13. Integrity is defined publicly as well as personally
Integrity is an objective, subjective, and intersubjective concept, so SPs’ integrity depends on the definitions of others, individually and collectively. SPs cannot simply define integrity for themselves; they must also know how others define it and how other definitions relate to their own.
As shown in the previous chapters, integrity consists of different elements. SPs behave with integrity in office if they act in agreement with rules and regulations, moral values and norms, showing ethical responsibility and pure motives. Integrity is not only a matter of behavior and motives, but also of character. SPs with integrity have a firm hold on a fully integrated range of virtues necessary to fulfill their roles.
The fact that there are different elements does not mean that they will all be used in practice in evaluating a person’s integrity. Integrity is both objective and subjective. Integrity is compositional. Which elements are included and the way this occurs is determined by the people concerned. How people judge an SP’s integrity depends on the definition they use. One person might pay more attention to behavior, another to motives, some to integrity as an independent quality in itself, others to integrity as an overarching virtue. In short, integrity depends on the definition others use.
Integrity is both subjectively and intersubjectively defined. Groups, organizations, parties, communities, and trends can have their own shared definitions. In the last century, for instance, integrity was largely defined in public sector policy in terms of incorruptibility. There was a great deal of emphasis on not doing what was not allowed, mainly relating to fraud and corruption. At the beginning of this century the emphasis shifted to the positive aspects of integrity. Integrity was seen more as professional responsibility, relating to doing good, although it was still seen as a single virtue. Integrity is now increasingly seen as the sum of qualities relevant to a position. Perhaps in the future the emphasis will shift to integrity as a personality trait that regulates the various qualities.
In a sense people are well within their rights to form different opinions on the definition of a concept. A significant advantage is that people then have to decide for themselves how they define integrity and can defend that definition. For SPs that means first deciding their own definition of integrity and then having the opportunity to explain it, with the understanding that others may define it differently. SPs must be aware of different definitions, because these are the criteria with which others will view, judge, and attach consequences to their integrity. Even if there are many objective arguments against subjective definitions, it is the subjective definitions that people use in practice.
A gap between public and personal definitions of integrity can exist in two ways. Firstly others may define integrity more broadly than the SP. For example, a mayor was accused of lacking integrity because he had failed to comply with a generally accepted norm (close private contact with various journalists), whereas the mayor stated in his defense that he had complied with the rules. By making integrity small, people run the risk of defining it too narrowly and suffering related accusations. Secondly, an SP may have a broader interpretation of integrity than others. In that case they may run the risk of being seen as pompous or radical. Both cases run the risk of miscommunication. A mayor who once stated that rewards should be introduced for integrity was misunderstood. He applied a broad definition of integrity, whereas his officials thought primarily in terms of not taking bribes, and therefore thought it strange that they should be rewarded for refusing bribes, because that implied that bribery would not be punished. The officials also thought the mayor was attempting to skirt around burning questions about bribery in their organization by avoiding mentioning it directly.
This is why it is important that SPs immerse themselves in the aspects by which integrity is defined. This starts when they apply for a job listing integrity as a requirement. Once in office, SPs must get to know how each new group they deal with defines integrity, and in the case of discrepancies, they should enter into dialogue and investigate whether a common, shared definition can be achieved, because once accused of breaches of integrity, it may well be too late.