73. Integrity becomes more difficult to improve over time in office
The longer SPs hold office the harder it becomes to make improvements in personal integrity, because the longer people do something the harder it is to change and the more readily others disapprove of the change.This does not mean that improvement is impossible. Nevertheless it is best for SPs to use their initial period of office to establish a desirable standard of integrity.
The previous chapter taught us that loss of integrity on a slippery slope is difficult to stop. The gradual loss can occur subconsciously, so that people do not feel the need to do anything to prevent it. Gradual loss may also happen consciously, if people are trapped and cannot find a way back, instead being forced to make greater and greater mistakes. Stopping the decline in integrity, never mind improving on it, also becomes harder the longer people remain in office. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, the longer we do something the more difficult it becomes to change, as it becomes second nature. Changing how we do things feels unnatural, and in that respect lacking integrity. This is because the more often you do something, the more it becomes ingrained and rooted, demanding more effort to break the habit and make a new one. Behavioral change becomes more difficult in higher, more important positions, because people in such positions have functioned in a particular way for longer. Such jobs are often preceded by other periods in office, in which the behavior that needs changing has become ingrained and brought success, or at least has not proved a hindrance to an official’s career.
Secondly, the longer someone holds office the harder it becomes to change because the longer people exhibit particular behavior the more it becomes part of the image others hold of the position, so that change is seen as inconsistent. SPs’ behavior in office sets the standard they will apply. The longer they behave a certain way, the more the standard is propagated and the more it confirms the views of others. The longer people have exhibited the old behavior, the more inconsistent any change or new standards will seem, and the more they will appear to lack integrity. This image holds SPs back from change, because others will respond critically, remind them of their old behavior, and be less cooperative. This is visible, for example, when SPs suddenly make noble decisions shortly before the end of their terms of office. Despite the fact that the decisions are praiseworthy, they come across as inconsistent with previous decisions, raising the question of why somebody is suddenly behaving in this way. Are they trying to make up for something (and if so what), or do they now feel less obligated to behave in a certain way (and if so, what obligations did they feel they had)?
Fortunately this does not mean that substantial improvements in integrity are impossible. People can repent and decide to do things very differently. In chapter 27 we saw how US president Chester Arthur completely revised his appointment system for officials after the murder of his predecessor. Other SPs decided to apply for different SP positions after particular incidents opened their eyes. Others felt called to make more effort for social problems after reading shocking figures, or to change the way they worked after whistle-blowers exposed them. People can opt for gradual improvement. This, however, demands a great deal of persistence and determination because it takes a long time to achieve improvement. It is therefore easier to look for a clear reason for change, such as a crisis or intervention from outside, to introduce fundamental changes all at once. If SPs communicate this way with others, they create the expectations and pressure to achieve change.
The implication of all this is that SPs should take the opportunity to establish the desired standard of integrity in their initial period of office. Personal integrity is established in the early phases in office, so this is an important time for setting your agenda in terms of ideals, ambitions, and core values, as well as principles and standards. SPs who turn up on their first day and put their shoes outside the door in the expectation that they will be cleaned set a different impression than those who call their staff together and ask them always to be open and honest.
In t