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?