Integrity

A closer examination

When selecting executives for the most senior positions in organizations, integrity is frequently mentioned as an essential requirement. But what do we mean and are we in agreement about how to measure it? I say no.

Starting at the beginning, Merriam-Webster defines integrity as “Firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values; incorruptibility.” The dictionary goes on to say, “Integrity implies trustworthiness and incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility or pledge.” Ok; but how do we measure that?

Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. In the movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, Uncle Billy inadvertently places the bank deposit in a newspaper he takes from the unscrupulous Henry Potter, who later finds the money and doesn’t return it. No one would say that Potter acted with integrity but what about Uncle Billy? He didn’t intend to lose the deposit, but it could be said that he was false to the trust that George Bailey had placed in him. Would we describe him as immoral and lacking in integrity? Most would not. He wasn’t corrupted; he was just careless. However, we wouldn’t blame George for not trusting him with another bank deposit.

Hogan Assessments, the leading personality profiler, measures integrity by a combination of traits that describe one’s reputation and social reliability (trustworthiness). Hogan argues that because we can’t directly access what an executive is thinking, we need to rely on how a person is likely to behave. The measures used to make this judgment are the extent to which the person can be trusted to do what they say they will do, follow the rules when not supervised, and avoid engaging in undesirable behaviors such as theft or making up false excuses for not fulfilling their obligations. The specific measures used are Low Prudence, which Hogan defines as being disorganized, undependable and non-conforming; Mischievous, which includes a tendency to test limits, take risky shortcuts or ignore rules; Bold, which is marked by overconfidence, ignoring feedback and overstepping boundaries; and Low Adjustment, which causes a person to experience high levels of anxiety under pressure. Based on a comparison to the entire population of people who have taken the assessment, Hogan recommends caution when the person’s integrity score is in the lowest quartile. But what about someone who scores in the 30th or 50th or even 80^th percentile? Are we comfortable with someone who demonstrates integrity “most of the time?”

Returning to It’s a Wonderful Life, Uncle Billy would appear to be disorganized and undependable but not non-conforming; he took a risky shortcut by stopping to have an argument with Potter but he wasn’t testing the limits or ignoring the rules; he didn’t evidence any of the characteristics of a person who is Bold; and he certainly goes on to demonstrate his Low Adjustment as he is grief stricken with anxiety. So, because he demonstrated some elements of low integrity but not others, would we describe him as unscrupulous, ill-intended, or dishonest? No. While we would have justifiable doubts about appointing him to a position of great responsibility, it would be because of his judgment, not his basic character. Do any of us have perfect judgment? Would most of us admit to making mistakes from which we have learned? Would Uncle Billy be more careful in the future if entrusted with another deposit? While he evidenced some behaviors associated with a lack of integrity, do we really think he’s a bad person? If he applied for a senior executive position in another organization, how much should a past mistake be held against him? His score on integrity on a Hogan assessment would be somewhere in the middle but how low would it need to be before we would reject him based on that score alone?

Of course, there are other means of assessing integrity, including:

• 360 ratings by former bosses, peers and subordinates

• Interviews with people who know the person, especially those using Top-Grading procedures developed by Dr. Bradford Smart that include a “Threat of Reference Check” or “TORC” in which candidates are told they will be asked to set up reference calls with their former managers as a truth motivator

• Background checks

• Simulations that place people into compromising positions to see how they react or asking candidates how they would respond to situations in which choices regarding the proper behaviors are not clear

Any of these methods can provide some insights and all used together can paint a fairly accurate picture of the person’s past behavior. But even with this information, what is the standard?

Uncle Billy is described by his former peers as well-meaning but absent-minded. He admits he made a mistake when told he would be asked to set up a reference check with his former boss, George Bailey; a background check provides information related to the bank almost going bankrupt due to the loss of the deposit by Uncle Billy; and in a simulation, Uncle Billy demonstrates that he has learned a lesson because he makes it clear that one person should never be entrusted to make a bank deposit on their own. Uncle Billy seems genuinely remorseful and not at all dishonest. Still, he doesn’t meet the highest standards of trustworthiness we seek in a candidate with integrity and would probably not be hired for the job as a result. Is this fair? Is it possible that we could end up hiring a candidate with much less integrity than Uncle Billy? Of course.

Truth be told, we aren’t able to accurately assess most of the personality attributes we say are crucial to the performance of an executive. We can see the extremes pretty clearly in most situations (Representative George Santos being the exception who proves the rule) but often find that even with a comprehensive effort, there is a lot of room for interpretation in the data we have collected.

What this means in practice is that during selection, it’s important for the body doing the choosing to spend some time defining what is meant by each of the key attributes that have been identified as critical to performance in the role. What behaviors are minimally acceptable, and which are causes for elimination? What scores on the Hogan or taken from a 360 determine the cutoff below which we should not go? What evidence of having learned the error of one’s ways should be accepted as proof that the person will not repeat the behavior in the future?

Even with the best assessment methods currently at our disposal, too many executives are losing their positions and damaging the brand of their companies because of their inappropriate behaviors. It may be that the seeds of unethical behavior didn’t sprout until finding conditions to grow in a powerful new position. We can never predict someone’s future behavior perfectly. However, we should at least try to avoid entrusting a well-meaning but absent-minded family member with the future of the company.