Let's talk about integrity

arbor mentis
Let's talk about integrity
How do you communicate a code of conduct to a fellow worker who is seeing the positional collapse of government, big business and organised religion?

subroto bagchi
The author is co-founder & chief operating officer of MindTree Consulting.


These are difficult times indeed - when people look up to sources beyond the self for reassurance. When we were children and failed, we looked up to parents. Later on, in life, we looked up to a teacher or mentor who would help clarify values during difficult times. And beyond all that, there was always the government. It presented an assurance that there would be continuance. Beyond government, of course, were the church Father, the Imam and the Shankaracharya. The model remained the same, irrespective of your country.In recent times, we have seen such an established model break down. We have seen a US President compromise the sanctity of his office by giving into the allure of sex. We saw big business fail transparency tests - from Jack Welch, NYSE chairman Richard Grasso, and Martha Stewart, to the folks at Enron. The last bastions to fall were government and the pulpit. Government emerged frail when 9/11 happened. The successive convulsions in the US Catholic Church involving serious accusations of sexual abuse left people wondering: where is our source of strength in times of difficulty?In India, institutional corruption in big business and government is so pervasive that the average person has pretty much learned to live with it. Solace is often drawn from religious belief that there is an afterlife and in the end, truth will triumph. This was so until the controversy involving the Kanchi Seer left people questioning the power of institutions to clarify values, to physically and spiritually protect and heal us. To me, these institutions represent a power of intermediation between the individual and his future state of existence. And that is progressively exposing its own vulnerability.When such things happen, people begin to discount the messages they receive from their environment. This is a survival mechanism. It works like this: if a child has witnessed domestic violence, she will begin to switch off from it so that she can move on. When intermediation fails, no form of preaching or teaching works.This creates significant challenges for organisations that value integrity and expect their people to be principled - personally and professionally. The challenge becomes: how do you communicate a code of conduct to a fellow worker who is seeing the positional fall of government, big business and organised religion? Posters and first day assimilation do not work anymore. The only option, and a difficult one, becomes: walk the talk and talk the walk. First, people in positions of influence have to demonstrate integrity, and then personally communicate the message to their organisation.This is easier said than done. The reason is that value-clarifications usually take place during dark moments. These happen when things fall apart. Each time there is a fiscal irregularity, or there is a report of misuse of power, or sexual misconduct, we invariably witness two things: first, facts and emotions get mixed up. Then, we get lost in what is called 'shades of grey'.People falter when they begin looking at a matter - not in black and white, but in shades of grey. Once you get there, you begin to get lost, because we are told the human eye can see 108 shades of grey! Go to a computed tomography machine, it can see even more shades of grey. So, people get mired in the many shades of grey because they find it uncomfortable to see breach of integrity as a black-and-white issue. Some managers skirt determination of facts and let emotions cloud them. They develop cold feet while dealing with a breach.The other frequently-felt emotions are potential organisational embarrassment and business loss. Consider this: you discover that your star salesperson has faked a travel voucher. He is negotiating a huge order, likely to be settled in a week, and is the only person who knows the ropes in the client organisation. Do you keep quiet; do you warn him and let it go; do you warn him after the order comes in, or do you call him and sack him on the spot? Let's talk about this in the next instalment.

Can an organisation put in place a process to deal with matters that constitutebreach of integrity?
The subject of integrity in an organisation is usually limited to a poster or an intranet download from the HR or the legal department. There is the occasional talk by a roving minion. In very few, top management stands up and talks about integrity. This is the most effective way to convey what would be construed as right and what would not - and it is best done as soon as a person joins the organisation. But this act is just a starting point. Unfortunately, organisational intent is clarified in moments of darkness. Only a breach shows how far an organisation will go to make a choice between what is right and what is convenient.First, an organisation needs a pre-determined process to deal with how a breach is reported. In many multinationals, whistle blowing is encouraged. When an act of breach is reported, the next logical step is to investigate the act. Here, some managements set up something akin to a prosecution and a defence team, so that facts and emotions are separated and witch-hunting does not take place.Assuming that an organisation is committed to get into the depth of a reported breach, the most important aspect, in which many flounder, is speed. Speed is critical. You do not want to drag on because the matter is embarrassing or the potential outcome inconvenient. The greater the delay, the greater the chances of people moving from determination of black-and-white to shades of grey.Once the issue of complicity is factually settled, the organisation must brace the consequences. It becomes unimportant whether by sacking the salesperson, you would still win or stand to lose the deal. That is the classic moment of truth. The action of management could mean loss of business, but the clarity with which it thinks and the speed with which it acts determine the consequent social memory that guides the vast majority of people. It eventually makes values tangible. The most critical aspect of dealing with issues of integrity is the price a management is willing to pay. Once people figure that out, compliance does not require policing.Following the definitive action an organisation takes, the next step is communication. This is not always easy. A senior vice-president is being asked to leave on the grounds of integrity - will you explain the circumstances in his direct reports? What acts must be publicly and widely communicated, and what acts require the individual concerned to be given a safe passage? There are no easy answers.Where organisations usually falter is in dealing with residual toxicity of incidents. The management must also be sensitive to the emotional toxicity that such acts leave behind. It cannot be wished away. It can manifest at two levels: it affects people who usually investigate or corroborate facts, leading to someone getting sacked. It is akin to what I call the hangman's remorse. It is important that we keep communication channels open and encourage such people to talk after the event, so that they know what they have done is required of their job and that it is the right thing to do. The other level is the larger organisation. This one is with the silent majority who may form an opinion without notifying anyone. Positive reinforcement, visible act of top management and constancy of purpose are needed to detoxify the silent majority. The healing takes time.