I think the standard definition I get for integrity when I ask folks what it means is, “Doing the right thing when nobody is looking.”
While I agree that doing the right thing when nobody is looking is a very good thing, a noble thing, an appropriate thing, a thing that needs to be done more often, I have a hard time standing on that definition.
This may sound bad, but I actually have a hard time with integrity.
I hear the phrase, “Man of integrity” often and I am left wondering what, precisely, is being said of this man.
For all the side conversations and implications that come with my different ideas about integrity, I think it is fair to say that integrity is primarily a qualification of a person and their character based upon their actions. But even this thought troubles me a little bit. It means that the label of integrity is granted by an observer to the actions of a particular person. Who defines what is “right” in a particular moment? How do we know that the “right” action was “right” enough? Could there have been a better action? If the action was just good enough and not the best decision for the given moment, then does that mean that the person’s integrity is weak?
I got to thinking about a phrase I hear often in the Navy… Hull Integrity…
Hull… Integrity…
What does that mean?
It means that the hull, the skin of the ship, is completely intact, there are no holes or cracks that were not planned in the hull, and that the hull is still strong enough and sound enough to fulfil the specific role for which it was designed.
What if that is the definition of integrity?
What if integrity means to act in manner that is completely congruent with who we are?
Integrity would no longer be a subjective judgement based on the actions of an individual, but an objective affirmation that an individual is in fact what/who they say they are. A lack of integrity would no longer mean that somebody did something that was not right, but that somebody has acted in a manner that is not in accordance with their identity.
I understand that there are troubles with this definition too. It means that the observers to the situation must understand the identity and the purpose of the person they are observing. It means that the person being observed has to understand their identity.
I think that integrity and identity go hand in hand.
If a thief steals, have they violated their integrity? I say no. They have not violated their integrity at all, they have merely acted in accordance with the designated purpose which was determined by their identity. I am not saying that it is okay to steal.
I think if this is the crux of integrity then the solution for “integrity violators” is not behavior reform, but identity and purpose development.
When a person has done something that is out of line with what is expected then we need to evaluate the expectations placed upon them, their identity, and then the action. If a person has been put into a position which is not appropriate for them, then the organization that put them there has set this person, as well as themselves, up for failure. If the person is in an appropriate position for them, but acts out of line with what is expected, then they need to be counselled regarding their understanding of who they are and how they fit in then grand scheme of things. There must still be some kind of repercussion for the wrong which has been done, but the repercussion is not the solution or the correction.
I had a Senior Chief one time who had a leadership style that seemed to drift between psychotic and brutal depending on which way the wind was blowing. One of his favorite phrases was, “Hold a man accountable for his actions, then get that man the help that he needs.”
I am now very careful about the labels I place on somebody. If I have a junior sailor who shows up to work late several times in a week, has a uniform that looks like a bag of doorknobs, seems to be trying to shave with a polished rock, I am careful to not call him a dirt-bag. I might call him lazy, or nasty, or weak, but I don’t call him a dirt-bag, a worthless sailor, a cancer to the team. I used to, I don’t any more. If I give him one of these labels and he feels as though he will not ever please me or the Navy at large, then what stops him from developing a defeated, “it is what it is,” kind of attitude about it and then internally resigning to be a dirt-bag? Nothing stops him from doing that. If I punish his lateness, his nasty uniform, and his hairy face, then spend my time later talking about what it means to be a servant of the American people, about personal sacrifice and honor, and about who he is as a man and a sailor, then I can hopefully set him on a course to root out the weakness that he brought to the table.
If I punish a thief for being a thief, I should not be surprised when he steals later that week. I told him he was a thief and he agreed with me. If instead of punishing a thief for being a thief, I punish a man for stealing and then connect with him as a man, then there is a chance I have helped him build a bridge to move past his current behavior.
Integrity… Easy for me to understand on the surface. Difficult for me to understand the full reaches of the topic.
If it is doing the right thing when nobody is looking, then it is a description of compliance to rules which have been placed upon the individual. If it is acting in line with identity, then it is a purposeful act of affirming the maturity and stature of the individual in their identity.
Thoughts?
AMEN to that! One definition of integrity is “the state of being whole or undivided.” Just like your “hull integrity” thing going on there. I like the concept of the hull integrity and the concept of discipline. We discipline the thief for stealing, fine him, put him prison, then he is out doing the exact same thing. He does this because, like you said, he hasn’t changed his identity. He finds his “wholeness” in what he does because he is trying to fill a hole in his life for some reason. If we work on the hole in his life, repair it, patch it, fix it, then he has hull integrity and the thief is not defined by being a thief. I look at this with the situation of pornography or any other addiction. I need to fill a hole in my life, so I act in a certain manner that superficially treats the symptoms, I wash, rinse, and repeat until it becomes an addiction.
In the AF its, “integrity first.” I’ve had a problem with this from day 1. Even if integrity is doing whats right when nobody is looking (which I agree with you, that its not at all the main point) then why on earth do we have such an integrity issue when people ARE looking. Or is it better said, doing whats right when certain types of people arent looking. Either way, Ive had an issue with it because of the state of how someone defines rightness. As long as we have varying degrees of faith and what people choose to believe, then we will continue to have a lack of Godly integrity, which brings me to another point.
Maybe people are acting with “moral uprightness” or integrity, when they do something that someone else defines as not right, because they define “rightness” different than I do. So I then have to say there are varying degrees of integrity. Godly or biblical integrity v/s worldly or humanistic integrity? A person can believe they are right by stealing food to feed their children based on their belief system. In their eyes they have hull integrity because they are doing whats right, furthering a species, their children etc… Or, say the country doesn’t allow christians and I run a church in my home. All my neighbors say, he is acting without integrity because the law states x y z. But in my mind, based off my principles, I am acting rightly.
In 1 Kings, chronicles and in Genesis we have a saying like this, “in integrity of heart and uprightness.” David talks about his integrity being “in him” in the psalms. “The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity,” again, we see the word upright. In proverbs we see integrity paired with the words “righteous man” Proverbs also contrasts the upright integrity of a man with the perverseness of a fool. In the hebrew “integrity” is defined as “completeness, whole, sound.”
Oddly enough, in the NASB, integrity is not found in the new testament. I think you are right on. Thanks for the thoughts.
Wow! Quite a response!! If there is not an objective definiton of “rightness” then integrity becomes a subjective concept. If it is subjective, how can we ever hope to achieve genuine integrity?
Great comment.
Thanks a lot.
A note on hull integrity – when we observe that the hull has LOST integrity, we don’t stand about commenting, “Looks like the hull lost integrity there.” It’s not a subject of casual conversation, either, “Hey, did you hear, down by frame 143, the hull lost integrity?” – until AFTERWARDS.
When the hull loses integrity, it’s an emergency. Not a crisis – we have the resources to handle this, and crisis is when that isn’t the case. But every person that’s on scene to witness it leaps into action – TRAINED action, we’re prepared for these because we drill them so much – calls for backup, reports it to Damage Control Central, and stopping the leak becomes top priority. It isn’t about right or wrong – sure, we’d be punished if we were found to be lacking in our duties, but we’re more concerned with, the longer that leak goes, the more damage will result, and left too long, it could cost us the entire ship. It could cost lives.
If my response to a friend’s loss of integrity is to notice it, and maybe point it out, or talk to another friend about it, but take no action, it’s probably because I don’t understand how that loss of integrity could have any real impact on me.
Integrity. What a word. A person is acting with his integrity intact, if he is doing what he was taught was right. If you were taught with a Bible, right is different than if you were taught with a Koran or with out ether of these things. If you want someone to act the way you think is right, you must teach them your beliefs and convince them your way is better. America is different now than when I grew up. Things are accepted now that would not have been then. What we accept is a slippery slope. Small things add up to big changes. Look at unwed motherhood. Half of all children are born without fathers. This leads to high poverty and children who grow up with no direction or hope. People take government help now for every little thing. I cannot ever remember my father taking an unemployment check. He did waht ever it took to make a living. Now you can get up to 99 weeks and not have to prove you are even looking for a job. Well enough of my soap box.
Well that is a solid writing. As for integrity you seem to have defined it well and looked at it from a worldly scope to stear us in the right direction of what you are gettting at. Now my questions is this, should we skip saying integrity and call a man “valient” or “Just”? For the meaingins of those two words are this:
Valient – 1 : possessing or acting with bravery or boldness 2 : marked by, exhibiting, or carried out with courage or determination
Just – 1 a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable b archaic : faithful to an original c : conforming to a standard of correctness : proper 2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous (2) : being what is merited : deserved b : legally correct : lawful
I say only these two words since I am basing things of of scripural meanings which have been around for a long time. So in the case of integrity you speak of in each case we may say thatj “sailor” is just in his actions due to his background be it his education, family enviroment or circumstances. So my whole point to this is maybe we need to switch from saying acting in “interigrity” to acting “justly” then you have eliminated or more so correctly label the persons action? What do you think?
Wow, I really like this. Never considered changing how I talk, that would be absurd. (sarcasm) But I agree with you, that by using the words “valiant” and “just” we are sending a stronger message. I think the same goes with using the word Love.
Now once we nail down the word use we can move forward in many ways. But how we treat anyone that we are stewarts over should be treated in the way you have stated! We each may have a different approach, but the end game is the same. Great stuff Bro! Keep plowing that field!