Managing Integrity

1

MANAGING INTEGRITY: A RELATIONAL APPROACH ABSTRACT for EGPA 2008 ‘Call for papers’ Pim van der Pol (MSc) vanderpol@bouwenaanintegriteit.nl P.O. box 456 7570 AL, Oldenzaal The Netherlands 0031 654 770 154 The paper discusses the question “What works in integrity management?”. The answer to the question is provided first by a theoretical analysis that focuses on the concept of integrity as a relational quality. Managing integrity is conceived as predominantly a matter of advancing a dialogue about values and expected behaviour, not only within the organisation, but also explicitly with the stakeholders of the organisation.1 Subsequently the relational interpretation of integrity (management) is supported by the experiences the author has collected as the director of a nationwide project for integrity development in the Dutch construction sector.2 In the course of the project a theoretical conception on managing integrity was conceived on which basis operational instruments were applied and tested.3 Because of the scope of the project - the whole chain of the construction process - the project not only incorporated private construction companies but also public organisations that acted as clients. In the course of the project it became evident that integrity is well understood as a relational issue, which needs attention and management from all parties of the collaborating chain.

The starting point of the paper is a theoretical analysis that states that managing integrity is not the same as managing ethics. In fact there are arguments for the assertion that the concepts of integrity and ethics do not automatically conjoin the way most people assume. As for organizations, ethics is an important discourse in which they necessarily operate and have to take a stand. It is about the discussion of values and which should dominate behaviour. But ethics is basically a univocal discourse, because its legitimizing fundament silently lies in a metaphysical, or transcendental conviction.4 Integrity is also about values, not about which values are ‘right’, but rather about the consistency and transparency with which these values are applied in actual behaviour.5 The distinctive point is that integrity is a ‘multivocal’ discourse. It rests on mutual agreements, whether legal, symbolical or sociological. Integrity is not a unique Aristotelian quality you possess, but something that is given to you by the stakeholders of your organization. It is a deliberate verdict about trust, reliability and – very important in its consequences about reputation.

1

Jeurissen & Musschenga (2002), Kaptein & Wempe (2002), Karssing (2000,2006).

Building Integrity in de Dutch construction sector is a governmental project lead by the author and his colleague Alex Straathof. It ran from 2005 up to and including 2007.

3 Van der Pol & Straathof (2005), Straathof (2005).

4 Reference: Ricoeur, Levinas.

5 Musschenga (2004).

2

14-5-2008 PP

2

From the relational aspect of integrity follows the essential connotation of the word. It is a misconception to consider the lack off integrity mostly represented by corruption or fraud, or other forms off (near) criminal behaviour. In fact these violations, although easily assignable, form a small part of the integrity issues.

The majority of integrity problems consist off issues that are not so easily detectable or understandable.6 Often it is not a matter off good or wrong, or black or white; the danger zone is mostly grey and needs dialogue and interpretation as about the seriousness of the supposed violation.7 In this zone people do not always have the same ideas or expectations about what the appropriate behaviour should be, or they are convinced that they are doing the right thing, not knowing, or denying, that other people disapprove of their behaviour. The main task in managing integrity is not in legal compliance, how important that might be for a company, and in preventing criminal conduct. The challenge is in accommodating a debate that leads tot understanding and consciousness, and hence creates ‘value compliance’.8 The notion of integrity as predominantly a relational quality has been supported by the experiences of the integrity development program in the Dutch construction sector. The immediate cause of the program launched by the Dutch government was the huge fraud scandal that revealed illegal practices of pricefixing between construction firms. An investigating committee of Dutch Parliament reached the conclusion that construction culture needed change and integrity should be a strongly established value. Blaming the companies of violating integrity rules the program aimed at developing instruments that could assist companies in strengthening their capacity for integrity. In the course of the project it turned out to be that the blaming should also be on the part of the government itself – who had been provoking certain forms of conduct - and that the most effective instruments for integrity development where the ones that enabled the dialogue between the partners. Only by explaining the mutual expectations of each other's conduct and the ‘real’ meaning of (written) agreements, could the sense of integrity and reliability be brought back into the relation. All participants in the project, whether it be public clients, construction companies, engineering companies, architects, or installation companies, wanted most of all to work on the relation with the other parties in order to restore confidence and integrity.9 In the paper examples of the instruments applied will be presented as an illustration of the effectiveness of the concept of dialogue when managing integrity. These instruments are ‘stakeholders hearing’ and ‘dilemma discussion’.

The examples may be interesting because they compare different types of organizations. The three cases are about a public organization (the Dutch town of Zwolle where the city council was involved in the project), a private organisation (a construction company) and a ‘hybrid’ organization, a housing company.

6

Karssing (2000) Reference to Habermas , Theorie des Kommunikativen Handel.

8 Reference to Trevino, c.s. (1999) Lynn Sharp Paine (1994) e.a. about the different strategies than can be applied: compliance vs values. But it is even possible to comply to values.

9 Their is ample evidence for this assertion, provide by protocols of integrity discussions and conferences.

7

14-5-2008 PP

3

In evaluating the experiences with the implementation of the instruments and considering its outcome, all three cases contributed to the assertion that managing integrity is most effective when it's point of application is not the organization as a stand-alone unit, but the relation with its relevant stakeholders, upstream as well as downstream.

A few references: www.bouwenaanintegriteit.nl (building integrity) Jeurissen, R. (2006). Bedrijfsethiek: een goede zaak. Management & ethiek. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Jeurissen, R., & Musschenga, B. (2002). Integriteit in bedrijf, organisatie en openbaar bestuur.

Management & ethiek. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

Kaptein, M., & Wempe, J. F. D. B. (2002). The balanced company: a theory of corporate integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karssing, E. D. (2000). Morele competentie in organisaties. Management & ethiek. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Karssing, E. D. (2006). Integriteit in de beroepspraktijk. Management & ethiek. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Musschenga, B. (2004). Integriteit: over de eenheid en heelheid van de persoon. Utrecht: LEMMA. Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business Review. 72 (2), 10617.

Pol, P. v. d., & Straathof, A. (2005). Bouwen aan integriteit. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.

Straathof, A. (2005). Integriteit in teams. Utrecht: LEMMA. Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Business & Society Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works And What Hurts. California Management Review. 41 (2), 131.

14-5-2008 PP