Integrity

Integrity remains a buzzword in ethics and leadership research. Many professionals take its meaning for granted. Integrity is usually associated with the vision of wholeness when professionals find themselves in a state of harmony with the surrounding reality and have everything needed to support their promises with their respective deeds. However, when integrity is considered, what type of behaviors should be taken as a measure of compliance? Can a person who believes in evil and accompanies his/her beliefs with actions be regarded as integral? These questions have definite answers. Integrity has nothing to do with relativism because ethical and moral norms are the same for everyone. As a result, integrity can and should be defined as the person's uncompromised commitment to the values of morality, ethics, fairness, honesty, and justice in all life situations.

Numerous definitions of integrity have been provided. According to Simons, integrity is defined as a perceived alignment between one's words and deeds. In other words, a person is integral, when he/she adheres to a psychological contract and fulfills his/her promises, as well as fully complies with the promised decisions and principles of action. The concept of integrity is particularly important in the organizational environment, where the word-deeds association predetermines the degree of trust between managers and employees. Most employees expect that the words shared by the manager will eventually turn into action. This is why integrity in organizational settings is closely associated with trust.

However, trust is not the only construct growing from the concept of integrity. Credibility is another aspect of integrity when one person assesses the extent to which the words and promises of another person are believable and reliable. Credibility also defines the degree, to which managers can impact their employees through the words and messages they communicate, both verbally and in writing. Finally, the concept of integrity is closely related to a psychological contract, because they are associated with perceived promises and expectations. However, the discussed definition raises several questions.

Basically, by defining integrity in terms of the words-deeds association, professionals fail to acknowledge the diversity of words, expectations, and promises. One of the fundamental things to remember concerning integrity is that it can be very relative and confusing. The proposed definition does not specify which norms, expectations, and standards a person should follow, to be considered as integral. As a result, it should be expanded to delineate the principles and actions of an integral personality. Therefore, it is possible to define integrity as the person's uncompromised commitment to the values of morality, ethics, fairness, honesty, and justice in all situations. Integrity means saying and doing ethical things. According to Killinger, integrity means that the person is socially responsible and other-directed. Integrity is impossible without the willpower and self-discipline needed to resist the temptation for egoism and deception. Integrity entails the ability to make decisions by the prescribed moral and ethical norms and translate them into action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

About the author: Sandra King is an independent author at https://topdissertations.com writing dissertations, articles, and term papers. Has 9 years of experience. Her service provides assistance in writing dissertations, term papers, essays of various types, personalized poetry, and more. In addition, you can find more information on how to write dissertations and term papers. In addition to writing, she enjoys traveling with family and friends, reading fiction, and attending theater performances.