Integrity Requirement Of Indonesian Corporate Managers.
INTE GRITY RE QUIRE ME NT OF
INDONE SIAN CORPORATE MANAGE RS
Ratna Jatnika, Faculty of Psychology, University of Padjadjaran, Jalan
Raya Bandung Sumedang Km 21 Jatinangor Bandung, Indonesia.
Phone : 62-22-7794126
Iwan Inrawan Wiratmadja, Production System Laboratory, Industrial
E ngineering Department, Institute of Technology Bandung, Jalan
Ganesa 10 Bandung, Indonesia.
Phone : 62-22-2506449
ABSTRACT
This research is a descriptive study, which is done to identify integrity
requirement of Indonesian corporate managers. The variables used in
this research are aspects of ntegrity
i
i.e. rationality, honesty,
independence, fairness, trustworthy, autonomy and reliability. The
sample studied are 123 managers in several Indonesian corporations.
The descriptive statistics shows that all aspects of integrity, except
autonomy, are required by managers for their best performance (the
mean values are: for rationali
ty = 0,9837; honesty = 0,9919;
independence = 0,9593; fairness = 0,9837; trustworthy = 0,9837;
autonomy = 0,5610; reliability = 0,9919). The result shows that being
autonomous, meaning not being influenced by the environment, is not
an aspect perceived by Indonesian corporate managers to perform well
in their jobs. As the consequence non-autonomous managers could
easily be influenced by social pressures that could make them sacrifice
their rational principles. This condition tends to drive managers to do
irrational actions that could cause manipulation by those managers. In
the long run having these kind of managers, organization will be
destroyed and will not survive.
1. BACKGROUND
The business competition in the globalization era is very intense. The
fight to win the competition to attain the biggest market share is so
tight. Therefore organization must effectively and efficiently uses its
resources. The development of human resources, as one of the most
important resource, is a must for every organization (Husni, 1998).
Several researches have been conducted to find out what aspects have
important contribution in creating excellent human resources.
The economic crisis in Indonesia has significantly proven that the fall
of an organization is due to poor human resources quality. Deception,
dishonesty, corruption are examples of those poor qualities that should
be eliminated so that an organization can survive and even develop well
despite whatever crises it faces. It is lack of integrity that is presumed to
cause those poor qualities.
Integrity is a very important quality that every individual in an
organization must possess, especially managers, as managers are role
model for their subordinates. To be able to succeed an organization
must have good managers with high integrity. This paper is to describe
a study about integrity requi
rement for Indonesian corporate
managers.
2. INTE GRITY
2.1 Definition of Integrity
Branden (1994) defines integrity as the integration of ideal
s,
convictions, standards, beliefs, and behavior. If an individual’s behavior
is congruent with his/her values, or if there is a conformity between
his/her ideals and the existing reality, it can be said that the individual
has integrity. Integrity means congruence, consistency between the
words spoken and behavior.
Before attaining integrity individuals must have principles of conduct
(judgments about right or wrong behavior). Having no standards
individuals will become hypocrites, individuals with lack of integrity.
Integrity is only an issue for individuals with standards and values, the
most important things for the survival of living organisms.
Integrity does not guarantee that an individual will make the best
choice. Asking for integrity is asking whether the individual’s attempt
to find the best choice is authentic (the individual is fully aware while
making the choice, and he/she makes that choice based on his/her
knowledge, rationality, and he/she is responsible of the consequences
that follow his/her choice).
In our daily lives some individuals can be trusted, and some others can
not. Congruence is the basis of that phenomena. We will trust only
individuals whom words spoken and behavior are congruent.
Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) define integrity as an individual’s behavior
which is consistent with the espoused values, and that individual is
honest and trustworthy. According to that definition, integrity has the
same meaning as honesty.
Butler and Cantrell (1984) define integrity as a reputation of
trustworthy individuals, being right and honest.
Peikoff (1991) define integrity as a loyalty of a conduct to the rational
principles (general truth) and values. Integrity is believed principles, not
allowing irrationality to cover individual’s rational belief.
2.2 Why Do Individuals Usually Has Low Integrity ?
According to Becker (1998) there are some factors that cause the lack
of integrity in individuals:
1. Not every individual is rational. Rational action needs rational
belief. An individual has to know what is he/she doing and also
why is he/she doing that. Integrity is the manifestation of
rationality. An individual who is not rational could not have
integrity.
2. An individual lacks integrity because his/her wants are not
consistent with his/her moral values. If an individual does not
use his/her rational judgment and acts only on the basis of
his/her impulses, he/she will lack of integrity. Lack of integrity
will also happen if an individual’s behavior is drived by
irrational fear. Individual with high integrity needs reasons for
his/her action and not only driven by emotion.
3. Another reason why an individual has low integrity is that
because the individual has to be submissive to social pressures.
The origin of those social pressures can come from various
sources, such as: the super-ordinate, co-worker, sub-ordinate;
and could emerge in various fo
rms, such as: physical
intimidation, verbal or non-verbal opposition. Though people
tend to be happy if his/her ideas are accepted by other people,
individuals with high integrity will not seek popularity by
sacrificing his/her rational beliefs.
2.3 What are The Consequences of Integrity In An Organization ?
Individuals with high integrity tend to be more rational, honest,
independent, and fair compared to those individuals with low integrity.
Individuals with high integrity are aware that actions based on rational
principles, honesty, independence and fairness will enhance selfesteem; and they will be able to survive longer (Rand, 1957, 1964;
Becker, 1998). Individuals with high integrity will not harm the
organization; they will not manipulate and use the organization’s
resources for his own private purposes, they will not treat others
unfairly. According to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) individuals like
this could be trusted and are potential leader candidates.
Researches conducted in the field of industry/organization showed that
the failures of organizational programs, such as: the incong
ruity
between mission and reality, the slogans about consumer service which
is inconsistent with the reality, unfair promotion based on favoritism,
deceits, etc. are due to the lack of congruency between words spoken
and behavior (Branden, 1994).
Locke (1997) stated that there are 3 important things to be asked to an
individual in an organization:
1. Does the individual have the appropriate knowledge, skill, and
ability to do his/her job well ? Or does the individual have the
capacity to fastly learn those knowledge, skill, and ability ?
2. Does the individual show the high effort (motivation) needed ?
3. Does the individual have good character, does the individual
have integrity ?
Assuming that an individual’s ability and motivation are constant,
individuals that have higher n
i tegrity will be more innovative and
productive compared to those with lower integrity. This happens
because individuals with higher integrity know that innovation and
productivity are central to life purposes and therefore will be on their
rational best interests (Peikoff, 1991). Furthermore, without integrity,
ability and motivation is useless, because individuals with low integrity
will utilize their skill to act deceit and denial, not to excert good
performance and productivity – and this in the long run will reduce
individual as well as organiza
tional effectiveness. Therefore
organizations that have individuals with high integrity will be able to
survive the crisis they face and will be able to develop better than
organizations with low integrity individuals.
3. RE SE ARCH ME THODS
This research is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted to
discover the integrity requirement for Indonesian corporate managers.
The research variables are: rationality, honesty, independence, fairness,
trustworthy, autonomy, and reliability. A questionnaire is used to
measure those variables, with scaling as follow:
1 = Yes
If the manager states that the particular variable is needed to be
successful in his/her job
0 = No
If the manager states that the particular variable is not needed to be
successful in his/her job.
The data was collected from 123 top managers (from state and private
corporation) in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia. Those managers must
have a minimum 5 years of working experience. The data collected was
processed by calculating its mean and standard deviation.
4. RE SULTS
The results from calculating the mean and standard deviation of the
variables mentioned above is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1
Integrity Requirement of Indonesian Corporate Managers
VARIABLE S
Rationality
Honesty
Independence
Fairness
Trustworthy
Autonomy
Reliability
ME AN
0.9837
0.9919
0.9593
0.9837
0.9837
0.5610
0.9919
STD DE VIATION
0.1270
0.09017
0.1983
0.1270
0.1270
0.4983
0.09017
Figure 1
Integrity Requirement of Indonesian Corporate Managers
From the results above it can be seen that in general managers need
high integrity to succeed in their job; except for autonomy. Autonomy,
which means free from external influence, is not seen as a variable
needed to be successful as manager.
Peikoff (1991) stated that integrity needs action which is based on
rational values. This does not mean that integrity inhibit an individual’s
possibility to change. Individuals with high integrity, though does not
want to change their values because of irrational reasons, do want to
change it when they found out that the values and beliefs they are
holding is wrong. Individuals with high integrity will change their
minds based on good reasons.
It can not be said that autonomous individuals do not want to change
their minds; but autonomous individuals do not want to change their
minds merely because of external factors (e.g. social pressure from
superior, co-worker, or subordinate), or merely because of wanting to
get popularity while sacrificing their rational principles.
The low need for autonomy for Indonesian corporate managers is
presumed to be influenced by the Indonesian culture which tend to be
collective. In a collective environment an individual is integrated to a
strong cohesive group, that can protect them with unquestionable
loyalty (Brown, 1995). Within a group there is a strong bond among its
members. The relationship betw
een a superior and his/her
subordinates, as well as the relationship between co-workers is a moral
relationship that creates strong emotional bond among them. Group
loyalty become something very important that can cause an individual
member of the group to sacrifice his own rational principles in favor of
the group’s need. As a result, this can lead a manager to do irrational
actions such as manipulations and deceit in the organization. Such an
organization will not survive and even will collapse.
INDONE SIAN CORPORATE MANAGE RS
Ratna Jatnika, Faculty of Psychology, University of Padjadjaran, Jalan
Raya Bandung Sumedang Km 21 Jatinangor Bandung, Indonesia.
Phone : 62-22-7794126
Iwan Inrawan Wiratmadja, Production System Laboratory, Industrial
E ngineering Department, Institute of Technology Bandung, Jalan
Ganesa 10 Bandung, Indonesia.
Phone : 62-22-2506449
ABSTRACT
This research is a descriptive study, which is done to identify integrity
requirement of Indonesian corporate managers. The variables used in
this research are aspects of ntegrity
i
i.e. rationality, honesty,
independence, fairness, trustworthy, autonomy and reliability. The
sample studied are 123 managers in several Indonesian corporations.
The descriptive statistics shows that all aspects of integrity, except
autonomy, are required by managers for their best performance (the
mean values are: for rationali
ty = 0,9837; honesty = 0,9919;
independence = 0,9593; fairness = 0,9837; trustworthy = 0,9837;
autonomy = 0,5610; reliability = 0,9919). The result shows that being
autonomous, meaning not being influenced by the environment, is not
an aspect perceived by Indonesian corporate managers to perform well
in their jobs. As the consequence non-autonomous managers could
easily be influenced by social pressures that could make them sacrifice
their rational principles. This condition tends to drive managers to do
irrational actions that could cause manipulation by those managers. In
the long run having these kind of managers, organization will be
destroyed and will not survive.
1. BACKGROUND
The business competition in the globalization era is very intense. The
fight to win the competition to attain the biggest market share is so
tight. Therefore organization must effectively and efficiently uses its
resources. The development of human resources, as one of the most
important resource, is a must for every organization (Husni, 1998).
Several researches have been conducted to find out what aspects have
important contribution in creating excellent human resources.
The economic crisis in Indonesia has significantly proven that the fall
of an organization is due to poor human resources quality. Deception,
dishonesty, corruption are examples of those poor qualities that should
be eliminated so that an organization can survive and even develop well
despite whatever crises it faces. It is lack of integrity that is presumed to
cause those poor qualities.
Integrity is a very important quality that every individual in an
organization must possess, especially managers, as managers are role
model for their subordinates. To be able to succeed an organization
must have good managers with high integrity. This paper is to describe
a study about integrity requi
rement for Indonesian corporate
managers.
2. INTE GRITY
2.1 Definition of Integrity
Branden (1994) defines integrity as the integration of ideal
s,
convictions, standards, beliefs, and behavior. If an individual’s behavior
is congruent with his/her values, or if there is a conformity between
his/her ideals and the existing reality, it can be said that the individual
has integrity. Integrity means congruence, consistency between the
words spoken and behavior.
Before attaining integrity individuals must have principles of conduct
(judgments about right or wrong behavior). Having no standards
individuals will become hypocrites, individuals with lack of integrity.
Integrity is only an issue for individuals with standards and values, the
most important things for the survival of living organisms.
Integrity does not guarantee that an individual will make the best
choice. Asking for integrity is asking whether the individual’s attempt
to find the best choice is authentic (the individual is fully aware while
making the choice, and he/she makes that choice based on his/her
knowledge, rationality, and he/she is responsible of the consequences
that follow his/her choice).
In our daily lives some individuals can be trusted, and some others can
not. Congruence is the basis of that phenomena. We will trust only
individuals whom words spoken and behavior are congruent.
Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) define integrity as an individual’s behavior
which is consistent with the espoused values, and that individual is
honest and trustworthy. According to that definition, integrity has the
same meaning as honesty.
Butler and Cantrell (1984) define integrity as a reputation of
trustworthy individuals, being right and honest.
Peikoff (1991) define integrity as a loyalty of a conduct to the rational
principles (general truth) and values. Integrity is believed principles, not
allowing irrationality to cover individual’s rational belief.
2.2 Why Do Individuals Usually Has Low Integrity ?
According to Becker (1998) there are some factors that cause the lack
of integrity in individuals:
1. Not every individual is rational. Rational action needs rational
belief. An individual has to know what is he/she doing and also
why is he/she doing that. Integrity is the manifestation of
rationality. An individual who is not rational could not have
integrity.
2. An individual lacks integrity because his/her wants are not
consistent with his/her moral values. If an individual does not
use his/her rational judgment and acts only on the basis of
his/her impulses, he/she will lack of integrity. Lack of integrity
will also happen if an individual’s behavior is drived by
irrational fear. Individual with high integrity needs reasons for
his/her action and not only driven by emotion.
3. Another reason why an individual has low integrity is that
because the individual has to be submissive to social pressures.
The origin of those social pressures can come from various
sources, such as: the super-ordinate, co-worker, sub-ordinate;
and could emerge in various fo
rms, such as: physical
intimidation, verbal or non-verbal opposition. Though people
tend to be happy if his/her ideas are accepted by other people,
individuals with high integrity will not seek popularity by
sacrificing his/her rational beliefs.
2.3 What are The Consequences of Integrity In An Organization ?
Individuals with high integrity tend to be more rational, honest,
independent, and fair compared to those individuals with low integrity.
Individuals with high integrity are aware that actions based on rational
principles, honesty, independence and fairness will enhance selfesteem; and they will be able to survive longer (Rand, 1957, 1964;
Becker, 1998). Individuals with high integrity will not harm the
organization; they will not manipulate and use the organization’s
resources for his own private purposes, they will not treat others
unfairly. According to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) individuals like
this could be trusted and are potential leader candidates.
Researches conducted in the field of industry/organization showed that
the failures of organizational programs, such as: the incong
ruity
between mission and reality, the slogans about consumer service which
is inconsistent with the reality, unfair promotion based on favoritism,
deceits, etc. are due to the lack of congruency between words spoken
and behavior (Branden, 1994).
Locke (1997) stated that there are 3 important things to be asked to an
individual in an organization:
1. Does the individual have the appropriate knowledge, skill, and
ability to do his/her job well ? Or does the individual have the
capacity to fastly learn those knowledge, skill, and ability ?
2. Does the individual show the high effort (motivation) needed ?
3. Does the individual have good character, does the individual
have integrity ?
Assuming that an individual’s ability and motivation are constant,
individuals that have higher n
i tegrity will be more innovative and
productive compared to those with lower integrity. This happens
because individuals with higher integrity know that innovation and
productivity are central to life purposes and therefore will be on their
rational best interests (Peikoff, 1991). Furthermore, without integrity,
ability and motivation is useless, because individuals with low integrity
will utilize their skill to act deceit and denial, not to excert good
performance and productivity – and this in the long run will reduce
individual as well as organiza
tional effectiveness. Therefore
organizations that have individuals with high integrity will be able to
survive the crisis they face and will be able to develop better than
organizations with low integrity individuals.
3. RE SE ARCH ME THODS
This research is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted to
discover the integrity requirement for Indonesian corporate managers.
The research variables are: rationality, honesty, independence, fairness,
trustworthy, autonomy, and reliability. A questionnaire is used to
measure those variables, with scaling as follow:
1 = Yes
If the manager states that the particular variable is needed to be
successful in his/her job
0 = No
If the manager states that the particular variable is not needed to be
successful in his/her job.
The data was collected from 123 top managers (from state and private
corporation) in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia. Those managers must
have a minimum 5 years of working experience. The data collected was
processed by calculating its mean and standard deviation.
4. RE SULTS
The results from calculating the mean and standard deviation of the
variables mentioned above is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1
Integrity Requirement of Indonesian Corporate Managers
VARIABLE S
Rationality
Honesty
Independence
Fairness
Trustworthy
Autonomy
Reliability
ME AN
0.9837
0.9919
0.9593
0.9837
0.9837
0.5610
0.9919
STD DE VIATION
0.1270
0.09017
0.1983
0.1270
0.1270
0.4983
0.09017
Figure 1
Integrity Requirement of Indonesian Corporate Managers
From the results above it can be seen that in general managers need
high integrity to succeed in their job; except for autonomy. Autonomy,
which means free from external influence, is not seen as a variable
needed to be successful as manager.
Peikoff (1991) stated that integrity needs action which is based on
rational values. This does not mean that integrity inhibit an individual’s
possibility to change. Individuals with high integrity, though does not
want to change their values because of irrational reasons, do want to
change it when they found out that the values and beliefs they are
holding is wrong. Individuals with high integrity will change their
minds based on good reasons.
It can not be said that autonomous individuals do not want to change
their minds; but autonomous individuals do not want to change their
minds merely because of external factors (e.g. social pressure from
superior, co-worker, or subordinate), or merely because of wanting to
get popularity while sacrificing their rational principles.
The low need for autonomy for Indonesian corporate managers is
presumed to be influenced by the Indonesian culture which tend to be
collective. In a collective environment an individual is integrated to a
strong cohesive group, that can protect them with unquestionable
loyalty (Brown, 1995). Within a group there is a strong bond among its
members. The relationship betw
een a superior and his/her
subordinates, as well as the relationship between co-workers is a moral
relationship that creates strong emotional bond among them. Group
loyalty become something very important that can cause an individual
member of the group to sacrifice his own rational principles in favor of
the group’s need. As a result, this can lead a manager to do irrational
actions such as manipulations and deceit in the organization. Such an
organization will not survive and even will collapse.