Integrity in the World of Work

Integrity in the World of Work
In the world of work, the word integrity is not just a matter of honesty, ethical and moral issues, that people don’t lie or don’t do immoral things. Integrity is also related to performance, an achievement of good results achieved by always upholding honesty and other moral values. The word integrity comes from the root of the word “integrated”, which means various parts of our character and skills play an active role in us, which is seen from our decisions and actions (Lee, on Zambrut International Journal). To be able to produce good performance in the workplace, one must have in himself abilities such as honest, brave, empowered, build good relationships, good at organizing themselves, organized, and well planned.
Integrity must be able to contribute to the improvement of life, and in the context of the world of work means improved performance. That means integrity is not only negative, just not to lie, not cheat, or not do things that are immoral. Integrity must also have a positive nature, which is doing something to produce something, with a moral quality in it. Self-integrity must encourage the achievement of good results from oneself, whether in the form of good performance or the achievement of good things in life. So the negative and positive traits must go together. As someone tries not to lie, not cheat (self-control), he must also do something to show good results or achievements. The first thing, which is negative, an act of understanding and self-control, then the minimum stage of the realization of integrity, the maximum stage is justu when the positive nature appears, in the form of good actions that produce something with good quality. It is generally assumed that the minimum stage in the form of avoidance (restraint and self-control) to do something bad is the main thing in terms of integrity and mandatory nature, while the maximum stage, an act of producing something of quality, is an expectation or appeal. But in connection with the world of work, then the maximum stage is not just an appeal or hope, but a demand, a necessity.
Thus, there are various personal traits and certain abilities that must be combined with honesty and various other positive attitudes to be able to produce what is called integrity. All of that will lead to success at work. So regarding competence in their fields is also part of integrity. Without competence, it is difficult to show integrity itself, while competence itself will be difficult to manifest good performance without being accompanied by parts of character, which encourage it to be able to achieve good results and in good ways (compare Simon, 2007; 2011).
Talking about integrity in the workplace cannot be separated from talking about competencies possessed by someone to be able to produce good performance in the workplace. The two things support each other. People are said to have more integrity, he is increasingly concerned about his competence; and conversely, people increasingly have good competence he also pay attention to his integrity. People who have good competence but do not have integrity, then the ability (competency) is good it can not produce good performance or work. Vice versa, people who have good integrity, but do not have good competence, also cannot be expected to produce good performance.
Career success and integrity go hand in hand. Someone who has integrity can show that they make ethical choices in their work lives every day. These people often come out victorious in the true sense of career competition. Those who have subordinates need to be more active in inspiring their subordinates. They actively promote integrity through their personal attitudes and actions, trust and commitment to the organization’s core values (Gauss, 2000). More clearly this was stated by Simons (2002), that integrity is a visible pattern in which there are similarities between words and works. Or in other words, the fact that a leader can be seen clearly when he does what he says. An important provision in terms of integrity is that in reality a leader keeps his promises, and shows the values that he always upholds.
Broadly speaking, knowledge is divided into two types namely Tacit Knowledge (implicit knowledge) and Explicit Knowledge (explicit knowledge), which can be described as follows: Knowledge is knowledge that is owned by someone and is very difficult to formalize, difficult to communicate or share with others . The understanding inherent in the individual’s knowledge is still subjective. knowledge possessed by these individuals can still be categorized as intuition and conjecture. This tactical knowledge is rooted in one’s actions and experiences, including idealism, values and emotions. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is very personal and also very difficult to be formed. In addition, tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate or share with others.

Understanding and Evaluating Integrity

Understanding and Evaluating Integrity
Understanding Integrity It is said that the ancient Chinese people felt insecure with the North barbarians, they often faced attacks from the barbarians. So there is a kind of animosity between them. The ancient Chinese people wanted a sense of peace with the barbarians, so they built a big wall that was quite high. With that they believe that no one can climb the pot, the wall is so thick that it is not easy to destroy. It happened that in the hundred years since the wall was built there had been at least three enemy attacks experienced by China, but no one had managed to get through that wall because it was tall, thick, and very strong. One time, the enemy bribed the border gate guard. What happened then was that the enemy managed to enter and carry out an attack. The ancient Chinese succeeded in building a strong and reliable stone wall but failed to build integrity in the next generation. If the guardian of the gate at the wall had high integrity, he would not accept bribes, which not only destroyed him but also others.
Integrity is something that is directly related to individuals, not to groups or organizations. Ownership of integrity can only be said to individuals, not to family, parents or relatives. A father’s integrity does not necessarily become the integrity of his child. In this story, the neatness of group work, successfully building a good and strong wall, does not necessarily guarantee that the individuals in it also automatically have strong self-resilience. The main reinforcement that must be done is individual self-strengthening, which strengthens each group member or the next generation, to have good and strong self-integrity.
References from the Zambrut International Journal, self-integrity can be interpreted as an endurance not to be tempted by various pressures to think about and prioritize one’s own interests and or benefits and ignore the interests and fate of many people, with the responsibility that is in his hands. Self-integrity is related to the attitude that always puts the responsibility, trust and loyalty to the promise. Integrity is related to the ability to hold and control oneself from various temptations that will destroy the dignity and dignity of one’s own self. People who have integrity are people who can be relied on, trusted, and emulated.
The word integrity has an ethical connotation, and according to Minkes, et al. (1999), ethical behavior is related to “ought” or “ought not”, not just “must” and “must not”. Therefore there are other measures that lie behind what is required by the law or other measures that focus more on profit considerations. So the problem of integrity cannot be limited to things that are visible or can be measured from the point of view of the points of law. Behavior that can be observed and considered according to rules or laws is not necessarily ethical.
Integrity is a concept that is usually used in formal and informal discussions about leadership and organizational theories, however it is not very clearly formulated and understood (Rieke & Guastello, 1995). For example, in existing literature, words such as integrity, honesty, and conscientiousness are often not distinguished, and tend to be used as terms that can be exchanged without further information (Becker, 1998).
Basic Study of Understanding Integrity is inherent in the tradition of moral relativism, in which understanding of behavior that is considered good can vary between people, culture, and age. Philosophically, such relativism can certainly survive, but at least in practice it becomes problematic. Adolf Hitler’s leadership shows an extreme example. Although many people would agree that he did not have integrity, members of that era were probably those who agreed that he had integrity. On that basis, current research supports the definition of integrity provided by Becker (1998: 157-158), which states “integrity is commitment in action to a morally justifiable set of principles and values.” In this definition moral justification from the point of view objective integrity based on universal truth rather than merely agreeing on a set of moral views and individual or group values (Becker, 1998).
An evaluation of integrity cannot be based solely on the benchmarks used by each individual or group or culture. There is a danger when an individual’s behavior is actually highly denounced by many people, there are still certain people or groups or cultures that consider it to be commendable. Moral relativism like this cannot be maintained. Something that is considered good must be able to be opened and stand the test of the assessment of the general public. It must be possible to find rational and common sense reasons for an attitude or behavior that is valued as good, which overcomes a limited range of views of certain individuals or cultures. And vice versa, it must be given a plausible reason why an action is considered not good from an ethical standpoint, and must not stop at reason because of mere habit. Concerning integrity is not only based on habits, but rather as a conscious and deliberate choice, with specific goals and objectives. When something is done often it will develop into a habit. But because every situation is unique, then the habit is not applied equally. There is always personal responsibility for each situation what actions should be chosen based on generally accepted ethical principles.
An evaluation of integrity cannot be based solely on visible attitudes or behaviors because it is not always that the actions that are shown by someone constitute a concrete appearance or form or expression of a moral attitude or basic moral choice. Although behaviors that appear outside are often expressions of what is in the mind or heart of a person, there can always be a gap (gap) between what is inside (the choice of moral attitude) with actions that are shown outside. Here the role of intention or motive from within is crucial. Integrity is mainly related to one’s intention or motives in doing something. Bad intentions or motives can be achieved or realized by the choice of actions that are generally valued or look good. People who seem to help others, distributing their money to people who are difficult / suffering, will easily be assessed as good people. Yet if it is explored deeper, it turns out that behind his actions he has intentions or motives that are not good, which wants to control many people, want to rule over other people.

General Definition of Perfect Competition Market

General Definition of Perfect Competition Market
This discussion will explain the definition of perfect competition, the characteristics of perfect competition and examples of perfect competition and the advantages and disadvantages of perfect competition. In general, the definition of a perfectly competitive market is a market where there is strength from the demand for supply that can move freely. Or it can also be interpreted that the perfect competition market is a market with a large number of sellers and buyers, so that no single seller or buyer can influence the price. Perfect competition is a market where sellers and buyers cannot influence prices, so prices in the market are really the result of agreement and interaction between supply and demand. According references from Zambrut International Journal, the demand formed reflects consumer desires, while supply reflects the desires of producers. In a perfectly competitive market, the seller and the buyer have absolutely no ability to influence market prices because there is already an inner bond between the seller and the buyer knowing the structure and information that is in the perfect competition market.
Examples of Perfect Competition Markets; The staple food market is rice that is linked between farmers as producers and traders as buyers. In the rice market there are a lot of (farmers) supply, each of them sells rice in a relatively small amount with a very simple form, so that each farmer cannot influence the price in the market that has been formed. If the farmer sells below the market price, he will lose, and vice versa if he sells above the market price, he will be left by the buyer.
The Characteristics of the Perfect Competition Market; Perfect competition markets have special characteristics, including the following: There are many buyers and sellers, meaning that each party, both buyers and sellers, cannot influence market prices. The number of traded goods is homogeneous, meaning that consumers assume that the goods traded have the same quality. Complete market information, meaning that the buyer and seller know each other about the quality, price, place and time of the goods being traded. Price is determined by the mechanism of demand and supply, meaning that the buyer is free to make the decision to buy or not the goods, so the seller also has the freedom to sell charcoal and services. Free from government interference, meaning that the government does not interfere in determining prices in the market. The emergence of its own strengths in the market, meaning that there are no outside forces, both the government and other parties that can influence the decisions taken by sellers and buyers.
Advantages of Perfect Competition Market. The following are the advantages of a perfectly competitive market: In a perfect competition market, there is no visible competition between the buyers. It is not possible for a seller to enter a price competition with the intention of seizing the market, because the market price is something that must be accepted by each producer. The goods offered by the seller will sell in any quantity without decreasing the price. It is impossible to move the shape of the goods to make a market because of the homogeneity of the goods. Information about the market has been known by business rivals and efforts to compete with other companies also do not produce anything, because the number of rivals is very unlimited. Consumers do not need to tense about bargaining the price of goods because the price can not be influenced by anyone.
Weaknesses of perfectly competitive markets; In addition to having some merits, the perfect competition market has the following weaknesses: Does not encourage innovation. In a perfectly competitive market, technology can be easily copied by other companies. Limiting consumer choices, because the goods produced by companies are one hundred percent the same, thus making consumers have limited choices to determine the goods to be consumed. Unequal / unequal distribution of income. Thus a Simple Article on the discussion of the Perfect Understanding Competition Market and its Characteristics. may be useful for all of us. That is all and thank you.