12. Integrity carries over from one situation to another
Since integrity is an overarching, integrating mechanism, it can carry over from one situation to another. Integrity can be carried through to different roles, tasks, and positions, especially when situations are comparable, so it is an illusion to think that integrity can be compartmentalized.
On the one hand with integrity we look for patterns, cohesion, and consistency of behavior. What does an action say about a person’s integrity and to what extent is it a rule or an exception? On the other hand we assume that there are patterns, cohesion, and consistency in people’s behavior. After all, an action in a particular situation is often carried through to similar situations and even to different ones.
Because integrity is an overarching, integrating, and regulatory mechanism, as discussed in chapter 9, it is a mechanism that ensures connection between situations, tasks, functions, and roles. Without that mechanism people would be unintegrated, purely the sum of their actions, duties, jobs, and roles. This mechanism comes into play when we recognize that SPs are more than officials, that they are also people. How does this work?
When someone lies the lie itself is not the only problem. The perpetrator can apologize and repair or compensate any damage. The fact that they lied, however, raises the question of character, and the less this is down to circumstances, as we saw in chapter 10, the more the answer relates to individual character. The more it relates to character, the more it says not only about who someone is, but also about who they will be, as character is more difficult to change than behavior because character is more about the person, more connected with them, and more deeply embedded. A person’s current character therefore speaks volumes about how they will be in the future and what behavior to expect. This is the defining principle of trustworthiness. People are trustworthy if they seem likely to fulfill expectations in the future. This expectation is based on the idea that character remains constant. With people who always fulfill their promises, there is an increasing expectation that they will continue to do so in the future, for example because they are punctual and loyal. We then extrapolate that the same character will persist in the future.
This applies not only to the future but also to different situations. In the case of false expenses claims blamed on sloppiness, this raises the question of what additional sloppy claims have been submitted, but also of whether the culprit is sloppy in other respects. If they are sloppy with expenses, this may not automatically mean that they are sloppy in other situations, such as policy making or treatment of others, but it increases the likelihood. Similarly people who negotiate boldly on behalf of their party on coalition agreements seem likely to behave boldly in similar situations, such as negotiations within the party, as well as different situations, such as dealing with criticism and resisting political pressure. We apply the quality to different situations because we assume that there is integrity, however minimally, ensuring consistency between situations as a second-order virtue.
The more similar the situations, the better and the more easily the same quality can be applied. A person who is careless with expenses claims is more likely to be careless with other financial matters than in treatment of others, or may be more careless about conflicts of interest than matters relating strictly to their position. For that reason qualities from one situation cannot be directly applied to another.76 That would mean there was no individual choice, because future behavior would be completely decided by the past.
Despite the fact that qualities from one situation cannot be directly assumed in another, it is an illusion to think that integrity can be compartmentalized, partitioning off situations, tasks, jobs, and roles. The fact that behavior carries over to different situations underlines the importance of behaving with integrity: integrity says something not only about the current situation but also about the future, and not only about similar situations but also about different ones. For that reason it is a good idea when making decisions to think not only about what they mean for the current situation or position, but also what it means in other cases. For example SPs who boldly put a knife to the throat of another party may be doing their own party a good turn, but colleagues may well wonder whether they will suffer the same treatment.