Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems

of 27

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
PDF
27 pages
0 downs
5 views
Share
Description
This paper aims to analyze organizational management integrity capacity system as an improvement concept for enhancing leadership integrity effectiveness in a university setting. It departs from the analysis of the current organizational culture,
Transcript
  CLEAR IJRCM Vol-02-No-03 Jan-June 2012 ISSN: 2249-6001   Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of an Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems José G. Vargas-Hernández,Adrián de León-Arias,Andrés Valdez-Zepeda,Víctor Castillo-Girón University Center for Economic and Managerial Sciences, University of Guadalajara Periférico Norte 799 Edif. G203,Núcleo Universitario Los Belenes,Zapopan, Jalisco, 45100 México,+52 33 37703340; fax: +52 33 37703340.E-mail:  jvargas2006@gmail.com   Abstract-Aims / objectives: This paper aims to analyze organizational management integrity capacity system as an improvement concept for enhancing leadership integrity effectiveness in a university setting. It departs from the analysis of the current organizational culture, values, virtues, managerial capabilities and attitudes to assume any organizational task. This paper aims also to propose a strategic model for the institutionalization of an organizational management integrity system. Study  design:  Cross-sectional study.  Place and  Duration of Study:  University Center for  Economic and Managerial Sciences, University of Guadalajara. The study is conducted for one academic year during the term 2011-2012.  Methodology:  The research methods used are the analytical based in the literature review and interpretative of the main findings to  provide a synthetic model.  Results and  conclusion:  The outcomes of the research on the application of organizational management integrity capacity systems may demonstrate that the drama of leadership effectiveness is centered on dysfunctional organizational integrity culture and leadership. This chapter  provides a sound strategies and institutionalization for organizational integrity capacity philosophy focused on leadership integrity effectiveness that empowers management professionals to act with integrity and supported by an organizational integrity culture.  Implications:  The results provide the basis to develop strategies for an organizational integrity leadership framed by an organizational integrity culture, sustained by a code of conduct, regulation  policies and overall the development and institutionalization of an organizational integrity capacity system which can  positively influence the behavior of key stakeholders and actors.  Keywords:  Integrity, leadership integrity effectiveness, management integrity development, organizational integrity capacity system. 1.   Introduction The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between organizational  CLEAR IJRCM Vol-02-No-03 Jan-June 2012 ISSN: 2249-6001   Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of an Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems management integrity capacity and leadership integrity effectiveness. Organizational integrity and managerialism are schools of thought to frame and support strategic choices and measures in corruption prevention and control. Organizations face challenges to "do the right thing" and ensure organizational integrity by creating an ethical leadership culture capable to ensure sustainable management integrity. Organizational integrity should be considered within the context of a wide range of leadership variables. The effects of leadership integrity on organizational effectiveness have been well studied and reported on the literature (Brenner and Molander, 1977; Mortenson, Smith, and Cavanagh, 1989; Posner and Schmidt, 1984), although there is a lack of concern to analyze the impact of organizational management integrity on leadership effectiveness. The link between organizational management integrity capacity system and leadership integrity effectiveness has not been adequately tested empirically. Usually the organizational management is not aware of its integrity, moral and ethical issues and principles exercised or it is reluctant to articulate and admit its organizational values to sustain good governance practices, such as anticorruption rules. Traditional educational organizations and institutions of higher education are considered by Meyer and Rowan (1983) as tightly coupled through the traditional ritual classifications that create the façade of organizational integrity. 2.   Conceptual and theoretical background A.   Concept of integrity The word integrity derives from the Latin, meaning wholeness, completeness, conscientious coherence, or committed responsibility. Integrity comes from the Latin for whole and complete. The concept of integrity is multidimensional and should be specified. The term integrity refers to strict fidelity to own personal principles embedded in the moral and ethical complexity and responsiveness to sustain integrity capacity (Hampshire, 1983, 1989; Williams, 1985; Nagel, 1979; Fernandez and Barr, 1993; Benjamin, 1990; Kahane, 1995). Bennis (1989) states that integrity is one of the best qualities of leadership. Integrity is an attribute related to ethics (Kerr, 1998) that reflects more adherences to a moral code (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992) and incorporates honesty and trustworthiness (Northouse, 1997). Werhane and Freeman (1997) define integrity as the quality of moral self-governance at the individual and collective (organizational) levels. Becker (1998, pp. 157  –  158) defines “integrity is commitment in action to a morally justifiable set of principles and values . . .” in such a way that it is assumed as a moral justification based on the reality of a universal truth. Integrity is an integral part of good leadership (Batten, 1997; Covey, 1996; Fairholm, 1998; Manz, 1998; Nix, 1997; Northhouse, 1997; Rinehart, 1998; Sanders, 1994; Wenderlich, 1997; Winston, 1999). Huberts (1998) defines integrity as the quality of acting in accordance with socially accepted moral  CLEAR IJRCM Vol-02-No-03 Jan-June 2012 ISSN: 2249-6001   Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of an Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems values, norms, and rules. Integrity is a functional attribute prominently cited in servant leadership literature (Covey, 1996; Fairholm, 1998; Kouzes and Posner, 1993: Nair, 1994; Pollard, 1996; Rinehart, 1998; Winston, 1999). Integrity is about not doing the wrong thing, not necessarily doing “ethical” things but also about doing the right thing and being perceived as positive, active and proactive (Becker, 1998; Butler, 1991; Butler and Cantrell, 1984; Hosmer, 1995; Jarvenpaa, Knoll and Leidner, 1998); Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995; Murphy, 1999; Parry and Proctor-Thompson, 2002). Integrity is a moral foundation for effective leadership (Clawson, 1999). Leaders with integrity are honest even when the situation is self-damaging (Russell and Stone, 2000). Integrity refers to an analytical decision-making process based on envisaged organizational principles and values that simultaneously may function as an ideal and a constraint (Karssing, 2000, 2006). A person of integrity has an awareness resulting in an attitude to follow the spirit of the rules, adhering to deeply held ethical principles and values and making right decisions (Badaracco 2002). Integrity is an attitude that surrenders to ethical commitment, the “gateway to operating from one’s d eepest purpose, in concert with a larger whole” (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers, 2004, 103). Lasthuizen (2008) defines integrity as the quality of individual behavior in accordance with the organizational values, norms, rules and obligations and its organizational environment. Personal moral integrity is central to individual integrity that is an individual who accept full responsibility for his actions and any negative consequence. Using the analogy of the water thank, Thomas, Schermerhorn and Dienhart (2004) explain the commitment to integrity, where the floor is the legal baseline and above is the level of ethics that the organizational management adopts. The components of process integrity, according to Petrick and Quin (2000) are moral awareness, moral deliberation, moral character and the practices and actions carried out by personal and collective agents. This process incorporates characteristics of integrity: conscientiousness and discernment, resolution and accountability, commitment and readiness, and coherence and authenticity in moral conduct. The integrity literature has advanced from personal integrity to collective integrity, organizational integrity, and more recently to global collective level (Benjamin, 1990; Solomon, 1992; Carter, 1996; Paine, 1997; Petrick and Quinn, 1997; LeClair, Ferrell, and Fraedrich, 1998; Westra, 1998). B.   Organizational integrity The concept of organizational integrity has its srcins in Weber who argued that economic development was closely link to the emergence of formal bureaucracies and management routines or universal rules and regulations which provide secure and predictable basis for individual interests and capabilities to be channeled to collective projects. The concept of organizational integrity includes the concept of autonomy of capacity, competence and credibility of local political institutions and the efficiency of administrative bureaucracy either of local public institutions or private organizations. Integrity capacity   is “the individual and/or collective capability for repeated process alignment of moral awareness, deliberation, character and conduct that demonstrates balanced  CLEAR IJRCM Vol-02-No-03 Jan-June 2012 ISSN: 2249-6001   Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of an Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems  judgment, enhances sustained moral development and promotes supportive systems for moral decision making” (Petrick and Quinn, 2001:332). The growth of integrity capacity is intrinsically valuable and utilitarian - instrumental enhances the reputational capital as an intangible organizational asset (Fombrun, 1996; Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski, Quinn and Ainina, 1999). Organizations framed by outcome-oriented transcendent - teleological ethics sustain the balanced application of judgment integrity capacity and ethical judgments in organizational settings leads to have good consequences and to achieve good ends (Trevino and Youngblood, 1990; Cohen, 1993; Trevino and Nelson, 1995). Organizational  judgment integrity capacity is related to the balanced application of management and leadership integrity employing management, ethics and legal theories and promoting moral progress. Personal integrity involving the well-being of the other embedded in moral principles and an ethical culture, it fosters the integrity to have beneficial effects at organizational level. Moral integrity may be subject to some conditions raising some moral dilemmas about the existence of organizational integrity even in for-profit organizations. Personal and organizational integrity are interactive attitudes between different stakeholders in relationships concerned and framed with moral principles and ethical issues. Organizational integrity means that corruption and fraud are absent in the individual behaviors of organizations. Integrity is a specific value instead of the related value incorruptibility (Van der Wal et al. 2006). Organizational integrity is both a standard of personal moral excellence, and a relational value (Adler and Bird 1988). Organizational integrity refers to the integrity of individual working inside and outside in and on behalf of the organization (Klockars, 1997; Solomon, 1999). Organizational integrity is a social virtue emphasized by relationships and connectedness between persons and stakeholders of an organization, all of them behaving and acting with integrity, morally reasonable rational values (Becker 1998). Organizational integrity creates standards to provide the cultural cohesion for professional responsibility and competence in a right attitude to approach organizational problems and dilemmas (Karssing, 2000, 2006). Organizational integrity is more than having a mechanism for holding individuals responsible. Organizational moral issues focusing on individual responsibility does not necessarily are a matter of, and can even detract from organizational integrity. The search for individuals responsible for misbehaviors may inhibit organizational integrity (Bowie, 2009). Organizational integrity is defined “as organizational conduct compliant with the moral values, standards, norms, and rules accepted by the organization’s  members and stakeholders, but also as the commitment to an equal distribution of  public services to all citizens” (Kolthoff, 2010: 43). As a social phenomenon, organizational integrity involves both consistency between principles and action embedding adherence to principles socially accepted and consensually validated with a comprehension of what is fair and just (Habermas, 1998).  CLEAR IJRCM Vol-02-No-03 Jan-June 2012 ISSN: 2249-6001   Enhancing Leadership Integrity Effectiveness Strategy through the Institutionalization of an Organizational Management Integrity Capacity Systems Personal integrity is a process of maturing growth, something to pursue not something one possess as an attribute or moral trait (Wolffe 1988). The extended notion of personal integrity into the social domain may become perceived as “organizational” integrity (Trevinyo -Rodriguez 2007, 82). Both levels of integrity, personal and organizational can be determined by the emphasis in the type of strategic implementation. Practicing managers, scholars and professional associations are fostering organizational integrity, promoting ethics codes and building ethical workplaces (Bohte and Meier 2000; Jurkiewicz and Brown 2000; Zajac and Al-Kazemi 2000). To develop beneficial cooperation between persons and organizations, it is required trust-generating integrity (Axelrod 1984). Cameron, Bright and Caza (2004) consider that the ethical factors in organizations can be measured by organizational integrity among other four factors such as organizational forgiveness, organizational trust, organizational optimism, and organizational compassion. Selznick (1957. 1969, 1992) argues that constituencies want the organization to evince organizational integrity by being self-consistent, trustworthy, non-opportunistic, and distinctively competent organizational self. People attempt to preserve a sense or organizational integrity through self  justification, self integrity, and self affirmation processes, internal coherence (Staw, 1980 and Steele, 1988) and behave authentically to maintain integrity (Gecas, 1982). Organizational integrity is an attribute of a dynamic organizational self, making possible the autonomy, as suggested by Kraatz and Block (2008). Individuals and organizations displaying commitment to values commonly shared by commitments that may sustain trustworthiness, can generate attitudes of personal and organizational integrity. An attitude of integrity framed by shared commitments can unfold to extend benefits to all the stakeholders in any organizational setting. Relevant societal value can be added to the organizational integrity by designing and implementing strategies and policies centered on fostering the organization’s overall social and environmental good standing. Organizational integrity can unfold by the awareness of the other (Srivastva and Barrett, 1988, 318). Kaptein and Wempe (2002, pp. 237  –   46) contend that corporate integrity is a value related to sustainability, social responsibility, accountability and specifically to empathy, solidarity, reliability and fairness. The incentive structures require fitting the organizational moral integrity to be related. Organizational integrity may have adverse effects due to the wrong design of structures, procedures and incentives. A fair distribution of incentives and rewards play an important role in supporting or inhibiting organizational integrity. Individual’s responses to organizational incentives and rewards are important for a practical account of organizational integrity. The utilitarian - instrumental perspective considers organizational integrity as an instrumental tool is perceived ethically inferior to the intrinsic worth´s perspective that assumes that organizational integrity has more relevance. Under an utilitarian - instrumental and pragmatic framework
Related Search
Advertisements
Similar documents
View more...
Advertisements
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks