Leading with Integrity Definitions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Leading with Integrity FT MBA ‘17, Bus 691 Fall 2016 Prof. Peter Topping DOES INTEGRITY MATTER? Recognize these individuals? “We are at the end of a difficult generation of business leadership and maybe leadership in general. Tough-mindedness, a good trait, was replaced by meanness and greed, both terrible traits.” Jeff Immelt, GE Chairman and CEO Describe the impact on you and others of managers who operated with… High level of integrity Low level of integrity Survey of AMA Leaders • The American Management Association – 2003 survey of 461 Executives • What characteristics and skills are needed to be an effective leader today? – Top three answers: ① ethical behavior (56%) ② sound judgment (51%) ③ being adaptable/flexible (47%) Power and Ethical Leadership • Power: the capacity to influence the behavior of others • Leaders exercise power • Power has a great capacity to be abused, even unintentionally • That is why we are so insistent that power be exercised ethically • In addition, acting ethically is itself a source of power (and influence) Why is acting ethically powerful? People who behave with strong ethical principles: • have fewer or no hidden agendas • are taken at their word and not second guessed • foster trust which is at the heart of successful organizations’ • tend to be relied upon for advice and counsel by superiors • have little need for “cya” or to watch their back. • develop better organizational reputations • are more resistant to opportunists and “takers” • have more responsibility delegated to them and less intrusive supervision, as they are trusted to report problems • lose less time in internal wrangling personally, and promote more cooperation and less pettiness organizationally • have and foster staff esteem and satisfaction Most Important Aspects of Ethical Leadership • Self-knowledge, reflection • Self control/self discipline • Prudence • Courage – Emory University... members work collaboratively for positive transformation in the world through courageous leadership … • Humility • Moral insight Mistakes will be made “Good judgment comes from experience. And where does experience come from? Experience comes from poor judgment.” -- Mark Twain Defining “Integrity” The latin root of the word integrity is similar to that for integer, meaning whole number. The concept of wholeness, or consistency is clearly relevant. A working definition of action with integrity could be "behaviour and decisions which are consistently in line with our principles“. The dictionary would also suggest that these principles should generally be accepted as ethical and honest. One of the important elements of integrity is consistency - if we are unpredictable, if our decisions are dependent upon the day of the week, and the way we are feeling, others are unlikely to see us as maintaining integrity. IN·TEG·RI·TY n. 1. Quality of being honest and up-right in character. 2. Condition of being complete. [Wikipedia] Syn: honour, veracity, reliability Ant: “cheat” These concepts and their definitions are obvisouly contextual. As a leader, you will be seen as one with integrity in the context of both your own and other’s expectations, values, rules, and ethics. Thus, living and leading with integrity suggests that one: (a) has a formal relationship with one’s “self” (or inner compass), and (b) is connected to society in acting morally and ethically. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold. wikipedia Leading with Integrity Walk the talk. That is what integrity really is all about. At the heart of integrity is being consistent, honest, moral, and trustworthy. Leaders with integrity are consistent in the face of adversity, show consistency in their words and actions, and are unfailing with who they are and what they stand for (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007). Leaders with integrity act with authenticity and honesty by speaking the truth, presenting themselves in a genuine way with sincerity, showing no pretense, and taking responsibility for their own feelings and actions (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). “The Irony of Integrity” CCL White Paper, 2012 Integrity is an important factor in the performance of top-level executives and middle-level managers. Those at the top of organizations are figureheads who should role-model the organization’s values (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). This is important to an organization because C-level executives interact regularly with external stakeholders, develop networks inside and outside their organization, and try to build consensus among multiple stakeholders (Sosik, Juzbasich, & Chun, 2011). Integrity is also important for middle-level managers who must relate well with people in order to build and maintain strong social networks and relationships with others across the organization as well as above and below them in the organizational hierarchy (Huy, 2001). Integrity makes it easier for others to trust a manager, which is likely important as middle-level managers fulfill their duties in networking, consensus-building, and relationship management. “The Irony of Integrity” CCL White Paper, 2012 One can describe a person as having ethical integrity to the extent that everything that that person does or believes: actions, methods, measures and principles — all of these derive from a single core group of values. One essential aspect of a consistent framework is its avoidance of any unwarranted (arbitrary) exceptions for a particular person or group — especially the person or group that holds the framework. In law, this principle of universal application requires that even those in positions of official power be subject to the same laws as pertain to their fellow citizens. In personal ethics, this principle requires that one should not act according to any rule that one would not wish to see universally followed. For example, one should not steal unless one would want to live in a world in which everyone was a thief. This was formally described by the philosopher Immanuel Kant in his categorical imperative. In a formal study of the term "integrity" and its meaning in modern ethics, law professor Stephen Carter sees integrity not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility, but also as an understanding of different modes or styles in which discourse attempts to uncover a particular truth. Carter writes that integrity requires three steps: "discerning what is right and what is wrong; acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong." He regards integrity as being distinct from honesty. “The true test of a person’s character is what they do when no one is watching” attributed to C.S. Lewis Defining Morality • From Latin, mor, meaning “custom”; • The implicit and explicit norms people use to guide their behavior in a given context; • People act according to moral norms without careful thought because such action is widely accepted, uncontroversial, and clearly expected; • Morality, according to Lynn Paine, provides an “invisible infrastructure of norms and precepts”, which support human interaction. Defining Morality • of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes; • orals are deeply rooted principles, societal in nature Cultural Differences and Morality USA and Western Europe Asia Africa Latin America Difference between morals and ethics? • Ethics are the science of morals, and • Morals are the practice of ethics Defining Ethics • Ethics is the “study of moral standards” – Moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously injure or benefit human beings – Moral standards are based on impartial considerations..rather, that goes beyond personal interests to a ‘universal’ standpoint – Moral standards are associated with special emotions and a special vocabulary Velasquez, “Business Ethics Concepts”, 2001 Defining Ethics • Ethics refers to the conscious and reflective activity of making good decisions and justifying our actions. • that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions • Typically, ethical analysis is required when what is right either is unclear or involves conflicts between competing moral norms. Nature of Business Ethics • Focuses on moral standards as they apply to business policies, institutions and behavior • Applies the analysis of moral norms and values to the assortment of organizations and activities that we call business • Business ethics investigates three kinds of issues: – Systemic issues are ethical questions raised about the social systems