Integrity refers to an individual state of trustworthiness, incorruptibility, and completeness to the degree that the individual is incapable of forfeiting a trust, pledge, responsibility or agreement. Continued integrity graduates to a concept called probity. Integrity is also a function of the accuracy of delivering to the aforementioned actions. Kaptein (2014) argues that integrity works in opposition to hypocrisy. Ethically, judging using integrity standards revolves around internal consistency as a component and virtue of soundness, completeness, and incorruptibility. Integrity, derived from the Latin word for wholeness, incorporates qualities such as honesty and truthfulness. Judging the integrity of two conflicting parties may involve altering beliefs and accounting for the discrepancy to fully understand the impact of integrity on different values. This paper aims to define integrity as a state of wholeness-completeness and honesty.
The framework of principles within the organization causes a divide between actions driven by integrity and those that are not. According to Kaptein (2014), it is important for these principles to be based on logical postulates. In the field of ethics, integrity refers to the alignment of actions, beliefs, methods, measures, and norms with a core set of values. Ethical integrity is demonstrated by the adaptability and willingness of individuals to maintain consistency when faced with challenges to these values (Kaptein, 2014). An example of this is when a test result significantly deviates from the expected outcome in a project. Kaptein (2014) argues that being flexible in such situations demonstrates accountability and moral responsibility by accurately documenting the actual results rather than altering them to fit the expected outcomes. Ethics requires individuals to act based on rules that they would want everyone to follow. It is important to note that ethical integrity should not be mistaken for goodness.
The prevailing moral principles that individuals hold dear are frequently incorrect as they can lead to acceptable criminal acts. The philosophical law states that integrity is defined by the principles of expressing and interpreting the most effective explanation and justification for past legal practices. This law operates under the assumption that conclusions can be derived from the concept of finding the right answer. This concept suggests that judges are obligated to discover the correct solution in situations where people’s rights are disputed. Werner, Jensen, and Zaffron (2010) suggest that a comprehensive understanding and assessment of individuals’ integrity involve moral judgments in various aspects of the legal system.
In diverse fields, there are various concepts of integrity. In marketing, brand integrity is desired by firms to maintain consistency in the industry (Kaptein 2014). Brand integrity focuses on messaging consistency and visual graphics to preserve visual integrity. Werner, Jensen & Zaffron (2010) present a new model of integrity that enhances performance for individuals in any institution or state of individuality. Kaptein (2014) examines integrity as a three-dimensional component of principled living, exploring the relationship between compliance to rules, morality attitudes, and social expectations. In electronic models, integrity is defined as the incorruptibility of data between domains, emphasizing uncorrupted information and information assurance. In summary, integrity permeates our daily activities in various ways. The ability to distinguish right from wrong and uphold principle morals that influence our surroundings is crucial for achieving integrity. Integrity relates to perfection as systems or individuals with intrinsic core values that are not affected by external forces tend to operate more effectively and efficiently.
References
- Kaptein, M.(2014). “The Servant of the People: On the Power of Integrity in Politics and
- Government”. Social Science Research Network. SSRN 2498730.
