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.