Integrity: Without It Nothing Works, Essay Example

Integrity is an abstract noun meaning that no one can grasp it with the hand as a piece of chicken. It has to be communicated through observing qualities. This word is similar to love. Love cannot be touched with the finger tips except it has been ascribed tothe name of something or person. In the same way as how love must be demonstrated through positive feelings so must integrity for it to be perceived and understood. Essentially, integrity is a human quality of mind encompassing consistently performing; being; applying methodologies in completing tasks; expressing authenticity  and practicing dependability and truth  at all levels and in all situations ( Werner, Jensen & Zaffron, 2010).

However, Barbara Killinger (2010) clarified many assumptions pertaining to integrity by advancing that it is a‘personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honor, moral, ethical, spiritual/artistic values and principles’(Killinger, 2010, p.12). With reference to it being a personal choice as it relates to defining the quality and terminology it could be further developed towards being relative to one’s environment as well as culture. As such, a culture of integrity ought to embrace the elements Killinger(2010) articulated in the accountIntegrity: Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason (Killinger, 2010).

The cultural definition/classification would then project a concept whereby people develop and articulate integrity within their scope of duty because it is a cultural requirement. The question here is what lays behind this performance it ther authenticity embedded in it. For example suicide bombers exhibit different levels of integrity. When a promise is made within their cultural milieu it has to be dispensed in the context of integrity. While executing integrity os the right thing to do could suicide bombing be the right thing to do. Therefore, thedefinition and conceptualizations of integrity are relative to culture and environment (Jensen &Christensen, 2009).

Precisely, with a thesis statement reflecting that integrity is a human quality of mind encompassing consistently performing; being; applying methodologies in completing tasks; expressing authenticity  and practicing dependability and truth  at all levels and in all situations is to further evaluate its  linguistic evolution  from a  philosophical and cultural foundation. Analysists contend that has its roots embedded in a Latin adjective integer. Importantly, it was clarified that the ‘spiritual/ artistic values and principles’ (Killinger, 2010, p.12) contained in theintegrity concept emerged from a deeper meaning of wholeness. This featured in producing qualities such as honesty and character stability (Werner et.al, 2010).

Therefore, in interpreting integrity within this philosophical context the concept and qualities when blended could mean that people demonstrating integrity behave in accordance to their beliefs, principles, desires and values they hold sacred as in the case of suicide bombers acting with integrity. In scrutinizing this value system paradigm it can be argued that an abstract phenomenon is created whereby arriving at a universal integrity definition becomes more complicated. Further arguments are that when value forms the premise of integrity some many conflicting element surface in designing the relativity of integrity. As such, congruencies between observed behavior and observer must be present. Also, value as a variable of the integrity concept ought to be clarified and inconsistencies fully addressed (Werner et.al. 2010).

Recent arguments against the practice of integrity in relation to honesty from the paradigm of values system claim that honesty in itself is not integrity. One example given was if a person confesses to a crime would that be considered integrity when it is merely defined as being honest. In that moment of perceived honesty did that confessor demonstrate integrity?  As such, examples worthy of recognition were given asacting in the perceived right way even when no oneis watching and the penalty for wrong doing could be escaped. More profoundly, when examining integrity based on the American political culture president Abraham Lincoln was highlighted to have acted in integrity when he paid off the debts of his business associate, which took  him 17 years after their business was closed (Leadership Styles for life, 2014).

Social scientists baffled with integrity issues as they pertain to linguistic, cultural as well as philosophical interpretations andhave subsequently designed integrity testing models in attempts to accurately define integrity. The scientific method asks whether can conduct integrity testing based on a value system of subjectivity or objectivity. Subjectivity interprets the phenomenon based on human constructions whereas objectivity creates conclusions by adapting a distinct scientific method(Werner et.al. 2010).

When the scientific methodis applied assumptions create variables whereby perfect integrity can betested applying an observed results methodology. Test results are measure utilizing expectations derived by developing a scientific hypothesis. The integrity concept/attributes are evaluated based on matching relationships between the hypothesis and behavior outcomes. When results do not coincide with the hypothesis then the definition becomes obscure. Alternatively if it matches this establishes the basis for defining or redefining integrity behavior emerging from that single test result (Werner et.al. 2010).

As such, neutrality in projecting viewpoints becomes a mandatory requirement in scientific testing if results are to be reproducible by independent participants. For example, researchers have further advanced evidence to prove validity of the scientific method integrity interpretation. For example, Newton’s general relativity physics quantum mechanics was cited as possessing three definite systems. Every one of them was tested and scientifically validated to have acquired integrity because while produced results they were not the same values. These results were however, aligned to the assumptions and measurements created for those specific testings (Werner et.al. 2010).

Significantly, in its application to the integrity definition under discussion in this essay none of the three systems claimed absolute truth. Conclusions focused on definingthe best possible system applicable to a particular scenario/environment. The importance of this example is that it offered enough information to be used as a scientific masterpiece. This knowledge enabled understanding of many physical misrepresentations within the science to the extent that they could be applied to NASA air exploration even though there was an error of about 10 feet in its calculations(Werner et.al. 2010).

Scientist executingintegrity tests usingNewton’srelativitytesting results as an example for validity measurements highlighted the true relativity of a phenomenon within a certain context. The hypothesis and measurements applied to that particular situation at the time was valid, but could not be transferred identically to NASA air exploration without conceding an error. The same analysis can be deducted from applying scientific method in arriving at a suitable definition of integrity (Werner et.al. 2010).

The farthest these assumptions can go is predicting the best definition within a certain context. Therefore, with reference to the thesis integrity is a human quality of mind encompassing consistently performing; being; applying methodologies in completing tasks; expressing authenticity  and practicing dependability and truth  at all levels and in all situations is relative to philosophy/mind, situation and culture.

Works cited

Jensen, Michael; Karen Christensen. Integrity: Without it nothing Works.The Magazine of the Rotman  School of Management, 2009. Print.

Killinger, Barbara. Integrity: Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason. McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2010. Print.

Leadership Styles for life. Examples of Integrity. Accessed June 14^th, 2014 fromhttp://www.leadership-skills-for-life.com/examples-of-integrity.html Web.

Werner,Erhard; Jensen, Micheal; Zaffron. Steve.Integrity: A Positive Model that Incorporates the  Normative Phenomena of Morality, Ethics, and Legality – Abridged. Social Science Research Network 2010. Print