30. Integrity is threatened by ambition:
the greater the ambition the greater the threat
As their ambition increases, SPs run more integrity risks, such as (1) decline in the quality of their decisions, (2) less effective execution of those decisions, (3) less coherence between decisions, and (4) an increase in bad decisions. SPs must therefore have realistic ambitions.
It is good to have ideals, and all the better to stand up for them, but SPs should avoid overreaching themselves. Having too many ambitions, even with the best of intentions, brings various risks to integrity.
Firstly, having many ambitions risks lowering the quality of decision making because SPs have insufficient time to assimilate preparatory information, weigh up options, and think through the consequences. The multitude of ambitions and decisions to be made could lead SPs to miss things or make suboptimal or downright bad decisions. A large number of ambitions also makes an easy target for critics: an SP has invited mistakes by trying to do too much at once. Mistakes show that SPs have bitten off more than they could chew, forming the basis for a lack of integrity: they stand to be accused of setting out too hastily, not knowing their limits, and taking on too much.
A second risk is making good decisions but giving too little attention to carrying them out and checking them, instead leaving a trail of half-measures and incomplete actions, which will subsequently be seen as failures. This can quickly damage integrity, because culpability resides in a lack of persistence, commitment, and discipline. There is a gap between what you want and what you achieve, or an inconsistency between good decisions and bad execution.
A third risk of big ambitions is that the many decisions, proposals, and plans lack cohesion, either in appearance or in fact. Integrity, after all, means unity, coherence, and cohesion. The absence of cohesion or a clear line means easy pickings for the critics. You can expect accusations such as “lack of focus”, “scattergun policy”, “lack of vision”, “unclear course”, “like a headless chicken”, and “disjointed”.
Finally, because you want so much and are so busy, you risk becoming impatient and making inappropriate decisions. An assistant of John F. Kennedy once said, “Everybody believes in democracy until he gets to the White House and then you begin to believe in dictatorship, because it’s so hard to get things done.”147 Dictatorship is a risk because you want to achieve targets and democratic processes slow things down, forming a hindrance, or even, in your own eyes, leading to bad decisions. You risk becoming insistent and domineering, because you think you have no time to lose. It was with good reason that top official John Dean gave his book about the Watergate scandal the title Blind Ambition.148
In short, it is a case of taking care to ensure that in their enthusiasm to run, SPs do not run down a blind alley. It is important to have realistic, feasible ambitions. It is equally important to be able to decide to take fewer good decisions rather than more half-good decisions and to ensure that good decisions are carried through properly. At the same time SPs should realize that democratic decision-making processes simply take time and that one should respect that, because such processes embody a precious value and do justice to those involved. Creating support for decisions also takes time, and that time can only be spent once.