If I were to ask you to define what “integrity” means to you – without looking it up – what would you say?
I think that for many of us, integrity equates to something like honesty or trustworthiness. Being impeccable with our word, as Don Ruiz might say. Integrity might also imply for you a sense of unwavering consistency: a person of true integrity will exhibit honesty not just on one occasion, but on every occasion. And in fact, that’s baked into the very definition of the word: firm adherence to strong moral principles, which would of course include honesty.
In traditional bushido, the martial philosophy of the samurai knights of feudal Japan, the principle of integrity, or gi, is one of the seven cardinal virtues. Gi is sometimes translated as “rectitude” or “righteousness,” and includes connotations of not only honesty, but also right action and justice for all people. That sounds right too, doesn’t it? The “strong moral principles” to which we should adhere must include right action in all circumstances, must include the pursuit of justice in all circumstances.
We use the word “integrity” in more specific ways today, as well. It’s not uncommon these days to hear the phrase “structural integrity,” and I suppose that’s okay as long as you’re not on an airplane or a bridge at the time. I can’t even count the times this week I’ve heard the phrase, “election integrity,” and I’m just going to put that phrase down and back away slowly.
Integrity is the subject of our Thirteenth Maxim, and one of the subjects that carried over from prior versions of the Maxims, albeit in much different form. Let’s take a look at the current version:
“Integrity - Taking the right action even when nobody's watching, integrity is easier kept than recovered. There is no such thing as a minor lapse of integrity.”
This last quotation comes from a management guru named Tom Peters, and to be honest, I’m not certain how I feel about the sentiment expressed here. Remember, one of the definitions of integrity is “firm adherence to strong moral principles,” and on the surface, that seems like a fine quality to maintain. But is that always true?
Recall that to the samurai, integrity included a requirement to seek justice for all. It’s not hard to envision a situation in which rigid adherence to a particular moral principle might lead to an unjust result, or even cause harm to another. Is that still integrity?
Or imagine that one’s view of a particular moral principle is skewed by honest misunderstanding – or deliberate misinformation – and therefore leads to action based on untruths. Considering that we started this discussion equating integrity with honesty, is this situation still integrity?
Moral purity that is too inflexible can appear sanctimonious at best, dogmatic or even fanatical at worst. On the other hand, failing to adhere to one's own principles would be hypocrisy.
But enough from me. I want to hear what you think.
