By Leslie Pratch
The research presented here has implications for minimizing the selection of executives who are prone to unethical behavior. It is impossible to eliminate such behavior, particularly in light of the proclivity of low integrity executives to hide their duplicity from the outside world and even from themselves. An executive may manifest low integrity only when a set of conditions come together. In this study, for example, intelligence, spousal relations, and positions of power and independence occurred in conjunction with deeply entrenched deficits in self-esteem and compensatory motivational tendencies. This conjunction of factors differentiated the two levels of integrity examined. The particular combination of experiential, intellectual, and personality characteristics that are necessary and sufficient to generate actions that could be deemed low integrity may vary from one person to the next. The specific culture, structure, and circumstances of the organization in which the executive works may influence if, when, and how low integrity behavior will emerge. Having noted these contingencies, I believe more can be done to reduce the potential for unethical and illegal behavior.
The main finding of this study is that to assess integrity requires knowing the whole person. The whole person includes past personal and professional development, current life outside of work, and psychological make-up on overt and covert levels. To do so efficiently, organizations should rely on professionals trained in establishing rapport with executives, who are knowledgeable about developmental processes and personality functioning, and who are licensed and experienced in the administration and interpretation of objective and projective assessment techniques.
Individuals at risk for demonstrating low integrity are likely to have one or more of the following characteristics. They will have early histories of conflict-ridden and psychologically-painful relationships with their parents, especially their fathers. They will have unsteady work histories with confrontations with authority figures or frequent changes in place of employment that do not logically indicate an upward career trajectory or which lack plausible explanations. They may be self-adulating in an exaggerated fashion, hypercritical and mistrustful of others, impulsive, show poor empathy, and exhibit a need to control others or do everything on their own. They will demonstrate passive coping in their projective stories.
Executives who are likely to exhibit high integrity are likely to exhibit active coping tendencies on all levels of behavior assessed. These include overt behavioral, self-report, and projective levels. They are likely to report satisfactory relationships with parents and parental figures; loving and compatible relationships with significant others; and a concern for other individuals and the community at large. They will have a history of balancing self-advancement with activities that foster the well-being and development of family members, colleagues, friends, subordinates, and even strangers (as in the case of charitable work). High integrity executives are likely to raise spontaneously the topic of integrity in interviews because actualizing social ideals is a core element of their motivation. They also may appear to be very intelligent and score high on formal measures of intelligence. Being first born children or the first males born into their families in stable, loving families is another feature that may be associated with high integrity among male executives.
The high and low integrity profiles above represent extremes. Many individuals fall between these two extremes. They may fall between in many ways. They may have average to passive coping tendencies on one or more of the four dimensions of active coping. They may have a history of poor family relationships but not display narcissistic tendencies. They may be limited in intellectual ability or functional skill. It may be more difficult to predict whether these in-between individuals will behave with integrity over time.
I would expect that most executives who fall in the middle, in the absence of a criminal history, would demonstrate integrity on what earlier in this paper I called the first level of integrity: They are unlikely to commit illegal acts. In contrast, they may have difficulty reaching the third level: demonstrating consistently exceptional moral behavior that serves as a model for others. They may be variable on the second level of integrity: behaviors that are legal but not culturally appropriate.
The ultimate responsibility for acceptable integrity lies with the individual executive and with the organization. This paper focused on the former and not the latter. But it is worth mentioning that local cultures can reinforce or ignore behavior that others would construe as demonstrating integrity or its lack. Pressure to produce at any cost; an unforgiving and demanding administration; unsavory leadership; faulty internal controls; and other factors can encourage low integrity.
High integrity executives are likely to resist the temptations of organizations that lack appropriate checks and balances or where values are subject to frequent revision. Low integrity individuals will try to flourish and may exhibit their low integrity almost anywhere. It is the middle group whose behavior may be particularly influenced by the business culture. The chief executive officer is often the individual who sets the tone for the culture of the organization. It is critical for that executive to demonstrate integrity.
________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors of public companies as well as private equity investors to assess and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or email her at leslie@pratchco.com or visit www.pratchco.com.
