not cover image-management
operations that leaders might endeavor to make favorable perceptions of integrity to
their subordinates or to the public. Also, although the term Contractarian is used, this
research acknowledges the broadest sense. The term Contractarian is referred to the
psychological contracts as well as social contracts which the leader comprehends as
action guidelines to survive or to adapt to his/her surroundings and to make best
moves and contributions to his/her organizations.
3
1.4 Importance of This Research
Traditionally, the concept of integrity is closely bounded to morality and is
treated as privileged gift or personal virtue. From a contractarian approach, this study
frees the coercion. Integrity would no longer be an endowed gift for talented leaders
but a tangible and reachable merit that can be educated, implemented, and utilized for
better leadership. This study advances the knowledge of integrity. Leaders with
awareness and knowledge of integrity are critically important for leadership under
present business environs which are both professional and ethical demanding.
To discuss integrity in a contractarian issue, integrity should first be defined.
Chapter 2, Integrity, is organized into three parts. The first part is the literature review
on western and oriental thoughts of integrity and integrity studies. The second part
depicts reasons of current confusions and problems on integrity research and the third
part proposes a preliminary definition of integrity with emergent elements in it.
To position integrity issue into context and contract environments, the
contractarian approach is dealt in Chapter 3. Context and contracts are first
introduced and notions of psychological contract and social contract are followed.
After groundwork of contractarian perspective is set, emphasis is then on exploring
issues of norms and layers of contracts to elaborate dynamic attributes among
individual, contract, and context interactions.
Chapter 4 takes a step further to articulate three exploration studies on integrity.
Study 1 looks at integrity differences in sensitive to demographic factors. Study 2
aims at the essence/elements of integrity in a query to see “what’s in there.” Study 3
makes an ambitious move to look into what it would be like when putting integrity
issues in layers of contract surroundings. Study approaches, measurements for
variables, and materials as well as findings of these studies are discussed. These
studies serve as examples and future possibilities to quantitative works of integrity
research from a contractarian perspective and elucidations of some issues and
characteristics of integrity is anticipated.
Chapter 5 makes an effort to assimilate the argumentations of integrity in
contractarian perspective in Chapter 2 and 3, and the insights learned from Chapter 4
to bring up a contractarian view to leader integrity. Integrity asks for consistency
while social contracts imply change. By further expanding the notion of contractarians
and by introducing “a revisit” to the school of human relations (cf. Homans, 1950;
Roethlisberger, 1966), this research facilitates a resolution for leaders in the struggle
to hold their integrity against the constant forces that tear their integrity.
Chapter 6 first concludes this research with practical implications for leaders
4
with knowledge of integrity and then outlines possible direction for future research
such as research on different levels of analysis, on the steadfastness of a leader’s
belief in relative to one’s words and deeds, or on the temporal aspect of a leader’s
actions sequences.
INTEGRITY
2.1 Issues in Integrity Research
Elusiveness
“Integrity is like the weather: everybody talks about it but nobody knows what to
do about it. (Carter, 1996, p. 181).” Erhard, Jensen, and Zaffron (2010) consider the
four words (and four phenomena): integrity, morality, ethics, and legality are all
entangled together and are creating confusion and thus their efficacy and potential
power of them is diminished.
Contradictions
Worden (2003) believes that tension builds up while a leader with a vision but
facing difficult realities in planning and this tension can destroy a leader’s credibility
if not being carefully dealt with. Integrity can be the glue to this vision-strategy
pressures and thus a sustainable competitive advantage could be obtained. That is, any
moral decision a leader makes should be able to withstand adversity and challenges. A
leader needs to be consistent in the face of adversity, whereas a leader also needs to be
adaptive to be contingent to the environment. This controversy, if not been resolved, a
definition to integrity is unobtainable.
Morality Concerns
The problem of “morality or no morality” in integrity is an issue. An episode in
Simons’ (2007) book, The Integrity Dividend: Leading by the Power of Your Word,
reveals the controversy that a person is being hated yet the author has to admit he is a
person with consistency—he always does what he says, no matter what sort of things
he has been doing. The same issue is found when Koehn (2005) frankly stated that
“Integrity is often described as personal consistency. Yet we can be consistently
wicked, and nobody thinks that the wicked are people of integrity (p. 126).”
Confusions of Domains
In essence, there are three partitions for a person to action. Belief can carry other
names like thought and idea, word as say, talk, or voice, and action as act, deed, or
doing. However, most integrity research, although variables in which are certainly
5
clearly defined, fails to layout the whole picture of integrity domains. Specifically, the
confusions are not from each research per se but from the notions that integrity
researcher are not talking on the same ground. In essence, integrity research deals
largely with consistency, and this is where the confusion of domains is elevated. This
research maintains that only when these domains, namely, the relationship among
belief (B), word (W), and deed (D), and the temporal consideration (before and after)
are combined can the confusion of integrity research be clarified. Table 1
demonstrates the combinations.
before
after
Belief (B)
Word (W)
Deed (D)
Belief (B)
Word (W)
B—B
consistency
B—W sincerity, B—D
execution,
openness
implementation
W—B
convinced, W—W
hypnotized
consistency
D—B conditioned, D—W
shaken beliefs
cheating
Deed (D)
W—D
consistency
lying, D—D
consistency
Table 1: two-point temporal break-downs on combinations of integrity
6