25. Integrity is others expecting from you what you expect from them
Whatever integrity SPs expect of others they must first apply to themselves for consistency’s sake. SPs should therefore make sure they fulfill expectations before imposing integrity on others. However, this does not mean that SPs need to be squeaky clean. It is also a question of the way they impose integrity on others.
SPs are seen as hypocrites if they apply double standards, for instance expecting higher morals of others than of themselves. Integrity in the sense of consistency should be a standard. After all, in order to be consistent, SPs must apply their moral expectations of others to themselves. More importantly, SPs’ moral expectations of others must first and foremost be applied to themselves. We cannot expect a given standard of others until we apply it to ourselves. To do otherwise would be inconsistent. In other words, whatever SPs expect of others, others should be able to expect of SPs.
A congressman had to abandon his hopes of re-election after he was caught driving under the influence. The fact that he had pressed for stricter regulation against drunk driving in congress weighed against him. The member was seen as a hypocrite because he argued for stricter rules while acting in contradiction to the rules. By arguing for stricter standards he directly raised the standard on the basis of which others could reasonably judge him. This discrepancy damaged his credibility. In any case, his behavior was interpreted in this way. As an SP he had failed to stand up for what he argued for, or to align his behavior with it.
The notion of integrity as consistency also applies when it comes to enforcing standards. When someone confronts, corrects, or sanctions others over a violation of a standard, this implies that they consider this standard important. Otherwise they would not take the trouble to confront others about it. It is therefore hypocritical and implausible if people consider the standard important for others and not for themselves. Enforcement of standards creates the expectation that one will comply with the norms one imposes on others. This makes SPs vulnerable, giving others the arguments to go in search of possible hypocrisy. Once found, this hypocrisy undermines not only the credibility of the enforcer, but also the effectiveness of the enforcement. This makes it a proven defense tactic for those who are checked and confronted: to move the spotlight from those who are subject to enforcement to the enforcers themselves.
However, it is not only those who are called to account who use the morality imposed on them to turn the tables. Others who see SPs imposing morals may confront them about it. For instance, several politicians who fiercely criticized US president Bill Clinton for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, subsequently had to quit when it emerged that they too had had illicit sexual encounters.126 Similarly the party leader who accused his opponent of prevarication and dishonesty during an election campaign later paid dearly after the elections when party opinion poll ratings dropped substantially because the party had not consistently kept its election pledges, having previously held up consistency as an important value. The president who called a fellow party member a little penny pincher for having work on his house paid by the government, later became known as a big penny pincher when it transpired that he had acted to the advantage of his own company and those of his friends. The moral he had imposed on others came right back at him.
It is not only specific standards that SPs impose on others that lead to expectations of consistency. The virtues SPs preach to others are also projected back onto them. For instance, SPs who frequently criticize others, implying the importance of giving and receiving criticism, invite others to criticize them in return. This can come back at them like a boomerang. A secretary of state for education had to step down soon after taking office when it emerged that he had carried out private work on university writing paper as a professor. He was specifically criticized because shortly before he was appointed secretary of state, he had been very critical of national politics. Anyone who is so critical can expect others to be critical in return. That is only consistent. Australian prime minister Tony Abbott met with the same mechanism when he was accused of not complying with his election pledges, having previously made the same criticism of his political opponents.127
Preaching virtues and standards to others brings with it the risk to integrity of setting oneself up for a fall, so SPs should take measures to avoid such risks. This does not necessarily mean that SPs need to be squeaky clean with respect to the morals they impose on others. It is primarily a question of the way in which the moral is imposed. If this is done from a position of moral supremacy, it increases the likelihood of a subsequent fall. If it is done with appropriate care and an eye for one