Ethical Integrity

Ethical Integrity

Introduction

Integrity is defined in two spheres: the physical and the moral. Its physical meaning is derived from the Latin integritas and the concept of integer or whole number. It is the physical state of completeness, of undivided wholeness. In the moral realm (Jacobs, 2004), integrity is defined as an unimpaired moral state, characterized by incorruptibility, innocence, honesty, and sincerity.

The two senses of integrity meet in the world of organizations. An organization is both a collection of individuals and a “thing” separate from its members. Whether integrity is conceived as a virtue of individuals or as an attribute of an organizational system, it implies an uncompromised whole.

Discussion

In the light of my reading I will say that scholars and practitioners have long sought to fashion a concise definition of integrity to guide action in their areas of concern. Contemporary business scandals have stimulated many efforts to develop a conception of integrity that would clarify the moral dilemmas in this context (Jacobs, 2004). It may be that the physical meaning of integrity reassures business practitioners that there is a comprehensible and achievable standard of morally appropriate behavior that can resolve unpleasant and painful uncertainties.

The notion of wholeness at the heart of integrity suggests its ethical meaning. An individual with integrity might be one who is morally consistent, who applies ethical rules in diverse contexts without partitions based on conditions. In doing so, he or she is whole and uncorrupted (Jacobs, 2004), not swayed by momentary passions or situations to abandon fundamental commitments. One may face conflicts among values but resolves them by appeal to more fundamental values. Harry Frankfurt's “fully integrated self” appears compatible with this notion of integrity.

The fully integrated self poses a problem in that it does not distinguish between the character of the commitments one pursues with consistency. On the other hand, Scott Peck's description of individuals fully experiencing the tug of conflicting interests, needs, and demands and seeking a sustainable balance suggests a conscientiousness and discipline that is in keeping with popular notions of integrity. In this view, integrity requires a conscious reconciliation of disparate concerns through nuanced and principled judgments.

Alternatively, integrity might be defined with respect to commitments so powerful that they are critical to one's identity. Bernard Williams calls these identity-conferring, and others call them ground projects. Integrity so interpreted is sharply distinguished from virtue, which incorporates judgments as to intentions (Petrick and Quinn, 2000). In fact, identity-conferring commitments may entail actions and beliefs that are widely condemned as immoral, as long as they are constitutive of identity. Authenticity is central, not the actual content of commitment and behaviors.

Some scholars have followed Aristotle's lead and considered integrity in the larger context of virtues. This would imply that integrity represents a means or balance between extremes. Robert C. Solomon, for example, has proposed a business ethics founded on a conception of integrity as a social virtue. Following Aristotle, Solomon defines virtue as a revealed disposition to act morally. Integrity constitutes a balance between institutional loyalty and ...