The Journal of Developing Areas

Special Issue on Kuala Lumpur Conference Held in November 2015

Volume 50 No. 5 2016

INTEGRITY AND ITS ANTECEDENT: A

UNIFIED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF
INTEGRITY
Manjit Monga*
University of South Australia, Australia

ABSTRACT
Integrity as a word originates from the Latin adjective integer and means the state or quality of
being complete or whole. It often appears in management and business ethics literature as a
coveted much sought after personality trait for leadership effectiveness. In a highly complex
business environment and heightened public awareness with changing expectations of
stakeholders from businesses, acting with integrity becomes crucial. While it is a well-accepted
idea that businesses should act responsibly and with integrity, there appears to be no consensus
amongst scholars on what does integrity mean and what does it entail. Some scholars equate
integrity with actions that demonstrate high moral and ethical standards, and others call it a
morally neutral term equating it with the law of gravity. The definitional ambiguities and
uncertainties make integrity a desired and contested topic in management literature and many
authors have called for a satisfactory unifying perspective on this integral aspect of business
ethics (Audi & Murphy, 2006). This paper addresses this issue, and presents a unified
conceptual framework to better understand integrity. Scholarly literature on the meaning of
integrity can be broadly divided into two streams in scholarly literature– normative view which
explicitly includes morality and ethics and the objectivist view which defines integrity as a
morally and ethically neutral term. In developing a unified framework, this paper draws from
various meanings and definitions of integrity found in management and business ethics
literature. It analyzes, integrates and reconciles various conceptualizations of integrity found in
management and business ethics literature and identifies intrinsic and extrinsic features of
integrity. It argues that in order to achieve integrity, commitment to sound moral principles is
essential and they act as an antecedent of integrity. In doing so, the paper first discusses morally
neutral conceptualization of integrity also known as objectivist view and its limitations. It then
discusses various notions in the broad stream of current management and business ethics
literature and develops the unified conceptual framework for understanding integrity. It makes
a theoretical contribution by advancing the understanding of the concept of individual integrity
in management literature. It has implications for organizations and human resource managers
through highlighting the critical importance of person- organization values fit and the idea of
including integrity tests in the staff selection processes.

JEL Classifications: M1, M14

Key words: integrity, virtue, ethics, morality, normative, objectivism
Corresponding Author’s Email Address: Manjit.monga@unisa.edu.au

INTRODUCTION

Integrity is defined in various ways in scholarly management literature. Some scholars

equate integrity with actions that demonstrate high moral and ethical standards (De
George, 1993); others call it an ethically and morally neutral term and equate it with
the law of gravity (Jensen (2009). The definitional ambiguities and uncertainties make
integrity a contested topic in management literature and a number of scholars have
 416

called for a satisfactory unifying perspective on this important aspect of management,

for example, Audi and Murphy (2006).
In this paper I address this issue through constructing a unified conceptual
framework to better understand integrity. In doing so, I briefly discuss the objectivist
notion of integrity which defines integrity as a morally neutral notion and its
limitations. I then discuss various notions of integrity in the broad stream of current
management and business ethics literature and develop the unified framework for
better understanding integrity. I argue that integrity has a moral facet which acts as an
antecedent of integrity.

OBJECTIVIST VIEW OF INTEGRITY

Integrity as a morally neutral term is commonly known as the philosophy of

objectivism. Objectivism holds that reality exists as an objective absolute and is
independent of human feelings, wishes and hopes or fears. According to this
philosophy, survival and happiness are the ultimate standards of morality. It purports
that human beings should live by objective principles and that reason is man’s only
means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action and
his basic means of survival (Rand, 1961; Peikoff, 1991). Becker (1998) defines
integrity as the principle of being principled, practicing what one preaches regardless
of emotional or social pressure and not allowing any irrational consideration to
overwhelm one’s rational convictions. There are some concerns about the objectivist
notion of integrity. The pursuit of self-interest for survival in the objectivist view
implies rejection or at least moderation of consideration of social relationships,
benevolence or altruism. Furthermore, because it rejects any form of subjectivism; it
disregards the role of feelings and intuition as they relate to individual bias and action.
Scholars like Jacobs (2004) highlight the limitations of objectivism and maintain that,
‘objectivism fails as a philosophical basis for integrity because of its fundamentally
flawed conception of human nature and their unfounded concept of the individual as
prior to and fully distinguishable from the social and their understanding of reason as
an enterprise wholly of the self’ (p 217).
Within the broader objectivist view, Jenson (2009) argues that integrity is a
necessary condition for workability and defines it ‘as a state or condition of being
whole, complete, unimpaired, unbroken, sound, in perfect condition’ (p 18). When
applied to an individual, integrity is defined as a person’s word being whole and
complete which means honoring your word. He explains honoring your word as - you
either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will not, you inform those who
are counting on your word that you will not be keeping your word, and clean up any
mess you have created as a consequence of not keeping your word. Jenson further
argues that honoring your word is an actionable pathway to creating whole and
complete social and working relationships through being trusted by others. The model
has been criticized because this concept of integrity can be applied to both a tyrant as
well as an ethical person (Bauman, 2013; Audi and Murphy, 2006). It will be absurd
to say that a tyrant is a person of integrity because he or she is true to his or her word
and stands by his or her convictions.
In the next section I discuss the normative view of integrity which includes
morality as an important element of integrity.
 417

NORMATIVE VIEW OF INTEGRITY

The normative view of integrity dominates scholarly literature in management and

business ethics. Palanski and Yammarino (2007) conducted a comprehensive review
of management literature and identified five different ways integrity has been defined-
as wholeness, as consistency of words and actions, as consistency in adversity, as
authenticity or being true to oneself and as moral or ethical behavior.
Etymologically integrity means oneness or wholeness. The Webster’s New
World Dictionary describes integrity as, ‘the quality or state of being complete:
unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety” and “the quality or state of being of sound
moral principle; uprightness, honesty and sincerity’. According to this meaning, a
person of integrity acts in accordance with high moral standards, does so consistently
even when challenged by adverse circumstances even at the cost of personal losses.
Integrity as wholeness also suggests that there are multiple parts or dimensions to it,
which integrate to result in the state of wholeness. When applied to human beings, it
is almost synonymous to character. Soloman (1992, 1999) describes integrity as a
supervirtue, which is a synthesis of virtues that form a coherent character, an
identifiable and trustworthy personality. In the organizational context, the notion of
wholeness points towards a person’s overall consistency of behavior, across time and
situations.
The second meaning of integrity found in management literature is
consistency between words and actions, also known as behavioral consistency (Paine,
2005; Simons, 2002). It includes both, the perceived fit between espoused and enacted
values, and perceived promise keeping. However, defining integrity purely as
consistency between words and actions or explicit promise keeping means that the
word given or the promise made can be of unethical or immoral nature. For example,
can I be called a person of integrity if I gave a contract in return for the promised
kickback I received? Therefore, integrity cannot be defined merely as consistency of
words and actions; the content of the word and consequent actions must also be taken
into consideration.
The third meaning of integrity found in literature is- consistency in adversity.
This view of integrity includes the presence of adverse circumstances, temptations, or
choices challenging integrity as a necessary condition (McFall, 1987, Carter, 1996).
The reasoning behind this is that a person of integrity maintains moral steadfastness
and does not get swayed away by temptations or choices even at a personal cost. This
can be regarded as a feature of integrity, but by itself it does not fully encompass the
meaning of integrity.
Authenticity is another meaning of integrity found in management literature
which means being true to oneself. Being true to oneself means consistency between
espoused values and enacted values. It implies that even though a person may appear
to be acting in accordance with their beliefs and values, it may not necessarily be the
case. For example, a CEO of an organization implements social and environmental
sustainability initiatives because he or she actually values sustainability or because the
company will gain in stocks and reputation. This is an intrinsic feature of integrity,
whereby only the person him or herself can determine if he or she acted with integrity.
The fifth meaning of integrity found in management literature is moral or
ethical behavior. A number of scholars have associated integrity with morality in some
respect, for example honesty (Trevino et al., 2000; McFall, 1987), justice and respect
(Baccilli, 2001; Rawls, 1971), empathy/ compassion (Koehn, 2005), fairness
(Murphy, 1999) and being trustworthy (Trevino et al. 2000, Paine, 2005). Badaracco
and Ellsworth (1992) contend that integrity suggests a sense of moral soundness and
 418

Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) argue that integrity should be based on morally
justifiable set of values.
The various meanings of integrity found in the management literature fail to
fully capture the meaning of integrity or wholeness. Maak (2008) addresses this by
defining integrity as the meeting and alignment of seven necessary conditions, which
when achieved constitute the undivided whole. These seven necessary conditions for
integrity are: Commitment, Conduct, Content, Context, Consistency, Coherence and
Continuity.
Maak (2008) explains commitment as unconditional commitment to a set of
sound moral principles. Sound moral principles also imply that they need to be the
right principles to meet the criteria for integrity. It is expected of a person of integrity
to stand up for their espoused values and principles. Conduct indicates moral behavior
or actions compliant with the ‘sound’ moral principles espoused by the person. Content
encompasses the actual actions of the individual. Context indicates relational
wholeness, which in the business context means being considerate and mindful of the
relationships with all the stakeholders. Consistency represents consistency between
words and actions. It is about promise keeping, living by your word, and walking the
talk. Coherence requires alignment of actions of a person with their espoused moral
principles and the emphasis is on the intention behind the actions. Continuity is about
persistently acting in line with integrity requirements over time. In order to achieve the
state of integrity, one has to be perceived to be consistently acting in compliance with
their espoused sound moral principles over a period of time. Maak’s (2008) seven
necessary conditions cover some of unaddressed areas, for example, the inclusion of
intention behind the actions which is not explicitly indicated in many definitions. He
has also included the content of the actions as an additional aspect to the consistency
between words and actions.
To sum up, various definitions of integrity show clear overlaps, similarities
and differences. In the next section I will develop a unified framework of integrity by
drawing from various definitions found in the normative literature and building upon
Maak’s (2008) essential conditions of integrity.

INTEGRATING NORMATIVE LITERATURE TOWARDS

A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

It is clear from the discussion in the previous section that integrity has intrinsic and
extrinsic dimensions. The intrinsic dimensions are commitment to sound moral
principles and authenticity/ being true to oneself/ coherence. Both of the dimensions
are personal and innate by nature. Only I can truly know what my principles and values
are and my true intention behind the actions. Others can only infer and judge from my
actions or believe what I tell them. Consistency of words and actions, consistency in
adversity, context, continuity, conduct and content can be observed in the behavior and
actions of an individual and hence extrinsic in nature. So I argue that integrity has two
dimensions- intrinsic and extrinsic. Applying the proposed two dimensions of integrity
to Maak’s seven conditions of integrity, commitment and coherence will be
categorized as intrinsic dimensions. Extrinsic dimension will include consistency,
content, conduct, context and continuity. Conduct, content and context fall under the
broader definition of integrity found in management literature as consistency in
adversity. Although none of the three conditions explicitly state adverse situation or
adverse consequences for the person, but being aware of the social context and
stakeholders in the organizational settings, the content of actual actions, and the need
for the actions to be aligned with the sound moral principles held by the person, imply
 419

that the actions have to be right and responsible actions irrespective of the personal
consequences of actions. Then there are the two remaining conditions- consistency and
continuity. Consistency in Maak’s conditions for integrity means consistency of words
and deeds. Consistency of words and actions is one of the prominent definitions in both
normative and objectivist views of integrity (Jenson, 2009; Kaptein, 2003). Without
explicit inclusion of morality of the action, simply honoring your word does not
adequately reflect the meaning and spirit of integrity. Continuity as a compulsory
condition for integrity in Maak’s framework implies consistently acting in accordance
with the deeply held sound moral principles. This is partly aligned with consistency in
adversity meaning of integrity found in management literature.
Clearly at the heart of integrity is commitment and adherence to the sound
moral principles. I propose that unconditional commitment to sound moral principles
in Maak’s (2008) framework is an antecedent or precursor of integrity. One must be a
person committed to sound moral principles in the first place for the remaining six
conditions to occur. If a person does not espouse sound moral principles, the rest of
the six conditions become redundant in terms of achieving integrity. So, in the
proposed unified framework, unconditional commitment to sound moral principles is
a pre-condition for achieving integrity. It eliminates the absurd thought of calling the
tyrants as persons of integrity, as they unjustly rule over others. However, it also raises
questions about what are the sound moral principles? Could the moral principles held
by a person be deemed as sound only if the observer happens to share those moral
principles? Can one disagree with the moral principles held by another and yet find
them a person of integrity? In the globalized world it is certain that managers will find
it challenging to adhere to their own moral principles and respect cross-cultural
differences at the same time. How can the differences in moral beliefs and standards
with changing context be reconciled? The answer lies in the manager’s capacity for
moral reflectiveness and ability to discern what is ‘different’ from what is simply
‘wrong’. For example, in the now infamous case of Ford Pinto, the application of cost
benefit analysis in making decisions related with safety and serious risk to life was
‘wrong’ and the utilitarian approach to decision making stretched too far. Clearly in
this case the ‘right’ had the priority over the ‘maximizing the outcomes’. The
organizational policies must reflect the provision to make decisions in morally and
ethically challenging situations.

Integration of various definitions of integrity in management and business

ethics literature with Maak’s (2008) seven essential conditions of integrity
requirements, result in the unified framework of integrity. Commitment to sound moral
principles and acting in coherence with them are essentially intrinsic in nature and can
only be inferred by others from the actions and behavior of the person. The rest of the
five conditions - conduct, context, content, consistency and continuity are
demonstrated in the actions of the person, are observable and perceived by others,
therefore, are classified as extrinsic dimensions. Commitment to sound moral
principles and values is a prerequisite to achieve the state of integrity according to the
unified conceptual framework. There is a requirement of alignment and integration of
the extrinsic and intrinsic dimensions which constitute the seven conditions in the
proposed unified framework of integrity. The absence or compromise of any of the
seven conditions will result in misalignment, and as a consequence, will not meet the
integrity requirements, because the misalignment will impair the wholeness.
 420

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The scholarly literature on integrity predominantly consists of incongruent theory and
little empirical research. In this context, this paper makes a theoretical contribution
towards better understanding of ‘integrity’. It analyses and reconciles the various
notions of integrity found in management and business ethics literature and develops
a holistic unified framework to better understand the illusive concept of integrity in
management. The next step is to use the framework as a starting point to develop a
measure of integrity as ‘wholeness’ consisting of the seven essential conditions.
This framework has practical implications for organizations and human
resource managers. It can be used as a guide or checklist when framing organizational
policies and procedures to facilitate behavior with integrity. For human resource
managers it emphasizes the need for alignment of personal values and organizational
values in order for a person to act with integrity. Perhaps it is a good idea to include
integrity tests in the recruitment and selection process.

REFERENCES
Audi, R., & Murphy, P.E. (2006) The many faces of integrity.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 3-21.
Baccilli, P. A. (2001) Organizationand manager obligations in a
framework of psychological contract development and violation.
Unpublished dessertation, Claremont Graduate University.
Badaracco, J. L. & Ellsworth, R. R. (1992) Leadership integrity and
conflict. Management Decision. 30, pp. 29- 34.
Bauman, D.C. (2013). Leadership and the three faces of integrity.
The Leadership Quarterly. 24, pp. 414-426.
Becker, T. E. (1998) Integrity in Organizations: Beyond honesty and
conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review. 23, pp. 154- 161.
De George, R. T. (1993) Competing with integrity in international
business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, D. C. (2004) A Pragmatic Approach to Integrity in Business
Ethics. Journal of Management Inquiry. 13 (3), pp. 215- 223.
Jensen, M. C. (2009, January 14) Integrity: Without it nothing
works. Rotman Magazine, pp. 16-20.
Kaptein, M. (2003) The Diamond of Managerial Integrity. European
Management Journal. 21 (1), pp 99-108.
Koehn, D. (2005) Integrity as Business Asset. Journal of Business
Ethics, 58, pp. 125-136.
Maak, T. (2008) Undivided corporate responsibility: Towards a
theory of Corporate Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, pp. 353-368.
McFall, L. (1987) Integrity. Ethics. 98, pp. 5-20.
Murphy, P.E. (1999) Character and virtue ethics in international
marketing: an agenda for managers, researchers and educators. Journal of
Business Ethics. 18 (1), pp. 107- 124.
Paine, L. S. (2005) Integrity. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Management: Business Ethics, (eds) Werhane, P.H. & Freeman, R. E.. (2nd
edition), pp. 247- 249. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
Palanski, M.E. & Yammarino, F. J. (2007) Intergrity and
Leadership: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European Management
Journal. 25 (3), pp. 171- 184.
 421

Parry, K. W. & Proctor- Thompson, S. B. (2002) Perceived integrity

of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business
Ethics. 35, pp.75- 96.
Peikoff, L. (1991) Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. New
York; Meridian.
Rand, A. (1961) For the new intellectual New York: Signet.
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Simons, T. L. (1999) Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for
transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
12, pp. 89- 104.
Simons, T. L. (2002) Behavioral integrity: The percieved alignment
between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization
Science. 13, pp. 18- 35.
Simons, T. L.; Friedman, R.; Liu, L. A. & Parks, J. M. (2007) Racial
differences in sensitvity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-
group effects, and "trickle down" among black and non-black employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (3), pp. 434- 443.
Solomon, R. C. (1992) Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and
integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R.C. (1999) A Better Way to Think About Business. How
Personal Integrity Leads to Corporate Success. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P. & Brown, M. (2000) Moral person
and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical
leadership. California Management Review. 42, pp. 128- 142.
Yulk, G. A. & VanFleet, D. D. (1992) Theory and research on
leadership in organizations. 92nd Ed), (eds) Dunette, M. D. & Hugh, L. M..
Handbook of industrial and organizatioanl psychology. 3, pp. 147- 197.
Consulting psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Copyright of Journal of Developing Areas is the property of Tennessee State University,
College of Business and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.