“All models are wrong but some are useful.” (Economist George E.P. Box)
In an effort to comprehend character in leadership, we tend to blur values, virtues and principles. Values define how a person intends to live. For example, Army values include loyalty, duty, respect and selfless service. Navy values include courage and commitment. Virtues are values in practice. They are literally “visible values.” Where values define “how,” principles define “who” the leader seeks to be. In the model I have been using for the past few years, I believe that the four cardinal principles of leadership are: honor, humility, integrity and faith. Integrity is the foundation.
Most leadership discussions start with integrity. The new Army leadership manual FM 6-22 (August 2012) defines integrity as “a key mark of a leader’s character,” and further as “doing what is right, legally and morally.” Previous editions used phrases like, “consistently act according to principle” and “morally complete and true to yourself.” In his book, The Stuff of Heroes, General William Cohen surveyed 200 combat military leaders, including 62 admirals and generals regarding the lessons they had learned from leadership in battle. Ninety-five percent of their responses fell into one of 8 principles. The first of the principles was “maintain absolute integrity.”
The military is not the only organization interested in integrity. It was the Merriam-Webster Word of the Year in 2005; the most looked-up word on the on-line dictionary that year. Today, the first definition of integrity in the dictionary is “adherence to a code.” However, as Stratford Sherman observed in his 2003 paper “Rethinking Integrity,” the definition has changed over time.
In the 1989 Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of integrity was “the condition of having no part or element taken away or wanting; undivided or unbroken state; material wholeness, completeness, entirety.” (Integrity derives from the Latin “integer” or “entire.”) This older definition stresses completeness or consistency. The concept of consistency and incorruptibility remained first among the definitions for integrity through the 1990’s. This definition of has moved to number three or four in the last decade, and has been replaced by the notion of integrity as adherence to an external moral or even artistic code.
In the ancient Hebrew world, animals and people were described as having integrity, or more specifically in Hebrew, “tamiym:” they were without blemish, complete, perfect, blameless. For an animal to be suitable for religious sacrifice, it had to have integrity, “tamiym.” it had to be everything it was supposed to be (male, domestic animal, first born), nothing it was not supposed to be (imperfect, defective, blemished), consistent (without spot or blemish from head to tail), and complete (has all its features, is missing nothing). The ancient notion of integrity was a blend of what was expected as well as what was intrinsically consistent. It was a combination of external standards but more importantly, an internal completeness. Today, with the first dictionary definition of integrity being adherence to a code, the principle of integrity has migrated from the ancient notion of a person’s internal consistency, to one’s ability to maintain compliance with a standard imposed from outside. It is easy to see in this context how integrity could be considered a value (“how”) rather than a principle (“who”).
Half a century ago, basic moral and ethical principles were generally agreed upon in American culture, and a central, organizing “metanarrative” (one story that underlies all of our stories) was a feature of our society. The postmodern philosophic epoch has evolved over the last fifty years. According to the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard this philosophic period is characterized by “incredulity toward metanarratives.” Absent a generalized story that serves as a foundation for us all, external codes and ethics and our adherence to those codes becomes the standard by which we judge ourselves and others. And yet leaders who lead from the perspective of single, organizing metanarrative may well have an advantage in our volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world.
As the subway doors open on the subway or “tube” in London, the recorded voice instructs departing passengers as they step out onto the platform, “Mind the Gap.” Leaders today must “mind the gap.” We must pay careful attention to the potential gap between what we say we stand for and what we do. Most leaders rate themselves highly on an integrity scale, even in situations where subordinates rate them lower, usually because of a perceived gap between the “who” and the “how” of the leader’s life.
The gap between the train and the platform is only there because the train has to move. If both the train and the platform were stationary, there would be no gap. One could be bolted to the other and the space between them would disappear. But integrity has to be able to move. Our integrity is not challenged as we sit at home unperturbed by those who threaten our autonomy, mastery or purpose. Integrity is demonstrated as we move through and encounter the situations and scenarios of life. And this dynamic application of integrity is all the more reason to “mind the gap.”
In order to close the space between our “who and how,” the leader can attend to three crucial components essential for the care and cultivation of integrity.
Identity. Leaders generally spend too little time thinking about who they are. Just shy of my thirtieth birthday (some time ago!) I wrote down the principles I felt that I stood for; those I thought would define who I wanted to be. I carry the 3×5 card in my appointment book today. Actually at age 29, after three children, almost a decade of marriage, medical school and residency, I probably arrived at the point of defining my “who” later than I should have. The personal mission statement is an essential component of the leader’s identity and philosophy. It is an important exercise for every leader.
Intention. It is not enough to define the person we hope to be. We need to put in place practical steps to realize that definition. In the business of our current world, precious little time is spent thinking of the implications of a course of action or activity as a reflection of what we have defined as our personal mission statement or who we want to be. The first gap can be between our identity and our intentions: do we really have the will to be the person we have described ourselves as being? A daily “quiet time” set aside for thinking and reflection can keep us focused, and potentially narrow the gap. For many years, I have tried to start my day before my family awakens, before exercise and the commute to work, in order to try to align my day with who I say that I want to be. Keeping a journal with intermittent entries of observations has also been a helpful tool.
Inspection. Ultimately our integrity will be judged on how well our identity and our intention match the inspection of others. We may be blind to inconsistencies. Here we have to rely on valued mentors and partners to keep us honest and consistent in our pursuit of the person we hope to be. (Teenage children can also be very helpful…) Mentor/mentee relationships rely on the energy of the mentee for their success. It is up to us to seek credible leaders with whom we can confide; men and women who will serve as mirrors for us. I was reminded recently that one mentor need not be the mirror for all areas of our lives. A minister or faith-leader might be the one to whom we go for reflection about family and morality, a more senior member of our profession for feedback and insight about work.
“The world is made up of stories, not atoms” (Muriel Rukeyser). As leaders, we must acknowledge that over a lifetime of leading we become a tapestry of the stories and narratives we have been told and those we tell ourselves. Our identity has been shaped by these stories. And the “inspection” of others is based on how well the story that they see in us matches what we say we believe.
Integrity is consistency between the story we tell ourselves and the story we find ourselves in. It is internal first, rooted and based on who we believe ourselves to be, so that ideally our actions reflect what we say we stand for. It also has an external aspect as we respond to the ever changing circumstances of our lives.
The cardinal principles of leadership are like the four points of our compass. We use them as a guide both prospectively and retrospectively to determine whether the direction we are heading is consistent with whom we believe ourselves to be.
When we are lost, we can use the compass to determine our azimuth again.
And in finding the azimuth, we find our way back home.
Chuck Callahan Henry V 4.3 – Lead from the Front https://henryv43.wordpress.com/
Henry V 4.3 
Colleagues… this topic perhaps more than any deserves dialogue. How do you define integrity? How do you use it in reflection, inspection, correction (!?) What would you say if you were asked what integrity means to you?
C-
Great article, Chuck. I define integrity as the consistency to which we adhere to moral values. Our integrity is something we must seek to maintain. (It is often challenged.) Our “gap” occurs when we violate it. BREAK: I really liked the integrity-building plan of identity and intention. Can I borrow that for an upcoming address to some high-schoolers?
Absolutely! Feel free to borrow any idea. I like your shortened definition and I think your observation that integrity doesn’t just happen is a good one. I would say that our integrity is continually challenged. Wisdom in leadership realizes, recognizes and responds to the challenges. (Slave to alliterations!)
Looking back in history there are many examples of influential men and women that are predict as true leaders and citizen of high integrity. How would, “Integrity” be described within our Nations Army today? How does this fit into the principle upon which it was founded back in 1775.
Henry T. Tuckerman wrote about George Washington that “The world has yet to understand the intellectual efficiency derived from moral qualities – how the candor of an honest, and the clearness of an unperverted mind attain results beyond the reach of mere intelligence and adroitness – how conscious integrity gives both insight and directness to mental operations, and elevation above the plane of selfish motives affords a more comprehensive, and therefore a more reliable views of affairs, than the keenest examination based exclusively on personal ability.”
The more I read this quote the more I can relate to it. Integrity does guide us when we base our decisions on where we would like to be, or were we see ourselves while identifying ourselves with those great leaders from the past, present and future. Intellectuality does not equal success or integrity. But with true integrity success can come in many ways.
To me leaving my mark in history is of such importance that I try to evaluate among many other things what integrity means to me. I continue to read and educate myself. The more I read and learn about effective, great leaders of our past the more I come across the fact that these leaders never stopped learning and reading, reevaluating the very person they are and want to become. In the example above George Washington was a great listener, he was a keen observer of people and events and he read far more widely and deeply than has been generally assumed. He saw life as a theater in which we all play our parts and he certainly had in his mind the character that he wanted to play and did play. It does mean that George Washington, in a real sense, invented himself by creating an original model from several that he had in mind and then lived by that model.
Evaluating yourself in any mater can be quite difficult. I agree that everybody would evaluate their own integrity at the highest level. After all who would openly admit to be a person of little to no integrity? In the end I believe that our integrity and morals are challenged and tested in our professional and personal life each day. We must make new decisions and redefine what integrity means to us, especially in this fast moving world. It is that only by questioning others and our own integrity we will be able to redefine the meaning to ourselves and cast proper decisions and behaviors. As with everything in life if we are not to educate ourselves and others while reevaluating the true meaning of what most think is such an easy subject and answer we will not be able to evolve ourselves becoming creatures of a higher integrity while allowing others to do the same.
Another great tool in this evaluation process is to have a trusted friend or colleague to give us perspective. This process must be without fear and repercussions. In other words, once someone tells you what they really think. Step back and listen, don’t get defensive. I know that this is extremely difficult at times as I for example can get quite offended if someone questions my integrity or moral intentions. But we have to ask ourselves, if another, especially a trusted friend or colleague perceives our actions or intentions in a certain way then if we like it or not what makes us think that others do not feel the same as our initial source. Integrity also means to live up to our faults and if we care we need to adjust our decisions or behavior to become an individual of higher integrity, the individual that we see and seek to become.
As for the gap and its size, it does not only depend on the individual and their level of integrity, but on the particulars of the situation. We may have a very small gap in some situations and large ones in others. Ideally we are continuously trying to keep the gap as small as feasible. In order to do so we will have to actually become aware of the gap and educate ourselves on effective ways to make it smaller. Integrity is what we say, what we do, and what we say we do. Don Galer.
Although there are many different quotes about integrity it is some of these that particular captured my eye in researching within me the true meaning of integrity. Abraham Lincoln the 16th U.S. President said “Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.” This is easier said then done as we will face situations in our professional life where our high sense of integrity may bring adverse reactions. I feel that in order to be true to ourselves and our fellow women and men, to leave our mark on history we must face and overcome those adverse reactions and stay true to our integrity as Jennifer Stone said “Integrity pays, but not in cash”.
Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) sums it up just right by stating “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
In the end I would like to thank you for fostering this forum and the discussion, providing discussion and food for thought to our mind and soles. Talking about the gap and discussing the meaning of integrity with others will help reduce the gap further and display the level of integrity that we envision.
Carpe Diem