Feedback to SSRN (Beta)
What type of feedback would you like to send?
Abstract: Note: SSRN is experimenting with enabling the distribution of different types of files: slides, spreadsheets, video, etc. We are interested in our users desires to distribute files that go beyond word processing text files. You can communicate with Michael Jensen on these issues via his email address below. SSRN invites you to submit your own presentation slides.
We present a positive model of integrity that, as we distinguish and define integrity, provides powerful access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Our model reveals the causal link between integrity and increased performance, quality of life, and value-creation for all entities, and provides access to that causal link. Integrity is thus a factor of production as important as knowledge and technology, yet its major role in productivity and performance has been largely hidden or unnoticed, or even ignored by economists and others.
The philosophical discourse, and common usage as reflected in dictionary definitions, leave an overlap and confusion among the four phenomena of integrity, morality, ethics, and legality. This overlap and confusion confound the four phenomena so that the efficacy and potential power of each is seriously diminished.
In this new model, we distinguish all four phenomena - integrity, morality, ethics, and legality - as existing within two separate realms. Integrity exists in a positive realm devoid of normative content. Integrity is thus not about good or bad, or right or wrong, or what should or should not be. Morality, ethics and legality exist in a normative realm of virtues (that is, they are about good and bad, right and wrong, or what should or should not be). Furthermore, within their respective realms, each of the four phenomena is distinguished as belonging to a distinct and separate domain, and the definition of each as a term is made clear, unambiguous, and non-overlapping.
We distinguish the domain of integrity as the objective state or condition of an object, system, person, group, or organizational entity, and, consistent with the first two of the three definitions in Webster's dictionary, define integrity as a state or condition of being whole, complete, unbroken, unimpaired, sound, perfect condition.
We assert that integrity (the condition of being whole and complete) is a necessary condition for workability, and that the resultant level of workability determines the available opportunity for performance. Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior performance, no matter how one defines performance.
For an individual we distinguish integrity as a matter of that person's word being whole and complete. For a group or organizational entity we define integrity as that group' or organization's word being whole and complete. A group's or organization's word consists of what is said between the people in that group or organization, and what is said by or on behalf of the group or organization. In that context, we define integrity for an individual, group, or organization as: honoring one's word.
Oversimplifying somewhat, "honoring your word", as we define it, means you either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will not, you say that you will not be keeping your word to those who were counting on your word and clean up any mess you caused by not keeping your word. By "keeping your word" we mean doing what you said you would do and by the time you said you would do it.
Honoring your word is also the route to creating whole and complete social and working relationships. In addition, it provides an actionable pathway to earning the trust of others.
We demonstrate that the application of cost-benefit analysis to honoring your word guarantees that you will be untrustworthy. And that, with one exception, you will not be a person of integrity, thereby reducing both the workability of your life and your opportunity for performance. The one exception to this form of being out of integrity is, if when giving your word you have announced that you will apply cost-benefit analysis to honoring your word. In this case you have maintained your integrity, but you have also announced that you are an unmitigated opportunist. The virtually automatic application of cost-benefit analysis to one's integrity (an inherent tendency in most of us) lies at the heart of much out-of-integrity and untrustworthy behavior in modern life.
Regarding the relationship between integrity, and the three virtue phenomena of morality, ethics and legality, this new model: 1) encompasses all four terms in one consistent theory, 2) makes clear and unambiguous the "moral compasses" potentially available in each of the three virtue phenomena, and 3) by revealing the relationship between honoring the standards of the three virtue phenomena and performance (including being complete as a person and the quality of life), raises the likelihood that the now clear moral compasses can actually shape human behavior. This all falls out primarily from the unique treatment of integrity in our model as a purely positive phenomenon, independent of normative value judgments.
In summary, we show that defining integrity as honoring one's word (as we have defined "honoring one's word"): 1) provides an unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior performance and competitive advantage at both the individual and organizational level, and 2) empowers the three virtue phenomena of morality, ethics and legality.
PDF file of Keynote slides for seminars at the Gruter Institute Conference on Values, Harvard Business School, June 2006; Simon School of Business, U. of Rochester; Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, Sept. 2006, Nottingham College of Business, Nottingham, UK, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain; HEC, Paris, France, Nov. 2006, Yale Symposium on Corporate Governance, Inaugural Lecture, (Yale Law School and Yale School of Organization and Management), New Haven, CT, January 2007, Gruter Institute Squaw Valley Conference: Law, Brain and Behavior, May 2007, Harvard Business School Negotiations Organizations and Markets Seminar, Sept. 2007; Yale School of Management, Sept. 2007: MIT Sloan School of Management Leadership Center, Cambridge, MA, Oct. 2007; Harvard Law School Law, Economics and Organizations Research Seminar, Cambridge, MA, Oct. 2007; USC Marshall School of Business, Finance and Economics Dept. Distinguished Speaker Series, Nov. 2007; LeBow College Corporate Governance Conference, Philadelphia, PA, April 2008; Special Seminar Series, Business Department, Juan Carlos III University, Madrid, Spain, April, 2008; Herbert Simon Lecture, Rajk Laszlo College, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary, April 21, 2008; Exeter at Said Business School, Oxford, UK, April 24, 2008; U. of Rochester Simon School of Business Alumni Seminar, NYC, May 5, 2008; DePaul U. Kellstdat School of Business, Chicago, IL, May 8, 2008; 1st IESE Conference on Humanizing the Firm and the Management Profession, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain, July 2, 2008 Stern Stewart International Finance Summit, Cape Town, South Africa, July 31, 2008; Concordia University John Molson School of Business, Montreal, Quebec, CA Sept. 16, 2008; Institute of Corporate Directors Conference on Governance and Financial Markets in North America, Montreal, Quebec, CA, Sept. 19, 2008; Duisenberg School of Finance, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct. 14, 2008; Paduano Faculty Research Symposium in Business Ethics, Stern School of Business, New York, Oct. 23, 2008; Olin School of Business Faculty Forum Sponsored by the Center for Research in Economics and Strategy and the Center for the Study of Ethics and Human Values, Washingtoe University, St. Louis, MO, Nov. 6, 2008; Fisher School of Business, Ohio State U., Columbus, OH, Nov. 7, 2008; United States Air Force Academy, Platinum Series, Colorado Springs, CO, Jan. 21, 2009; Texas A&M Distinguished Lecture Series, College Station, TX, Feb. 10, 2009; Social Innovation Research Seminar Series, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, March 16, 2009.
Integrity, Morality, Ethics, Legality, Sincerity, Productivity, Performance, Lies, Lying, Managing Earnings, Smoothing Earnings, Collusion, Development, Disclosure Strategy, Fiduciary Responsibility, Financial Reporting, Accounting Errors, Fraud, Corporate Governance
Abstract: Presented at the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, MA, May 10, 2007. We present a positive model of integrity that provides powerful access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Our model reveals the causal link between integrity as we distinguish and define it, and increased performance and value-creation for all entities. And our model provides access to that causal link. The philosophical discourse, and common usage as reflected in dictionary definitions, leave an overlap and confusion among the four phenomena of integrity, morality, ethics, and legality. This confounds the terms so that the efficacy and potential power of each of them is seriously diminished. In this new model, we distinguish all four phenomena integrity, morality, ethics, and legality as existing within two separate realms, and within those realms as belonging to distinct and separate domains. Integrity exists in a positive realm devoid of normative content. Morality, ethics and legality exist in a normative realm of virtues, but in separate and distinct domains. This new model: 1) encompasses all four terms in one consistent theory, 2) makes the moral compass potentially available in each of the three virtue phenomena clear and unambiguous, and 3) does this in a way that raises the likelihood of those now clear moral compasses actually shaping human behavior. This all falls out primarily from the unique treatment of integrity in our model as a purely positive phenomenon, independent of normative value judgments. Integrity is thus not about good or bad, or right or wrong, or what should or should not be. We distinguish integrity as a phenomenon of the objective state or condition of an object, system, person, group, or organizational entity, and define integrity as: a state or condition of being whole, complete, unbroken, unimpaired, sound, perfect condition. We assert that integrity (the condition of being whole and complete) is a necessary condition for workability, and that the resultant level of workability determines the available opportunity for performance. Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an unambiguous and actionable access to superior performance (however one wishes to define performance). For an individual we distinguish integrity as a matter of that person's word being whole and complete, and for a group or organizational entity as what is said by or on behalf of the group or organization being whole and complete. In that context, we define integrity for an individual, group, or organization as: Honoring one's word. Oversimplifying somewhat, honoring your word as we define it means you either keep your word (do what you said you would do and by the time you said you would do it), or as soon as you know that you will not, you say that you will not to those who were counting on your word and clean up any mess caused by not keeping your word. Honoring your word is also the route to creating whole and complete social and working relationships. In addition, it provides an actionable pathway to earning the trust of others. We demonstrate that the application of cost-benefit analysis to one's integrity guarantees you will not be a trustworthy person (thereby reducing the workability of relationships), and with the exception of some minor qualifications ensures also that you will not be a person of integrity (thereby reducing the workability of your life). Therefore your performance will suffer. The virtually automatic application of cost-benefit analysis to honoring one's word (an inherent tendency in most of us) lies at the heart of much out-of-integrity and untrustworthy behavior in modern life. In conclusion, we show that defining integrity as honoring one's word provides 1) an unambiguous and actionable access to superior performance and competitive advantage at both the individual and organizational level, and 2) empowers the three virtue phenomena.
Moral, Ethical, Legal, Performance, Quality of Life, Sincerity
Abstract: Slide deck and course materials for Erasmus Academie Leadership Course June 8-12, 2009.
The following paragraph describes this course for someone who has no knowledge of what this material is about.
This Leadership course is different from others you may know of or have experienced. This course is based on the proposition that within everyone there is a natural latent leadership ability. Rather than teaching you "leadership strategies" or being a "how to guide", this course will help you identify and remove obstacles that keep you from accessing your innate leadership talent. Some obstacles to great leadership are inherent in and shared by all people-- a consequence of the way our brains work. And some obstacles are specific to each individual-- the result of individual history and experience. This course works to make you aware of these obstacles, and allows you to remove them and access your natural capacity for leadership
History and More on the Course
This presentation is based on our (and our co-instructors’) work over the last six years in developing a course of the same title at the University of Rochester Simon School of Business (which course is now also taught at the US Air Force Academy, was recently delivered at the Erasmus Academie (Rotterdam), a version of which is taught at the Erasmus University Law School, and will be taught at Texas A&M University). The course is still under development and will be for several more years. The course is designed to leave the participants being leaders and exercising leadership effectively as their natural self expression,
The course is not designed to merely leave the participants with knowledge (that is not designed to leave students “knowing” about leaders and leadership and able to discuss the issues surrounding leader and leadership). Rather the course is designed to give students actual access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership. Our promise as instructors to the students is that if they honor their word to fulfill the requests we make of them they will leave the course being leaders and exercising leadership effectively.
The research project that led to the creation of this course (and the papers and slides on leadership that are in the attached pdf file) originated from our interest in laying the foundations for a science of leadership. We agree with Warren Bennis (2002, p. 2) and Joseph Rost (1993, p. 8) who conclude respectively: "It is almost a cliche of the leadership literature that a single definition of leadership is lacking." and "The scholars do not know what it is they are studying, and the practitioners do not know what it is they are practicing."
Attacking the question of what leadership is required us to get into what it is to be a leader and what it is to exercise leadership effectively. Getting to the core of being a leader led naturally to attacking the task of creating leaders and the natural laboratory for exploring that question was the classroom. Mark Zupan, Dean of the U. of Rochester Simon School of Business provided us the laboratory to do this and the course was created.
We resolve the puzzle over what leadership is by uniquely distinguishing leader and leadership as the intersection of four precise aspects which are respectively: Leader and Leadership as 1. Linguistic Abstractions (leader and leadership as “realms of possibility”), 2. Phenomena (leader and leadership as experienced, that is, as exercised, or what one observes or is impacted by), 3. Concepts (the temporal domains in which leader and leadership function), 4. Terms (leader and leadership as definitions)
The access provided to (and therefore what is revealed about) leader and leadership when dealt with as a realm of possibility is different than the access provided to (and therefore what is revealed about) leader or leadership when they are dealt with as a phenomenon, or as a concept, or as a term.
We argue that when the four perspectives are taken together, as a whole they provide access to mastering what leader and leadership actually are. This enables us to get our arms around the being of a leader and the effective exercise of leadership. Having mastered this overall context, we can then get our hands on the levers and dials of being a leader, and the effective exercise of leadership.
What follows - in a single pdf document of 478 pages of PowerPoint slides, Word documents, and exhibits (roughly equivalent to a 200 page book) - is a collection of virtually all the materials used in the course.
Our desire is to make the course available to anyone to teach it, to communicate it and to extend it. This second pass release of the material is not fully complete nor is it polished to our standards. We will continue to update and extend the material and will revise these files. We are releasing the material so that we can benefit from the comments, criticisms and suggestions of others who share our desire to accelerate the development of a true science of leadership. We want to see this material (or material derived from it) taught in every major business school and university.
While the course is still a work in progress, we, the authors and instructors, are making all the materials available through SSRN (Social Science Research Network) to anyone who wishes to teach versions of the course in any university or college setting.
For the full introductory paper to the course: “The Ontological Constraints Limiting Access to Leadership: What You Must Take Away to Create Access to Being a Leader and the Effective Exercise of Leadership” see: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1238158
Abstract: This paper is the (pre-course) introduction document to an experimental leadership course developed by the authors and taught at the U. of Rochester Simon School of Business and the US Air Force Academy, and will be taught in June 2009 at the Erasmus Academie in Rotterdam. The title of the course is: "Being A Leader and The Effective Exercise Of Leadership: An Ontological Model". The intention of the course is to leave the participants actually being leaders and exercising leadership effectively, and for the course to contribute to creating a new science of leadership. The course is founded on what we term an ontological model of human nature.
More on the Course
By ontological we mean the following: If you have ever wondered what it would be like to be a bird, or wondered what it is like to be your dog, or to be a person of the opposite gender, or what it is like to be some particular friend of yours, you were in an ontological inquiry. You would also be in an ontological inquiry if you asked: What is it like to be a human being, or what is it like to be a leader?
Ontology as a general subject is concerned with the being of anything. However, here we are concerned with the ontology of human beings, and specifically with the ontology of leader and leadership. That is, we are concerned with the nature and function of being for human beings, and specifically with the nature and function of being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership.
For a narrower and therefore easier example of being, we can talk about being angry, or being antisocial, or being a person of character. We could examine these ways of being from the comfort of our somewhat familiar perspectives on human beings from the science of psychology, neuroscience, or genetics.
While less familiar for us and therefore perhaps at first uncomfortable, it is also possible to examine any of these ways of being from an ontological perspective. Here we would be examining the being aspect of being angry, or being antisocial, or being a person of character. (Webster's Dictionary (1998) defines being as "fundamental or essential nature".) From this perspective we clearly see that when we are being angry, we are likely to act in anger. Likewise for being antisocial, or being a person of character. From the ontological perspective it is clear that being constrains and shapes behavior.
The ontological perspective is particularly powerful when dealing with the being of being a leader, and the effective exercise of leadership. Like acting in anger when we are being angry, or acting with ease if we are being at ease, or acting with confidence when we are being confident, if we master the being of being a leader, we are likely to act as a leader and exercise leadership effectively. And, this course is about being a leader, and acting effectively in exercising leadership as a natural consequence of being a leader.
An epistemological mastery of a subject leaves you knowing. An ontological mastery of a subject leaves you being. Once again, this course is about access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership.
Effective leadership does not come from mere knowledge about what leaders do, or trying to emulate the characteristics or styles of noteworthy leaders, or from trying to remember and follow the steps, tips or techniques from books on leadership, and certainly not from merely being in a leadership position, or position of authority. If you are not being a leader, and you try to act like a leader, you are likely to fail. That's called being inauthentic, and inauthenticity (pretending to be a leader) is deadly in the attempt to exercise leadership.
It is obvious that to be effective in dealing with a leadership challenge one must be able to accurately perceive that challenge, and then act effectively in dealing with the challenge. However, neuroscience tells us that at least 80% of what we perceive is what our brain sees (comes from our memory), not what our eyes see. And, the 80% of our perception that comes from our memory is constrained and shaped by our network of ideas, beliefs, social and cultural embedded-ness, and taken-for-granted assumptions. Moreover, regardless of the accuracy of our perceptions, when in our attempt to deal with a leadership challenge there is a perceived threat to our identity, our freedom to act is high jacked by stimulus-response behavior, or what is often called a knee-jerk reaction. We term this limiting and shaping imposed on our perceptions and actions, Ontological Constraints.
The ontological approach to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership opens up the possibility of eliminating many of these Ontological Constraints, including those most critical to being effective as a leader. Much of this course is devoted to providing participants with that opportunity.
The Underlying Theory of this Course: Part I
• Given that our way of being and our actions are a correlate of the way in which the circumstances we are dealing with occur (show up) for us, and • Given that the way the circumstances occur for us is limited and shaped by our Ontological Constraints, our being and actions when being a leader are not correlated with what is actually there, but rather with some distorted version of what is there, and • Given that these Ontological Constraints limit and shape our opportunity set for being and action, the most effective way of being and acting when being a leader is often unavailable to us. • Thus, gaining access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership requires that we loosen the grip of these debilitating Ontological Constraints, or to put it more simply, • We must take away what is for each of us individually in the way of our being a leader and exercising leadership effectively. • This accomplished, one only needs to distinguish being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership in a way that provides access to the natural expression of being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership.
The Underlying Theory of this Course: Part II
• We distinguish Leader and Leadership in a way that pierces through their complexity and clarifies their multidimensionality, and do so in a way that leaves participants with a natural access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership. • We produce this natural access by transforming participants’ Frame of Reference (mindset) for Leader and Leadership through the use of a unique contextual framework (structure for analysis) constituted by the following four distinct aspects of (or perspectives on) Leader and Leadership. • We distinguish Leader and Leadership as: o A Linguistic Abstraction o A Phenomenon o A Concept o A Term
Our Promise:
You will have experienced whatever personal transformation is required for you to leave the course being who you need to be to be a leader, and with what it takes to exercise leadership effectively. In other words, you will be a leader.
Leadership, Ontology, worldview, frames of reference, ontological constraints, functional constraints, perceptual constraints
Abstract: This presentation is based on our (and our co-instructors’) work over the last six years in developing a course of the same title at the University of Rochester Simon School of Business (which course is now also taught at the US Air Force Academy, was recently delivered at the Erasmus Academie (Rotterdam), and a version of which is taught at the Erasmus University Law School, and will be taught at Texas A&M University). The course is designed to leave the participants being leaders and exercising leadership effectively as their natural self expression, and to contribute to creating a new science of leadership.
The course is founded on what we term an ontological model of human nature. The ontological approach is uniquely effective in providing actionable access to being a leader and exercising leadership effectively.
While ontology as a general subject is concerned with the being of anything, here we are concerned with the ontology of human beings (the nature and function of being for human beings). Specifically we are concerned with the ontology of leader and leadership (the nature and function of being for a leader and the actions of effective leadership). Who one is being when being a leader shapes one’s perceptions, emotions, creative imagination, thinking, planning, and consequently one’s actions in the exercise of leadership.
Being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership as one’s natural self-expression does not come from learning and trying to emulate the characteristics or styles of noteworthy leaders, or learning what leaders do and trying to emulate that (and certainly not from merely being in a leadership position, or position of authority).
If you are not being a leader, and you try to act like a leader, you are likely to fail. That’s called being inauthentic (playing a role or pretending to be a leader), deadly in any attempt to exercise leadership.
An epistemological mastery of a subject leaves you knowing. An ontological mastery of a subject leaves you being.
Gaining access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership as one’s natural self-expression also requires dealing with those factors present in all human beings that constrain each person’s freedom to be – and constrain and shape one’s perceptions, emotions, creative imagination, thinking, planning, and actions. When one is not constrained or shaped by these factors – what we term “ontological constraints” – one’s way of being and acting results naturally in one’s personal best in any leadership situation. We work with the students so that they accomplish this for themselves.
The Underlying Theory of the Course: Part I
• We work with the students to create for themselves what it is to be a leader, and what it is to exercise leadership effectively, as a context that uses them. By “a context that uses them”, we mean a context that has the power to leave students in any leadership situation being a leader and exercising leadership effectively as their natural self-expression. (As it has been said: “the context is decisive”.)
• By “a context that has the power to leave students being a leader and exercising leadership effectively as their natural self-expression”, we mean the following: a context that has the power in any leadership situation to shape the way in which the circumstances the students are dealing with occur for them such that their naturally correlated way of being and acting is one of being a leader and exercising leadership effectively. Note: being and action are always a correlate of the way in which the circumstances on which and in which a person is acting occur (show up) for that person.
• Students begin to create this context for themselves by first freeing themselves from the constraints and shaping imposed by their network of unexamined ideas, beliefs, biases, social and cultural embeddedness, and taken-for-granted assumptions relative to what it is to be a leader and what it is to exercise leadership effectively. This then allows students the freedom to create for themselves this new context for Leader and Leadership that has the power to become their natural self-expression.
• We give students access to creating this new context for leader and leadership by distinguishing Leader and Leadership from the perspective of four distinct aspects, which when taken together as a whole create this new context – the context that in any leadership situation shapes the way in which what is being dealt with occurs for the student such that their naturally correlated way of being and acting is one of being a leader and exercising leadership effectively.
We distinguish Leader and Leadership, each as: A Linguistic Abstraction (that creates a “realm of possibility”) A Phenomenon (what one observes or is impacted by) A Concept (the domain of leader and leadership) A Term (the definition of leader and leadership) All founded on Integrity (as a positive phenomenon) See: http://ssrn.com/abstract=920625
http://ssrn.com/abstract=932255
The Underlying Theory of the Course: Part II
• Ontological Constraints: Having distinguished what it is to be a leader, and what it is to exercise leadership effectively, as a context that has the power to give students the being of a leader and the actions of effective leadership as their natural self-expression, we provide students with exercises that allow them to become aware of and remove the ontological perceptual and functional constraints imposed on their natural self-expression.
• Ontological Perceptual Constraints: The source of our ontological perceptual constraints is our network of unexamined ideas, beliefs, biases, social and cultural embeddedness, and taken-for-granted assumptions about the world, others, and ourselves. These ontological perceptual constraints limit and shape what we perceive of what is actually there in the situations with which we are dealing. As a consequence, if we do not remove these perceptual constraints, then in any leadership situation we are left dealing with some distortion of the situation we are actually dealing with.
• Ontological Functional Constraints: In everyday language the behavior generated by an ontological functional constraint is sometimes referred to as a “knee-jerk reaction”. Psychologists sometimes refer to this behavior as “automatic stimulus/response behavior” – where, in the presence of a particular stimulus (trigger), the inevitable response is an automatic set way of being and acting. From a neuroscience perspective, many ontological functional constraints could be termed amygdala hijacks. When triggered in a leadership situation, one’s ontological functional constraints fixate one’s way of being and acting. Saying the same thing in another way, these ontological functional constraints limit and shape our opportunity set for being and action. As a consequence, the appropriate actions may be, and in fact often are, unavailable to us.
• Thus, gaining access to being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership requires that we loosen the grip of these debilitating Ontological Constraints. Or to put it more simply, we must take away what is in the way of our being a leader and exercising leadership effectively.
For the full paper see: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1238158
And for the full 478 pages of the course material used in the Erasmus Academie course June 8-12, 2009 see http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263835
Presented to: Canyon Partners, Los Angeles, CA, October 22, 2009; Simon School of Business Leadership Course, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY., July 22, 2009; Gruter Institute Squaw Valley Law, Brain and Behavior Conference, May 20, 2009; US Air Force Academy Center For Character and Leadership Development, Colorado Springs, April 30, 2009; and Olin School of Business, Washington University in St. Louis, and Cook School of Business, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, April 6, 2009.
Leadership, Ontology, Ontological Model of Human Nature, Ontological Constraints, Perceptual Constraints, Functional Constraints
Abstract: We present a positive model of integrity that, as we distinguish and define integrity, provides powerful access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Our model reveals the causal link between integrity and increased performance, quality of life, and value-creation for all entities, and provides access to that causal link. Integrity is thus a factor of production as important as knowledge and technology, yet its major role in productivity and performance has been largely hidden or unnoticed, or even ignored by economists and others.
For an individual we distinguish integrity as a matter of that person's word being whole and complete. For a group or organizational entity we define integrity as that group's or organization's word being whole and complete. A group's or organization's word consists of what is said between the people in that group or organization, and what is said by or on behalf of the group or organization. In that context, we define integrity for an individual, group, or organization as: honoring one's word.
Oversimplifying somewhat, honoring your word, as we define it, means you either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will not, you say that you will not be keeping your word to those who were counting on your word and clean up any mess you caused by not keeping your word. By keeping your word we mean doing what you said you would do and by the time you said you would do it.
Regarding the relationship between integrity, and the three virtue phenomena of morality, ethics and legality, this new model: 1) encompasses all four terms in one consistent theory, 2) makes clear and unambiguous the moral compasses potentially available in each of the three virtue phenomena, and 3) by revealing the relationship between honoring the standards of the three virtue phenomena and performance (including being complete as a person and the quality of life), raises the likelihood that the now clear moral compasses can actually shape human behavior. This all falls out primarily from the unique treatment of integrity in our model as a purely positive phenomenon, independent of normative value judgments.
In summary, we show that defining integrity as honoring one's word (as we have defined honoring one's word): 1) provides an unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior performance and competitive advantage at both the individual and organizational level, and 2) empowers the three virtue phenomena of morality, ethics and legality.
integrity, trust, values, ethics, corporate fraud, trustworthy, economic cost benefit analysis
© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy This page was served by apollo3 in 0.078 seconds.
