Integrity along the Honor Continuum

Dr. Sharon L. Bender

April, 2007

How do we know whether we've got integrity?

I've had the misfortune to become acquainted with an individual who have used the term as though it were a rightful title. Over and over the word would appear, yet the bearer had no integrity to speak of. Using the term in association with one's self if no sign of rightful ownership.

I was once told by a boss that I had more integrity than anyone he knows. I was flattered, but I didn't really know what he meant. What had I done that gave him this high impression of me? Whatever it was it must have been something I did without noticing. Integrity seems to mean the quality in one's actions that centers on some framework of principles such as might be inherent in our core set of values. Acting with a level of responsibility and honor might be another way to define integrity. Consider that failure to have integrity may be an indication that a change in behavior is indicated.

Perhaps an individual with integrity is one with good character. Considering that to have integrity means to be trustworthy, perhaps this is the mark of a true leader. One cannot lead without trust, but this is only one parameter in the mash defining integrity. Others include that we are scrupulous, honest, and principled.

One indicator that you lack integrity is if you slander someone. This means making verbal statements that tend to injure someone in respect to their profession, trade, or business. This not only suggests a lack of integrity, but a sign that this individual possess other reprehensible personal characteristics as well. We all make ill-fated remarks about others and we do it on a regular basis, but what have we learned here about having integrity? Failure to have integrity is an indication that a change in behavior is indicated. Changing behavior can be difficult, but we may find our way to virtuous behavior by using a simple device that I invented, called Bender's Honor Continuum.

Honor Continuum

How do we reach a point of integrity? If having integrity means having a virtuous behavior, consider that we might use the "honor continuum" to arrive at this point of responsibility. My "Honor Continuum" model may help in better understanding the degree to which we are behaving virtuously. The continuum spans degrees of Virtuous behavior and Vicious behavior. According to Garrett (2005), "An act or choice is morally right if, in carrying out the act, one exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally virtuous character. It is morally wrong to the extent that by making the choice or doing the act one exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally vicious character." Bender's Honor Continuum acts like a gauge in which we are able to move along the continuum from one extreme to the other as we judge our own behavior and seek to make modifications along the way toward arriving at a virtuous character.

It is not being stated here that it is only moral or honorable to strive for purely virtuous character. Virtuous and vicious behaviors are the extremes. It is obvious that individuals, organizations, and communities would strive to be more virtuous than vicious, but what is not so obvious is the allowance and expectation that each will fall more toward the mean along the continuum and for good reason. Falling somewhere along the continuum will be determined by individual circumstances. According to Aristotle virtuous behavior is a middle ground, a location along the honor continuum between two vices. Aristotelian definition of virtuous behavior is that it is a disposition to act as the morally reasonable person would act, according to reason, and to feel emotions and desires appropriately.

The point being made is that oftentimes in arriving at virtuous character there can be no clearly defined right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious behavior along the honor continuum. Each individual must decide independently and without practicing a high degree of personal risk management in which direction to slide the gauge to arrive at virtuous character, achieving virtue ethics.

According to Garrett (2005), “Virtue ethics is an approach that deemphasizes rules, consequences, and particular acts and places the focus on the kind of person who is acting. The issue is not primarily whether an intention is right, though that is important; nor is it primarily whether one is following the correct rule; nor is it primarily whether the consequences of action are good, though these factors are not irrelevant. What is primary is whether the person acting is expressing good character (moral virtues) or not.” Our character is the totality of our character traits, which may be good, bad, or somewhere in between. Virtue ethics can be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action by relating the choice to admirable character traits. Virtue ethics can be used to praise or criticize institutions. Moral virtues are admirable character traits; generally desirable dispositions, which contribute, among other things, to social harmony; enabling us to act in accordance with reason or to feel appropriately and have the right intention.

“Another reason to pay attention to virtue ethics, which centers on character, is that often we are concerned with evaluating persons and their enduring moral characteristics (their character) rather than on a single action and how it relates to a rule or what sort results it produces. We are then not chiefly concerned with what rule one follows or what consequences you produce, but what kind of person you are, e.g. generous or stingy, courageous or cowardly, moderate or weak-willed or self-indulgent. Moreover, we often cannot evaluate an action unless we know something about the psychology of the person who is acting. But to understand motive it is helpful to know about character. Finally, one of the best ways to foster social cooperation and harmony is to promote and solidify the better sides of humanity. Rules by themselves may give guidelines, but they cannot make people good. Concern with consequences is important but without a reform of persons we are not likely to produce greater total satisfaction or more substantial freedom for people" (Garrett, 2005).

I previously titled this article, "Arriving at Virtuous Behavior Along the Honor Continuum," but I think there is perhaps greater value in utilizing the honor continuum in focusing on a means to arrive at integrity than mere virtuous behavior. Having virtuous behavior may be the best means to define the meaning of integrity. Consider applying the example here concerning slandering someone. Is that what we would want someone to do onto us? Is that the actions of a reasonable person? Is that reflecting the greater good of society?

Finally, is a change in behavior indicated to demonstrate integrity? Either you've got some or you don't. Look at what it means. Ask yourself if you are acting as a person who is scrupulous, honest, and principled. If not, the mend is to move from vicious to virtuous behavior along the honor continuum. Do you honestly think anyone will trust you if you are capable of vicious behavior? Do you really think of yourself as a leader, someone with true integrity? If you've got to tell the truth under oath, there is no way around it, and you surely must defend your own honor, but the optimum word here is "truth." Tell the truth, even when defending yourself. That is just being truthful to yourself. We have discovered here that truthfulness is a means to define integrity. If we exercise truthfulness to the best of our ability, then that may be all that anyone can ask of us. Sometimes we can be too truthful and someone may be hurt. Consider that the honor continuum enables levels of integrity to run the continuum between virtuous (honest) and vicious (dishonest) behavior, creating a device to gauge honorable behavior and our true level of integrity.

It is perhaps important to take a step back and examine our mistakes. We all make them, a lot of them, and sometimes the same ones over again. I personally think that we should give ourselves permission to grow from our mistakes and our failures. And we should try (sometimes its hard) to forgive the transgressions of others.

As featured in Quality Matters (1994), I was team leader of an important focus group that I constructed in order to produce a solution to my business unit's greatest issue revealed in an employee satisfaction survey. When my boss (the one who complemented my integrity) asked me if I would take on this issue, he explained that no one had yet come up with a means to resolve it. The point I'm getting to here is that, as I said in our company magazine, "We all make mistakes. What we need is to be heard with compassion and empathy." For more about my team and its simple solution, visit my article on Triangulation Thinking. This is the foundational device that I used for many years in planning, problem solving, and decision making, and it has never once failed me. In fact it was a contributory factor in my team's success. Aside from forgiving one's transgressions, we have to equally lead by example.

Integrity Triad

If you are still not sure what it means to have integrity consider my Integrity Triad, a device I developed to better understand a concept that seems to allude many people. This model brings into focus the major indicators for determining integrity, something I believe we need in order to motivate, educate, and delegate (MED) successfully. Three major indicators of one's integrity is revealing credibility, loyalty, and responsibility.

Credibility - honest and trustworthy behavior

Loyalty - keep promises, don't exploit others

Responsibility - accept blame for decisions

For someone to be credible, they must be believable. Consistency in deed is one way to accomplish believability. If we consistently take actions that are good deeds, we have credibility. For someone to show loyalty, they must take care to permit others to succeed in a win/win paradigm. For someone to have responsibility, they must not go around blaming others for their mistakes and failures.

I think I know now what caused my boss to tell me that he knew no one with more integrity than me. He placed a lot of trust in me for which I never let him down. That showed him I could be trusted. I had earned credibility. If I committed to a project, I came through. I kept my promises and If my boss confided something in me, I didn't repeat it. I revealed loyalty. If the outcome was that my attempt to accomplish a task failed, I accepted the blame showing I took responsibility.

So keep secrets, keep promises, and keep the blame (and avoid those who don't). Perhaps we should resurrect what our ancient mothers warned and that is "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all." In this instance silence is truly golden. How much you can stay silent can also be a gauge along the Honor Continuum. Likely few to none of us will fall perfectly on the virtuous side of the continuum, but the idea here is to strive for that and sometimes, perhaps most of the time, we will save ourselves and others from vicious behavior that can only harm us in the end.

Sources

Garrett, J. (2005). Virtue ethics: A basic introductory essay.  http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/virtthry.htm.

Jay, M. R. (2005). Motivation and ethics in leadership. Mark R. J. on Leadership. http://generati.typepad.com/mrj/leadership/index.html.

The Teal Trust (n.d.) Leading to integrity. http://www.teal.org.uk/dl/integrity.htm