By PETER SHELDRAKE 

STEPHEN Carter, a Yale University professor of law, published a
book titled Integrity. In it he set out a series of steps that
defined what he considered to be the essential attributes of
integrity: 
1) Discerning what is right and wrong; 
(2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and 
(3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of 
right from wrong.

The more I reflect on this definition, the more persuaded I
become of its value, and especially the active element that this
entails - that real integrity requires that you both "talk the
walk and walk the talk!"

There are many people who have acted with integrity in the terms
that Carter sets out, but let me use the example of Nelson
Mandela. The following extract comes from the court testimony
Mandela gave when accused of "sabotage aimed at facilitating
violent revolution and an armed invasion of the country".

Faced with the possible sentence of death, he stated: "I must
deal immediately and at some length with the question of
violence.

"Some of the things so far told the court are true and some are
untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did
not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any
love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober
assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many
years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by
whites."

This extract comes from a remarkable speech, which is reproduced
in full in Long Walk to Freedom in which Mandela carefully
examines what is right and wrong, decides on a course of action
that was recognized as illegal and accepted as such, and was
willing to state all of this in court, fully aware of the
situation in which he was placed.

It is a graphic example but, of course, it is also an extreme
one. Not many people find themselves in a situation where they
are dealing with such momentous issues, nor called to account in
such a significant manner.

However, we all face situations of a less dramatic kind where
leading an ethical life demands active integrity. Let me give
some examples.

My first comes from work. Imagine the following situation (it
happened to me many years ago). A colleague is filling in a
petty cash slip for the reimbursement of expenses, and includes
a claim for a business lunch - whereas he was, in fact, taking a
friend out to lunch at the company's expense. You demur, and he
points out that "it's not a problem, everyone does it". What
does integrity demand?

At the time, I believed that integrity was simply about doing
right. I thought about what I had seen, and was determined not
to do such a thing. Today, I would call that passive integrity.
It is an approach that, in part, meets the first two of Carter's
criteria.

Active integrity is much more demanding. Adopting active
integrity would mean that you should do two more things.

First, at the time I should have made it clear to my colleague
that, if he persisted, I was going to tell the appropriate
person that the claim was a misrepresentation - after all, my
colleague was defrauding the company.

Second, I should have told people that I would do the same thing
if I saw any other such claims being submitted. However, let me
add that even at this relatively minor level these are very
difficult things to do: it is hard to buck a company culture,
especially if it is deeply entrenched.

Perhaps another case study will make it clear how embedded views
can make active integrity challenging. Many people are asked to
provide references for people they know.

The difficulty is not in discerning what is right and wrong -
usually, you know the person well and have a reasonably good
understanding of their strengths and weaknesses -but rather in
being able to act on that knowledge in giving a truthful
reference.

It is easy to respond at this point "but everyone knows that
references are always written in a positive fashion. However,
they are written in code: the code tells you what the real
assessment is."

There are difficulties with this. First, if everyone knows the
code, why bother to use it? Or, if this is not the case, how do
you know that the recipient of the reference is able to "decode"
what you have written?

Again, let me quote from a real example. Some years ago, I
received a reference for a candidate for a senior position, and
the applicant was based overseas. It was a very positive
reference and, in addition to quoting the person's intellectual
and work attributes, noted that he was "fond of good food and
wine", as I am, too.

He was an outstanding candidate, in due course he was appointed.
To my chagrin, it took me some six months or more to realise he
was an alcoholic. I did not know the code.

Another approach I have heard proposed is that you only mention
the good points - so that the reader of a reference has to
deduce that there may be some areas in which a person is less
than ideal (or are they things you forgot to address in your
reference?). This latter approach is not passive integrity - it
is simply misleading.

Active integrity is, again, quite demanding. We should provide
references that tell the recipient, as best we know, what we can
say about the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant, and we
should tell would-be applicants that this is our policy.

Let me explore one more area of application of the idea of
active integrity, both to emphasise its importance and to
underscore the challenges that leading a life of integrity can
confront.

In our interpersonal lives, especially between partners, active
integrity is central to developing sustainable long-term
relationships. One of the most important acts that many of us
perform is to decide to marry, and to commit to a relationship.
To marry with integrity is to make that commitment knowingly,
and then to be willing to lead a life that demonstrates that
commitment.

Active integrity in marriage does not just mean "telling the
truth". The key phrases in Carter's definition are "discerning
what is right and wrong", and then "acting on what you have
discerned, even at personal cost".

A marriage is an arrangement of mutual interdependence, and so
assessing what is right and wrong and then deciding how to act
requires that you examine the situation both through your own
eyes and those of your partner.

The prototypical example in this area is one of the partners in
a marriage having an affair. Clearly, that action was in itself
wrong: it is damaging to the relationship and demeaning to the
"innocent" partner.

It is neither sufficient nor acceptable to just "tell the
truth". A response of integrity would be one where there was a
real attempt to heal the breach that has been caused, and
restore the relationship.

You will notice that I did not suggest a divorce. However, it is
not enough, either, just to try and patch things up "for the
sake of the children": the demands of active integrity are not
met by appearances - they require that you act on the grounds of
doing the right thing.

In advocating these views, incidentally, I do not want to give
the impression of being some kind of paragon of virtue. At times
I write nice references, and do not give the task the time and
reflection it deserves. I do break the speed limit in my car
from time to time.

However, I try very hard to follow the rules of active integrity
and, even if I fail at times, I keep on trying to do better.
Active integrity is unflinchingly demanding but, to misquote
from Tawney (whose theme was equality -not integrity):

"It is true, indeed, that even such integrity, though the
conditions on which it depends are largely within human control,
will continue to elude us. The important thing, however, is not
that it should be completely attained, but that it should be
sincerely sought."
  
Peter Sheldrake is Professor of Business Entrepreneurship at
RMIT. MIM collaborates with RMIT in various management education
and training programmes. For details, call MIM Customer Service
at 03-21654611, e-mail enquiries@mim.edu or visit www.mim.edu