Forum

I want to discuss some of the ideas presented in this paper:

One passage in this paper defines behavioral integrity as the perceived alignment between words and deeds. Furthermore, this definition distinguishes it from more traditional vision of integrity that espouses a moral undertone. I believe this an important conceptualization in the integrity domain as it effectively deals with the fact that these morales are often subjective and in this sense integrity often becomes a normative concept.

A remark to this however: later the paper states that because of this view on integrity and a possible mismatch on values between persons: “one might not support the colleague's actions or seek vulnerability to him”. However is vulnerability not one of the key antecedents or components to building trust? Later trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party.” (rather than positive expectations based largely on the ascription of benevolence and value or goal congruity). Nevertheless it is hypothesized that “that BI is likely to affect trust and mistrust through both the mechanisms of perceived reliability and of ?perceived value or goal congruity?” Can someone clarify my confusion?

Perhaps an example may further clarify my problems with this. If my manager is consistent in words and actions, I probably will see him as a just person and I even might believe that he will not mislead me. However I have no way of telling if his words reflect his underlying values. In other words, I still have no way of telling whether he is manipulating the situation. Doesn't he need to open up first, so people know what he stands for. In research terms: Will the amount of self-disclosure (cf. vulnerability) influence the relationship between behavioral integrity and trust? Or in other words will self-disclosure help distinguish in the impact of behavioral integrity on the difference between trust and mistrust as defined by Sitkin and Roh (1993) and described by Fox (1974)?

My main problem here is with the value or goal congruence as a necessary ingredient. If we fully agree in values and goals with our boss, we might lose the potentially creative individuals that some businesses desperataly need.

These are just some firsthand thoughts on rereading the paper. Perhaps I need to delve into the literature a little bit further to solve my own conundrum. Any suggested readings that may clarify this further?

I think so yes, but I will let you be the judge based on my response:

I do not fully agree with denoting authenticity as perceived self-disclosure. In essence, authenticity is a self-referential construct and integrity is a perception by others. Authenticity depicts the process that leads to perceived integrity.

However, suppose I use the terms of perceived behavioral integrity and perceived authenticity. Am I correct to infer that perceived reliability will be the main driver of perceived behavioral integrity and perceived value/goal congruence as the main driver of perceived authenticity? And will behavioral integrity be cognitive-based trust and perceived authenticity affective-based trust?