The concept of integrity often comes up in conversations about health care professionals, bankers, politicians -- even about scientific inquiry. But what exactly is integrity?
It's a good question because it's a term I've heard about for decades, going as far back as my first career in the oil industry. And when I've taught business ethics and organizational ethics courses to university students, they frequently defended their ethical choices by appealing to integrity.
There is general agreement as to what constitutes scientific integrity. Scientific inquiries are expected to be honest, accurate and reliable and to "go wherever the data leads." Scientists must persevere and remain personally impartial. In a somewhat similar vein, professional integrity usually means that a person conscientiously acts in accord with behavioural and attitudinal norms "at the heart" of that person's particular profession.
Defining personal integrity, on the other hand, has generated more debate. In Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, Avolio and Locke define personal integrity as "loyalty to one's rationale judgment in action" (Praeger, 2004). In her book Integrity: Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason, Barbara Killinger put it this way: "Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honour moral, ethical, spiritual, and artistic values and principles" (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007).
What do both definitions have in common? Loyalty and uncompromising commitment. Judgment and choice. One[self] and the personal. This means that acting with integrity is deliberate, voluntary and "mine." It is never fickle (i.e., fads and expediency are unimportant).
But some writers think that this definition of personal integrity falls short. A worrisome shortcoming is the sense of finality and possible rigidity. Being rigid may result in what is known as "moral indulgence," where the person privileges their conscience and "ability to sleep at night" above all else (moral indulgence and "having clean hands" are important ethical notions, but I can't delve into them here). Technology and science continually challenge the status quo. Economics, global or local, affect what communities can do and hope to do. Accordingly, group and individual circumstances can change gradually or dramatically. But change they do (As Heraclitus held long ago: The only constant in the world is change).
Avolio and Locke's definition of personal integrity also includes the worrisome presumption that our individual knowledge and experiences are enough. Yet our knowledge and experiences are inescapably limited and our reasoning abilities alone, regardless of how proficient, cannot compensate adequately for such limitations.
In Integrity and the Fragile Self, Cox, La Caze and Levine provide a definition that addresses these shortcomings. For them, personal integrity "involves a capacity to respond to changes in one's values or circumstances, a kind of continual remaking of the self, as well as a capacity to balance competing commitments and values and to take responsibility for one's work and thought" (Ashgate, 2002).
Cox, La Caze and Levine's characterization of integrity seems stronger because it refers explicitly to the self. This opens the door for thinking about "the person I believe myself to be" and "the person I hold myself to be for other people." The reference to work and thoughts fits nicely with expectations that our deeds should fit with our thoughts and words. Hypocrisy or an absence of integrity is routinely described as "not walking the talk" or as being "all talk." Cox, La Caze and Levine also recognize the everyday reality of competing priorities.
I think the strongest characterization of integrity is captured by Stephen Carter in his book Integrity (HarperCollins, 1997): "It requires three steps: 1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; 2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and 3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong."
Carter's writing style is much like an engaging conversation in which he tries to figure out what integrity really is. It is refreshing that he admits that he personally finds it challenging to always think, talk and act with integrity. We are all too human: We can be tired, angry, afraid, stubborn or jealous. We can feel disrespected or ignored, or just want some immediate enjoyment.
Let's examine each of Carter's three steps: First, by "discerning what is right and what is wrong," Carter means being aware of what's really and fully involved in a particular question or situation and what are relevant ethical values and disvalues from different viewpoints. In other words, right and wrong are not determined by my wishes, desires or emotions.
Second, knowing what's most ethically defensible is insufficient. Acting or doing is necessary. And sometimes the strongest option will result in some type of disadvantage or loss to oneself. Maybe a dear friend will be disappointed in me, a respected colleague will decide not to work with me again, or I will have to develop a new skill or replace an outdated or narrow concept I've relied on.
Third, accountability matters. Apologizing, remaining silent or in the background may be humanly understandable responses, but they don't demonstrate integrity. Carter's formulation of integrity explains why we admire people who act with integrity so much: They work conscientiously to figure out what is the most ethically defensible response in a particular situation or question. They act despite possible risk to their own self-interests, and they openly "own" what they've done.
____________________________
Barbara Russell, bioethicist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, answers ethics questions that arise in the mental health and addiction fields. She is connected with the University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics and heads the neuroethics interest group of the Canadian Bioethics Society. She is also a contributing editor to the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health.
Do you have an ethics question for Dr. Russell? Submit questions to be considered for this column to CrossCurrents editor Hema Zbogar at hema_zbogar@camh.net. Please omit personally identifiable health-related information in order to respect people's privacy and follow privacy legislation.
Leave a comment