Just after listening to the great gurus at the Expomanagement'2004 in Madrid, I have encouraged myself to write new paragraphs on integrity: I believe that this strength is one of the keys to advance on the path that has been preached to us. Covey, Teerlink, Maguire, Senge, Bedbury, Trias de Bes, Rovira, Peters…; Almost all the lecturers spoke of the emotional activation of people, recording the validity of this formula. It must be admitted that the lack of integrity constitutes a brake, among others, for the necessary mutual trust in organizations, and, in general, for motivation, initiative, commitment and the rest of edifying emotions. If the reader accepts it, we will review the differences between the fresh air of integrity and the stale air of corruption: two atmospheres with very different effects.
It should be started by insisting that integrity –as Carter explains– requires distinguishing between what one thoughtfully considers fair / correct and what one considers incorrect / iniquitous, and then choosing the former, even if it involves some personal cost; which also requires maintaining that election, even under adverse conditions and in the face of possible pressure or temptation.
Of course, we can think of things like, for example, that a dictator can be perfectly upright, and a president of a democratic government can be corrupt; and that we can see fundamentalism as a condemnable excess of integrity. Let us already emphasize the importance of distinguishing well between good and bad, and, when in doubt, between the common and the private good.
But it should also be remembered that corruption can be understood from the clearly greedy to the merely negligent.
Placing ourselves already in the world of the company, and in its declarations of values, we would also have to limit integrity.
It seems to be betting on solid integrity, compatible with open-mindedness and inexcusable good judgment; for an integrity conscious of reality, adapted to it and oriented to the common good; for an integrity that nurtures self-esteem and prestige; for a catalytic integrity of trusting relationships; for an integrity so far removed from fundamentalism as from corruptibility; for a powerful and patent integrity, flexible but unbreakable.
For an integrity of all. For total integrity. "Without integrity, motivation is dangerous": says Dee Hock, founder of VISA.
But we would also have to define corruption better, starting by admitting a no-man's-land between it and integrity.
Starting from high corruption (fraud, fraud, extortion, accounting tricks, bribery…), the concept would also include economic corruption of a lesser dimension, interested complicity, the preeminence of personal interests, irresponsibility, loafing, the deterioration of good uses and customs…; so that when we simply comply with the rules and laws, we would already enter the intermediate zone between corruption and integrity, where we would also locate corruptibility. Does the reader see it that way?
In a first article of mine (published in Training & Development Digest and later on various Internet portals), we already agreed that a person of integrity –which is a person of integrity even if they do not see them– is a person of principle, of word, of trust, incorruptible, who acts in conscience, who calls bread bread and wine wine, who does not shirk his responsibility. Also attending to the etymology, an upright individual would be a whole person, solid, without cracks in its principles and values, coherent, consistent, compact.
In other words, we added, without integrity, we are not properly complete as human beings; although there will be no shortage of people who think that being human is precisely succumbing to temptations…
Integrity seems precisely to integrate a noble family of virtuous attributes or strengths of character: honesty, temperance, authenticity, courage, justice, responsibility, loyalty, self-discipline, commitment, perseverance, altruism… We also said that Goleman, in Working with emotional intelligence, holds that people of integrity:
- They act ethically and flawlessly. They are honest and sincere, so they earn the trust of their environment. They admit their mistakes or mistakes. They do not hesitate to point out the unethical actions of others. They take positions founded on their principles, even if they are unpopular. They keep their word. They are also characterized by responsibility and professionalism.
Non-ethical conduct
If the analogy is accepted, some companies remind us of dictatorships, because in them there is no freedom of the press, and nobody can, in their hypothetical case, criticize those senior executives who, perhaps protected by their powers of attorney received from the principal, do display of immorality through conduct, often unpunished, such as those listed in the following list.
We trust that no executive gathers so much disorder outside of fictional stories, although we do not rule out that there is, somewhere, who exceeds it and even receives, for example, a commission from the lessor of the company's offices.
Some worst practices of executives and managers who are not upright:
- Use the company for personal business. Receive commissions from service providers contracted for this purpose. Financially and psychologically punish employees who retain
Independence of criteria.
- Practice sexual harassment, taking advantage of the position of power. Benefit friends or family, in charge of the company. Distribute privileges among employees, capriciously or under spurious
Personal interests.
- Make lies and cynicism common communication tools. Prefer tranquility to truth and punish messengers. Taking petulance or narcissism to extremes, with the danger of scaring even customers. Publicly humiliate subordinates and disqualify those who are absent. Use company funds and resources for private purposes. Lying to the market in reports, press releases, etc. Assign unjustified monetary supplements. Exceeding the trips and making them for private purposes. Practice accounting tricks, to avoid taxes or other perverse purposes.
To specify something else and inspired by information that appeared, imagine that the CEO of a business group sells one of the group's companies in particularly good condition and then, two years later, appears as the owner of it…
Imagine that the director of a department of a large company has a budget of several million euros to purchase certain products on the market, that he shows off it in the media, that he calls a meeting with a few selected suppliers, that at the same time makes statements saying that he is not in favor of an excellent quality of those products…
Imagine that a CEO runs an intense press campaign saying, among other things, that his sales will multiply by 4 in two years, although then, in reality, his sales decrease and he registers big losses…
Imagine that a soft drink manufacturer declares that the important thing is not the quality of the product but the thirst of the consumers. Well this, rather than being suspected of corruption, seems to indicate…
Imagine that a senior manager of a large company, aware of the resonance of his position, joins the Boards of Directors of various professional associations, in which he performs relevant roles; It must be assumed that he will continue to attend to his function in the large company, from which he receives a high salary, but…
Imagine that a CEO signs continuous collaboration agreements with other companies, with resonance in the market but without really sharing projects… Remember, if the news was well founded, the conditions in which John Welch retired after being an exemplary leader… Remember how Pierre Suard came out of Alcatel…
If there is a majority of the population of the company that interprets these behaviors equally, perhaps it is correct; but the fact is that, whether it is or not, the environment becomes rarefied and positive emotions are inhibited, when people contemplate doubtful and unexplained practices in their controls.
The witness's dilemma
The question is: what should his upright subordinates do, in front of an executive, perhaps a CEO, who meets some of the behaviors from the previous list, contrary to the postulated integrity and exemplaryness? Maybe some of the following:
A) Being corruptible and trying to obtain personal benefit from the situation.
B) Close eyes, ears and mouth, in benefit of the status achieved, and be politically correct.
C) Nothing… But heck, if this is the most normal thing in the world… and it can't be proven.
D) Deceive yourself thinking that integrity consists in submitting loyally and blindly to established authority.
E) Find another job and, meanwhile, hold out with a certain dignity.
F) Respectfully warn the corrupt of the impact of their actions, and emotionally distance themselves from him (or her)… Although, well thought out, it is not recommended.
G) Noting its position contrary to corruption, lack of skill, injustice or falsehood.
H) Inform, if the opportunity and the means arise, to the owners or top managers of the company, unless complicity is suspected.
I) Organize a demonstration.
J) _______________________________________
K) _________________________________________
The reader will have his own answer, J or K, but these that we have improvised try to represent, without being sure of the order, different degrees of integrity; It seems to us that answer E would already deserve approval, and we would only seek a note in favorable circumstances (outcry or scandal of the situation, clearly injured, etc.) or enjoying certain protection.
But, in your case, the fact of staying in the approved one as the best personal option should not hide the existence of more comprehensive alternatives.
Renunciation of these does not necessarily imply a lack of courage and integrity, but living with corruption for a long time can affect the health of the whole, even somatization.
In any case, we should be aware of how far our integrity (or our corruption) reaches, and if, specifically and where appropriate, it would contemplate the complaint or not.
It goes without saying that reporting falsely, or exaggerating the crime, or for spurious purposes, is highly disgusting, and that, in principle, we are all innocent; but, although it is also unnecessary, we do want to remember that the lack of evidence of corruption in the company (as in politics) does not necessarily imply innocence. And we also have to say that surely most of the top executives are honest; we are looking at those who are not because of the serious damage they do to the community.
In short, we wanted to reflect on the integrity of those who witness corruption, widely understood as a degeneration of principles and behaviors under the protection of the power that is administered, and even if there was no associated enrichment. It seems like a topic for debate.
If you read Seligman's latest book "Real Happiness", the author relates integrity to value, and formulates an example: "Report corrupt practices within the company or organization."
One thing was emotional distancing and expressing disagreement with certain behaviors before colleagues, and another was formal complaint through more or less established and reliable channels within the company, trusting that there were, as might be expected, complete instances above the presumed corrupt.
It seems to us that, in order to report in good faith the corruption of a hierarchical superior, with the aim of putting an end to it and avoiding harm to innocents (scapegoats), a manager or worker with integrity should be sure (moral certainty) that:
- there is truly serious corruption (economic or otherwise); the company has committed to integrity and ethics; he does not take great risks.
If we do not forget anything, and if the complainant cannot take it any longer, we would make sure of the three conditions before reporting a case, because the value should not be foolish.
But does the integrity foresee any step prior to the internal complaint? What is the best way to report? Let's see…
Don't give it too much thought: if the company wants to fight corruption, it will have anticipated and suggested the answers without forgetting to protect the witness; and if not, the complaint is not advisable and may be contraindicated.
If you doubt, and consider it genuine, consult your intuition; But move for integrity and don't get carried away by possible underlying, spurious or dubious purposes.
We all know that some of those who administer power within companies abuse it, but it can happen that higher levels tolerate it, or even inspire it. On the other hand, if the company made its fight against corruption too visible, it would appear that it distrusts its people and, probably, it would scare off customers.
These days, the press tells us about the torture of Iraqi prisoners, and it seems that the US authorities are more angry with the complainants than with the perpetrators and those responsible for the abominable, disgusting and execrable treatment of detainees.
Unfortunately, history offers us too many examples of similar abuses, even in the name of justice, law, order, religion, etc.
Let's wait and see what the case remains, but do not despise me for believing that the torture was known, and even inspired, by the commanders, as if the end justified the means. For the company, large or small, constitutes another environment in which power, although not physically, is exceeded with some frequency, and where a sad silence reigns, also at times.
It was only recently that people began to talk about mobbing, for example, for which perhaps Iñaki Piñuel, a man from the university world, should be especially grateful.
Corruption, a brake
Corruption is obviously a serious brake on the prosperity of the company, because the profit escapes, and, for example, there are often dismissals of people as scapegoats.
But, in parallel, corruption deactivates the positive emotional resources that the gurus allude to.
If the worker perceives corruption –this is almost always–, they will also be corrupted to some extent, their negative emotions and attitudes will appear –fear, shame, envy, frustration, indignation, disconnection… -, or they will look for cleaner air.
From corruption, you cannot ask for additional efforts, nor can you speak of a shared vision, or proactivity, or high performance, or trust, or loyalty, or pride of belonging, or commitment, or teamwork., neither leadership, nor synergies, nor customer orientation…; what happens is that the corrupt is also habitually cynical, and can talk about it all.
Integrity, an engine
Integrity, on the other hand and being equally contagious, strengthens the organization, nurtures the trust of customers, favors internal communication, contributes to the alignment of efforts…, but - above all and what we wanted to underline - unleashes and releases emotional energy what the gurus talk about (commitment, motivation, creativity, initiative…), and contributes to the results.
We have not known any case of shocking and lasting success that did not have a significant positive emotional charge associated with them, in some way participants in the business project and with a visible spirit of community.
They have spoken to us this time, at the Madrid Expomanagement, about Nike, FedEX, Starbucks, Harley-Davidson…, but in Spain we also have good examples in different sectors.
Integrity, which is oriented to the common good, favors win-win thinking over win-lose; and this is the mindset that leads to prosperity. (Have you already read "Good Luck / Keys to Prosperity", by Fernando Trías de Bes and Álex Rovira?).
Obviously, as everything is adulterated, a supplier and his client could divide the “extra” profits to the detriment of third parties, and think that they apply the win-win principle; but this would be, sooner or later, detected by the "third parties". The common good, in short, is a kind of insurance, almost all risk.
Final comment
We would leave the reflection or the analysis-synthesis for the reader who has reached this point, but we believe that the highly postulated emotional activation of people must overcome obstacles and have catalysts within the organization.
We also believe that the key in the collective choice between integrity and corruption lies with senior management and that it is worth recalling here that Peter Drucker is horrified by the greed of today's executives. It must horrify more people, but it seems more meaningful when Peter Drucker says it.
And let's also say that we have spoken more about integrity than about ethics because we see this as the accepted moral norm, while integrity seems to us something personal and more authentic.
Finally, I believe that you can be within the law and outside the ethics, and that you can be within the ethics and outside the law.
Anyway, this topic gives for more articles, if they do not take it as a threat. Thanks to the reader, and let's toast together business leaders of integrity, and more if they are correct in their strategies and tactics, lead to success and generate well-being.
We can all perform better and be happier at the same time. And do not think that I speak from integrity: when I worked at Alcatel-FYCSA, sometimes I took pens home for my daughters…
