83. Integrity is investigating suspected wrongdoing
When SPs ignore indications of violations of integrity on the part of others, they became part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. By tolerating such violations, they send out the message that they consider this acceptable, raising questions as to why. If you consider integrity important, it is inconsistent to tolerate behavior in conflict with it. For this reason SPs should tackle indications of misdemeanors appropriately, for example by conducting thorough investigations.
SPs are playing with fire if they ignore indications of violations of integrity by others. When we pick up on such indications we become part of the solution, confronting, denouncing, or dealing with the issue. However, there is a flipside to this positive opportunity, as failure to deal with these indications appropriately makes us part of the problem. By failing to tackle such indications you implicitly give the impression that you consent to the behavior or do not see it as problematic. For this reason it is essential always to take action in response to indications of transgressions.
The problem with tolerating integrity violations is not only that it communicates unacceptable standards, but also that you end up embroiled in the violation if it flares up. In the case of many infamous transgressions, it has emerged that those closest to the situation had already received indications but had done little or nothing with them. In this way bystanders run the risk of becoming objects of criticism and investigation: should these bystanders not have intervened, announced the transgression, and taken measures to avoid repetition? They particularly run risks if people look into the causes of passivity: did they tolerate the situation because they themselves had done the same, are they in cahoots with the culprit, do they have any sense of responsibility at all, or are they incapable of addressing and tackling transgressions?
The principle that always applies here is that if you consider integrity important you must not only act accordingly but also confront and where possible correct those who do not. After all, integrity is not a matter of taste, where others have the right to feel and act differently. If we see integrity as important, we cannot tolerate others infringing it. Many integrity codes and regulations even state that SPs have a duty to confront offenders and if necessary to report the transgression to the competent authorities. The more serious the misdeed, the greater the chance of repetition, the closer the proximity of transgressor and transgression, the less witnesses there are, and the more the SP is professionally responsible for the transgressor or for tracing the transgression, the greater this duty, and with it the negative impact on personal integrity if you tolerate transgressions.
In deciding what to do with indications of wrongdoing, we should ask ourselves how reliable they are. Indications can be diffuse and contradictory. They can also come from the wrong intentions. A possible first step is therefore to investigate the reliability of the indications. After or instead of investigating, the suspected offenders can be confronted with the indications, asking whether there is more to the issue that could threaten integrity and confidence. For example, when a party chair heard that a fellow party member visited prostitutes he immediately wanted to know whether there was more to the case that might put further pressure on his political work.467
So when it comes to violations of integrity the question is whether it is necessary to investigate the facts further. Investigating shows that you take the indications seriously and take responsibility, that you consider integrity and the suspected infringements of it important, and that you are determined to take measures in the case of transgressions. By conducting or commissioning an investigation you take control (preventing others investigating with the wrong intentions) and allow the facts to speak for themselves (preventing incorrect impressions from damaging an image of integrity or indeed from preserving the illusion of it).
The more serious the indications, the more serious the suspected transgressions, and the greater the number of transgressors, the more important it is to formalize the investigation and to have it carried out by the competent authority.468 This is not only a question of the time needed, but also of independence (keeping one’s own hands free and avoiding the impression of wanting to remain out of range), expertise (a good investigation requires specialized skills, techniques, and knowledge), and proportionality (the greater the possible problem, the more serious the investigation).469 Such an investigation can be carried out by existing authorities within an organization, by setting up a committee, or by an external agency. A competent authority can be called in to carry out an investigation as quickly as possible (because operations are impeded until an investigation is complete and the air is cleared), or to buy time (to divert attention, get other things done first, and think through a good response).
Before ordering an investigation it is important to clearly delimit its scope to prevent it from expanding to unmanageable proportions (as there may have been a chain of transgressions). It is also important only to embark on