Written by: gfesadmin on October 18, 2012

“Without Integrity Nothing Works”* are powerful words (Erhard, Jensen, Zaffron 2008).  Reading those quoted words in the present reading assignment book from Harvard Business School caught my attention.  Integrity is a word pregnant with numerous nuances of meaning and many are morally charged.  So, I was naturally curious about how the issue of integrity as related to leadership would be addressed.  In particular, what social theory undergirds their perspective and the perspective of the compilation “Handbook of Leaderhip Theory and Practice” (Nohria and Khurana)?  And, what theological type is reflected?  

Dictionary definitions of “integrity” use such words as wholeness, uprightness, character, ethics, morals, decency, righteousness, morality, virtue, fairness, and sincerity.  Integrity, as defined by Erhard, Jensen, and Zaffron (2008), is “a positive as opposed to a normative aspect of leadership.”  This means that integrity is not a leadership characteristic that has intrinsic moral value which can be applied to any leadership situation.  A criminal leader who acts consistently with his vision to accomplish a master crime is acting with integrity.  

Nohria and Khurana use the term integrity in the context of leadership accomplishing vision.  Goal or vision accomplishment gives integrity meaning and value.  When leadership actions are consistent with the vision the leader is said to have integrity.  However, is there a difference between “functional” integrity and “essential” integrity?  In other words, can a leader act with integrity without being a person of integrity?  This is where the questions of social construct and theological types come into play.

It seems to me that leadership integrity that only reflects a positive aspect which portrays consistent action congruent with a vision reflects a postmodern fragmented social view which is highlighted by a schizophrenic approach to capitalism.  The leader is a machine that acts consistently to produce a goal.  Moral rightness is not in view, only capital acheivment.  

At best, the editors and authors are operating from a theological position that marginally considers that which is distinctive about Christian theology.  Perhaps a type 2 theological construct.  Actually, I found this somewhat refreshing.  This was expressed in Nohria and Khurana in the paragraphs that expressed the impact of a “future” on one’s integrity.  They observed that the greater the hope of a positive future (after life) the greater the evidence of integrity (pg. 281 Kindle).

I was not surprised that the chapter on leadership aspects addressed the issue of integrity wholly from a functional standpoint.  I take issue with this position.  I do not think one can separate one’s “doing” from one’s “being.”  Though there may be postive integrity with reference to vision accomplishment, unless the leader also has moral integrity the organization (or team, group, etc.) will disintegrate.  It will disintegrate because in due time colleagues will experience the lack of moral relational interaction at the expense of vision accomplishment.  In short, they will realize they are only pawns used to advance the vision.

In the ministry of discipleship for leadership, it is imperative that the disciple addresses her/his personal integrity in terms of relating to God and also in terms leadership action to accomplish the ministry vision.  If the two are not in sync, disaster is around the corner.

Integrity is not everything, but it is close to it!  And integrity that encompases the whole person is the only integrity that has integrity!  

*Werner, Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, and Steve Zaffron. “Integrity: A Positive Model That Incorporates the Normative Phenomena of Morality, Ethics, and Legality.” Barbados Group, April 2008

Nitin Nohria;Rakesh Khurana. Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice (p. 279). Kindle Edition. 

About the Author

gfesadmin