You know how economics takes some hitherto mild and quietly slumbering quality like happiness or friendship or kindness and does a job on it? Pulls it out, isolates it, turns it inside out, “analyses” it? As if it’s just discovered a big fruit lying unsqueezed?
The latest quality to receive the treatment is integrity. New York journalist, Anna Bernasek, has just written The Economics of Integrity and Ross Gittins discussed the book’s key ideas in The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday.
Unlike some previous contenders, there is something intrinsically interesting about integrity that makes this a more seemly exploration. Integrity means different things to different people (for example, Bernasek defines it by recourse to trust, my Landmark Education course defines it as a matter of one’s word), yet it is unerringly recognised and universally admired. It’s also a quality, a way of being, for which there is an intense hunger.
Bernasek’s conception
Bernasek argues that the economy is built on integrity, which she defines, according to Gittins, as having two components:
- being trustworthy; “… following the rules, telling the truth and being careful on the job”
- having trust in others; “… integrity refers to relationships of mutual trust.”
Trust, it turns out, underwrites all our transactions. As Gittins says,
… we trust the people we buy from to sell us goods and services that are safe, reliable and of the quality we expected we were paying for.
We decide which companies to do business with according to how well we trust them — based on their reputation, our past experiences and others’ past experiences – and companies offering a money-back guarantee are demonstrating their trust in the customer, ie, “that few will take unfair advantage of it.”
We trust our employers “to give us a square deal.”
And they trust us to do the same. The more trust, the better the relationship; the better the job we do, the less time, money and angst devoted to checking on each other.
Huge stock
Not only is integrity crucial to the economy and our prosperity, according to Gittins, Bernasek argues that “we’re heirs to a huge stock of integrity that’s been added to and passed on from one generation to the next.”
Gittins provides the obligatory cautionary note – that our integrity stock might be a little run down with the global financial crisis – but nevertheless allows Bernasek’s point to stand. Integrity is crucial and we are the beneficiaries of its abundance, whether we recognise it or not.
Another conception of integrity
Integrity is also a crucial distinction in all Landmark Education courses, though it’s defined a little differently in each. In my current course, integrity is defined as having two components:
- honouring your word
- keeping alive an empowering context.
Honouring your word means doing what you said you would do (and doing it on time), doing what you know there is to do and doing it as it was meant to be done (and doing it on time), doing what others would expect you to do, even if you haven’t said you would do it (and doing it on time).
And, when you don’t do these things, it means acknowledging it, apologising, making new promises and keeping them.
Keeping alive an empowering context means, for example, not throwing your hands up in despair or resignation, or otherwise using some feeling or emotion or mood to avoid doing what we’ve committed to do.
Avoiding morality
Conceiving integrity in this way is designed to have it be demonstrable and to avoid questions of morality, right and wrong, should and shouldn’t, which is the stuff that drives us crazy. The closest morality comes to entering the picture here is in the “doing what you know there is to do” or “what others would expect you to do.” It presumes an underlying code that guides our assessment of our actions and non-actions. It may or may not be a universal code, but in any event the individual is the decoder.
There are also no grades of integrity when conceived in this way. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition. One either honours one’s word, or not; one has an empowering context or one doesn’t.
Wholeness
Another way to say this is that one is either whole, or not whole, for integrity in my course is also conceived as wholeness or soundness. And while ever a person is “out of integrity,” they will not be able to perform at peak levels or have satisfying relations with others because there is a fundamental flaw. The analogy is made with a bicycle. When the bicycle’s not whole and sound – for example, there are a few spokes missing from a wheel – the overall structure is flawed and liable to collapse.
We want it
What’s intriguing about integrity is that there are these different descriptions and conceptions of integrity and yet – consciously or sub-consciously – we respond as one when the thing itself is present.
Whether it’s conceived as it is by Bernasek (mutual trust relationships), or as it is by Landmark (honouring one’s word and keeping alive an empowering context) or as the Oxford Dictionary defines it (completeness, soundness, uprightness/moral soundness/honesty), we know it when we see it, we want it for ourselves and we want it in others.
How do you conceive of integrity?
What’s your conception of integrity? Where does it show up or not show up? What effect does it have?
*****
To read Ross Gittins’s article, click here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/integrity-flourishes-in-openness-20100323-qtx8.html
I really like your ideo of ‘wholeness,’ and that would be a big part of my conception of integrity. Certainly it is is honesty and behaviour which creates and maintains trust–and the idea of consistency is important as well. Wholeness might require another dimension which is hard to pin down but ‘fairness’ might be the best approximation. It is the idea that not only is a person honest, trustworthy and reliable, they are also open, understanding and flexible. They do not act selfishly or according to absolutist standards, but try to do what is right in a particular situation. They admit it when they are wrong.
I look forward to hearing some other ideas.
I interpret your “fairness” dimension as something like sensitivity or attentiveness to the particular situation/person. I had a situation the other night when someone (A) told me something and I took it at face value and proceeded accordingly, whereas the person next to me (B) who heard what A said thought A hadn’t followed the rules and nor had I by accepting the explanation. We had a disagreement about it. I think B might have been thinking he was acting with integrity, or at least ensuring the integrity of the system (ah, maybe this a distinction … integrity of person vs integrity of system). Yet I felt comfortable with my decision.
Yes, but describing it is very delicate. It’s more than not having an absolutist moral system but at the same time not a celebration of relativity, because one definition of integrity would also include consistency. I guess it’s sensitivity to the nuances of a situation and an ability to see all sides of an issue as well.
Yes, it’s very delicate. We get mired in the inadequacy of words straightaway. I can see why Landmark tries to move the definition as far as possible away from morality and bring it back to some “objective” test of one’s word. In the situation I described, consistency was definitely a vital component. Another thing I didn’t mention was that when A gave me their explanation and B cast doubt on it, I thought that for me to question A’s explanation was to doubt A’s integrity and I didn’t want to do it. Possibly you’re thinking of a particular situation too?
Hi SGC and Thomas
I am just quickly skimming through all this stuff, trying to catch up on what I have been missing out on.
I haven’t the time to engage too greatly here but throw in the Wiktionary Definition which is more along Thomas lines …
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being wholesome; unimpaired
3. The quality or condition of being complete; pure
Synonyms
[hide ▲]Synonyms
honesty
uprightness
rectitude
unity
wholeness
purity
goodness
probity
sincerity
virtue
decency
Woops, that didn’t reproduce too well.
I interpret (quite possibly wrongly) that Landmark focus on the “honouring one’s word” concept, because this is integral to how Landmark works …
1. Make a promise (preferably lots of them) …
2. Honour your word … (by taking action)
3. BINGO … all of a sudden, things mysteriously start to change in your life and “transformation” kind of happens automatically (albeit slowly for some!)
AE xx
a friend of mine often likes to say “integrity is a person who does what’s right when no one else is watching.”
That’s a good one.
Absolutely, integrity is doing things because they are right (according to your moral code), irrespective of whether someone is watching or not
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
you may need to download the file itself for a compelte read.
The above link defines Integrity in detail as defined by Werner Erhard (original founder of EST)
This is teh most pwerful defination which alters our approach tio Life itself
How great! A recent paper by Erhard himself. Very promising title. Thanks so much for the reference.
Gosh
Just read the abstract (which gave me a head-ache) – will save the 129 page document for another time. for now, the Wiktionary definition seems simpler (o:
Was a little disappointed that the abstract indicated my earlier comment “that Landmark focus on the “honouring one’s word” concept, because this is integral to how Landmark works …” may have been wrong. Or did the last paragraph of the abstract lean back towards this? Will have to review in the fresh light of day … to much reading for one night
AE
I was just writing about integrity and found your post.
I also attended Landmark and i got totally confronted with was just how ‘out of integrity’ I was. All OVER THE PLACE!!
From time keeping to broken promised. And what was so powerful, in terms of my learning, was how much better I feel and how much better life works, when i keep my agreements.. Better still, when i dont make agreements that (deep down) i know i cant or am not fully motivated to keep.
This was 10 years ago….i’d like to say that I am always in integrity but nope. The difference now is that I know what’s going on – i can get to the source of it.
Those distinctions around Integrity were some of the most important and powerful i’ve ever learnt.
Chantal
hi Chantal. haha, yes, isn’t it funny when we discover how out of integrity we are? :) Totally agree with you about how much better life works when we keep our agreements. I also find my life is richer and fuller because I’m not pushing agreeements away from me, and pulling them toward me instead. I discover that each day is much roomier than I’d ever imagined.
I like your point about not making agreements you know you can’t, or are not fully motivated to keep. I’m more choosy with giving my word now too, though probably I could do more in this area. Thanks for the reminder.
I had a situation go pear-shaped on me yesterday involving a business client and a software company. The company had an out-of-integrity over something we’d agreed just the day before, and the client was angry and upset. By the end of the day we’d got it cleaned up, and it was the distinction “integrity” that made the difference. Having the distinction allowed me to see what was going on (just like you said) and know what was to be done.
Thanks for the great comment, Chantal. Love talking to fellow graduates, esp about my favourite distinction. I’ve also blogged on two recent posts about a research paper on integrity written by Werner Erhard himself, and others. You can find the paper by reading the following blog post and Part II of the post:
http://solidgoldcreativity.com/2010/07/01/integrity-vs-special-pleading/
oops. Broken Promises is what i meant to say :)
I like your site Chantal. Looking forward to exploring it, and very best wishes with your business.
Hi AE,
The integrity distinction is one of the biggies in Landmark. It also takes a while to really get it, and then when you do, it’s time to get it again :)
People can get it mixed up with the normal, everyday meaning of integrity which is something very different and everything to do with right and wrong, and morality. As distinguished by Landmark, integrity has nothing to do with right and wrong, and morality.
Integrity as distinguised by Landmark is honouring one’s word. At the basic level, this means two things:
(1) doing what you said you would do, and doing it when you said you would do it
(2) if you become aware you can’t do what you said you would do, then you clean up with the person as soon as you become aware you will not be doing what you said you would do.
It has nothing to do with morality, right/wrong, etc.
In each Landmark course, integrity is distinguished in an increasingly rigorous way. In the Forum which you’ve done, integrity is introduced. In the Advanced course, you get integrity at a whole new level. In the Self-Expression and Leadership course, you get integrity again at a whole new level. At each level, what happens is that we begin to see more and more implications for our lives of what it means to be in integrity.
SGx