93. Integrity is revealed in the design of an organization
The integrity of an organization SPs belong to is important for assessing their integrity. In order for SPs to avoid being held responsible for insufficient integrity within their organizations, they should (1) create an environment that encourages good behavior in those they manage and discourages behavior lacking integrity, (2) supervise the integrity of behavior, and (3) effectively intervene when there are indications of inappropriate behavior.
SPs might think that as long as they act with integrity themselves they do not need to worry any further. However, this is an erroneous assumption. SPs’ own behavior and personality are not the only things that affect their integrity. The integrity of an organization that SPs belong to is also important for assessing their integrity. SPs have had to resign, not because they themselves have acted without integrity, but because the organizations they belong to have fallen short. A mayor had to resign when it emerged that an official had committed fraud, a minister resigned when it emerged that his officials had breached many procedures (detainees were tortured, humiliated, and raped), the chairman of the board of a party resigned when it emerged that one of the board members had received bribes, and a prime minister dissolved parliament when it became known that officials had eavesdropped on politicians and citizens for decades.533 A lack of integrity on the part of others can negatively affect an individual’s integrity and may have far-reaching consequences. What is the basis of this?
There are SPs who want to see their officials and employees as having integrity. “I assume that officials act with integrity and loyalty,” said one minister.534 This is a good assumption, as seeing others as opportunists, egoists, or even criminals is no basis for trust, collaboration, and delegation of work. However, this trust should not be allowed to stretch to naivety or passivity. Even if others have integrity, their behavior is in part determined by the environment in which they operate. The environment can put great pressure on them to abandon their integrity, or it can reveal great temptations, causing them to succumb.
This is the starting point for holding SPs responsible for the behavior of others. When they take insufficient action to create an environment in which others are encouraged to act with integrity and protected from inappropriate behavior. The term “insufficient” indicates that there is potential for improvement in encouragement and protection. This particularly applies to SPs who manage or have ultimate responsibility for an organization lacking in integrity. They have the power to prevent the problem, but fail to use it, or to apply it sufficiently, or if they lack this power, that is just as bad, because this is a sign of weakness and unsuitability when it comes to integrity. SPs should therefore ask themselves what inappropriate behavior on the part of others can affect them as SPs and what can reasonably be done to prevent it.
In addition to this preventive responsibility, there is also a responsibility for detection. Even if SPs do their utmost to avoid inappropriate behavior, it can still occur. If SPs close their eyes to this, they will be seen as naïve or negligent. For this reason SPs should ensure that they oversee the behavior of others that might affect their own integrity. This means, for example, making inquiries, checks,, and inspections, as well as taking sufficient action when inappropriate behavior is found, as discussed earlier in this book. This is an SP’s responsibility for prevention. For example, a mayor was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment because his officials had set up an “embezzlement machine” swindling $23.5 million while the mayor, according to the court, had been “aware of the whole plan but had stayed on the sidelines, feigning ignorance”.535
We have seen that SPs’ integrity is revealed in the way they create an environment in which others are encouraged to behave well and protected from behavior lacking integrity, and in which bad behavior is observed and tackled. This is something that SPs create through more than just rules and measures. The culture they create is also important. Is there space to discuss integrity dilemmas, for example? Can people confront one another about inappropriate behavior? Is good behavior valued?
In short, the more power SPs have over others, the more responsibility they have for the integrity of others. This is not limited to the negative aspect of damage to their integrity from the bad behavior of others. The positive side is that when others behave with integrity