Most people would agree that leadership integrity is important, if not essential. When you think about a person’s character, the word integrity comes to mind for many. So, it should not be surprising that research shows personality predicts acts of integrity (and, acts of corruption and dishonesty).
Table of Contents
Personality Correlates of Integrity
Research shows that people high on these three personality domains are more likely to act with integrity.
- Conscientiousness: Setting goals and pursuing them in an orderly, self-disciplined, and reliable way.
- Agreeableness: Getting along with others, being sensitive to others’ needs, and doing no harm.
- Emotional Adjustment: Feeling calm and remaining composed when faced with threats to what’s important to you.
People low on these traits are more likely to act without integrity, especially if they believe they can get away with it. For instance:
- If working remotely, they might slack off because no one is watching.
- If they see others doing bad things, they may do them too.
- If given authority without oversight, they may do something illegal.
How to Evaluate Leadership Integrity
- Interviews. While interviews give you some sense of how bright and energetic someone is, it is very difficult to get an accurate read on their integrity. As Warren’s quote suggests, people who are bright, energetic, and inclined to act without integrity are especially dangerous. They can be skilled manipulators adept at making good impressions and doing bad things without getting caught.
- Integrity Tests. These predict counterproductive work behavior and job performance very well and are legally defensible. However, research suggests that candidates may be more likely to perceive them negatively compared to other tools. These tests are also more susceptible to “faking” due to the content of the items. And, people with low integrity are more likely to lie. These tests also give you less bang for your buck. They do not measure some major domains of personality or allow for a detailed breakdown of personality facets. These are crucial for assessing many important competencies and work-related outcomes. So, if you give an integrity test, you’ll need to administer an additional measure of personality.
- Personality Surveys based on the Five-Factor Model. Most of these provide thorough and detailed measurements of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Steadiness, which predict counterproductive work behavior. They also have the added benefit of measuring Openness/Intellect and Extraversion, which are good predictors of being a change driver and innovator. Bottom line: You get the most bang for your buck with this type of tool. At PCI, our core assessments include a measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality so we can predict a wide range of behaviors associated with critical competencies, including integrity.
You get more bang for your buck with a personality survey that measures the Five Factor Model than one that just measures integrity.
Motivating Leaders to Act with More Integrity
Research shows that detecting low levels of integrity in ourselves and others is difficult. And, if we can’t see it, we can’t change it. Let’s take a look at two recent studies and their implications:
Study 1: Who wants to change and how?¹
Individuals who were low on the socially desirable personality domains of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Adjustment reported a goal of wanting to change (i.e., increase) these aspects of their personality. This suggests an awareness of their lower standing on the domain.
In contrast, individuals who were low on the even more socially desirable aspect of Honesty/Humility did not report a goal of wanting to change (increase) this aspect of their personality. However, after they were given feedback on their low standing, they reported that they did want to change (i.e., increase) this aspect of their personality. Those individuals also reported that of all the feedback they received, they were most surprised by their low scores on the Honesty/Humility domain.
People low on the Honesty/Humility traits tend to lack awareness of their standing on it. Once they are informed of it, they want to change it.
Study 2: Are Supervisors and Coworkers likely to witness CWBs²
When supervisors’ and coworkers’ ratings of Counterproductive Work Behaviors (e.g., discussing confidential information with an unauthorized individual) were compared to an individual’s confidential self-report of those behaviors, supervisors and coworkers failed to witness several CWBs that the individuals reported exhibiting. This suggests that low-integrity behaviors often fly under the radar.
Others often fail to observe behaviors reflective of low Integrity. If they can’t see it, they can’t rate it.
Practical Implications
- Because people low on it don’t realize it: A self-report psychometric tool designed to measure the HEXACO model or The Big 5 (if it measures the full domain of Agreeableness) will be more predictive of low integrity behaviors than a self-assessment (e.g., directly asking candidates to rate how honest they are or to provide examples of times when they acted with integrity.)
- Because we tend not to be good judges of others on it: The tool mentioned above can be used to fill in gaps from a 360-degree feedback process.
- Because desire to change happens with self-awareness: By giving the person feedback on their standing on this domain relative to others, they are likely to have a heightened willingness/desire to change. This is a critical precursor to actual behavioral change.
- While no one wants to hear that they have low Integrity, that is the very thing they need to hear to spark awareness and desire to change. Well, maybe not exactly in those words. Focusing on behaviors that signal Integrity detaches it from an evaluation of their character and provides concrete examples of what to do differently. A developmental report written by a business psychologist and feedback from a coach can help to motivate the individual to activate behavioral change.
References:
¹ Thielmann, I., & de Vries, R. E. (2021). Who wants to change and how? On the trait-specificity of personality change goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 1112–1139
² Carpenter, N. C., Rangel, B., Jeon, G., & Cottrell, J. (2017). Are supervisors and coworkers likely to witness employee counterproductive work behavior? An investigation of observability and self–observer convergence. Personnel Psychology, 70(4), 843–889.
