Global Integrity 10

Affirming Integrity...at all levels
Moral wholeness for a whole world

The integrity of the upright will guide them

but the falseness of the treacherous will destroy them.

Proverbs 11:3

Integrity is moral wholeness—living consistently in moral wholeness. Its opposite is corruption, the distortion, perversion, and deterioration of moral goodness, resulting in the exploitation of people. Global integrity is moral wholeness at all levels in our world—from the individual to the institutional to the international. Global integrity is requisite for “building the future we want—being the people we need.” It is not easy, it is not always black and white, and it can be risky. These entries explore the many facets of integrity with a view towards the global efforts to promote sustainable development and wellbeing.

*****

As shared in the previous entry, living in integrity is not being morally perfect. But it does involve: admitting mistakes and wrongdoing; acknowledging our propensity for…hypocrisy; trusting ourselves but not completely. And as this entry asserts, integrity involves finding ways to affirm our integrity: to build it and to safeguard it.

The excerpt below is from part two of a guest weblog I (Kelly) did recently for the CHS Alliance (24 February 2016; see the previous entry. The weblog entry was on Ten Psychological Tricks for Avoiding Accountability. Part two though was more positive in that it focused on ways for preserving and developing integrity. Click on the link in the previous sentence to access the entire entry including part two.

Affirming Integrity
"Here are five suggestions for developing the main tool that we have in our good practice arsenal: integrity…[Integrity is] the core quality and commitment that helps us align our stated values with our actual behaviours as we pursue consistent moral wholeness.

1. Yourself. Examine your accountability practices by reviewing this weblog entry. What are you aware of regarding your strengths and weaknesses? Can you give some specific examples?

2. Colleagues. Discuss this topic with colleagues. To what extent are and can colleagues be accountable with one another? Identify some personal, group, organisational and sectoral vulnerabilities...

3. Managers. Encourage management to consider how they express moral values in the workplace, especially reflecting on how one’s private morality can differ from one’s workplace morality. Crisis times...

4. Leaders. Model and mentor transparency and accountability as leaders. Admit mistakes. Welcome feedback from others.  Encourage colleagues to share “uncomfortable” information with you...

5. Ethos. Cultivate an organisational “culture of integrity”...Intentionally weave transparency and accountability into “how we do things:” our organisational thinking, strategies, polices, and procedures...

Applications
--Which of the five 'integrity affirmations' above would you like to explore more?

--Are there any specific applications for your life and/or work.? 

Member Care--Help from Leaders: 4

Helping Staff Deal with Difficult Experiences
Part four of four parts
Note--with a music link at the end.

*****

Leaders and AV2 Encounters: Final Thoughts

AV-1
Acknowledgement and Validation
Helps to affirm our sense of truth
Helps us feel more empowered (less helpless)
Helps lighten the burden on our shoulders

AV-2
Apology and Vindication
Helps to affirm our sense of justice
Helps us feel more valuable (less violated)
Helps lighten the burden in our heart
*
AV-3 (recently added)
Attack and Villianise
Covers up truth and distorts reality
Discredits a person's character, competence, and contributions
Reinforces an organisational ethos of fear, impunity, and dysfunction
*
AV-1 and AV-2 encounters affirm our sense of reality and our sense of worth.
They affirm who we are as a “person” created in God’s image.
They are “protective factors” that foster our resiliency.
*
AV-3 encounters destroy. (People "stomp, smear, sneak."--see Psalm 56, The Message)
*

Reflection and Questions
**How do AV2 Encounters reflect an organisation’s ethos of staff development?

**To whom do leaders go for AV2 Encounters?

**How much do people want to have "true change" and not just have “time” with a leader/potential change-agent?

**What if the leader in an AV2 Encounter is part of the problem?

**How realistic is it to expect that disclosures will not be used against a person?

**When might someone in an ombudsman role or an outside consultant be better than a leader?

**What if staff really distort the facts, and correction rather than empathy is needed?

**What experience do you have with AV-3 Encounters?

*****

Go to this music-video link, by Cream, circa 2008,

a gentler version (Jack Bruce) than the original from 1967:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGDrTvWinMQ

*****

Please, open your eyes

Try to realise

I found out today

We're going wrong.

*

Please open your mind

While you can find

I found out today

We're going wrong.

Safe People, Safe Places, Safe Practices

Organisational Ethos and Self-Disclosure
An agency's culture, or ethos, significantly influences the quality of life of its people.
Personnel also help shape the ethos and the quality of life within the organisation.
*****

Every cross-cultural worker needs acceptable and safe outlets (people, places, practices) to openly share personal and group concerns. Some ways of doing this include spending time with friends and confidants, getting staff feedback from questionnaires, planning meetings where ideas and perspectives can be exchanged, and providing opportunities for confidential counseling. These outlets not only help develop staff, but they are also are real safeguards to prevent poor morale, bitterness, and needless frustration.
**
An agency's ethos influences the types of outlets that are made available for its personnel. This in turn affects the way in which staff relate personal struggles and express feelings about departmental or organizational practices.
**
In consulting at different faith-based contexts, we have observed various organizational styles for making self-disclosures. Agency/group ethos becomes a type of monitor, determining what and how comments can be made. This is especially true in group situations. Most agencies/groups seem to gravitate towards one or possibly two styles in particular, although this can change over time.
**
Style 1--Spiritualisation of the past. The organization is most comfortable focusing on past issues using spiritual terms. Problems are usually only talked about when they have already been overcome. An example is the statement, "I thank God for victory over my temptation last month to rebel against my supervisor."
**
Style 2--Past focus. Issues are discussed fairly openly, but usually not until they have already been resolved. They are not necessarily spiritualised, yet only shared when it is safe--that is, after the fact. Here is an example. "We were really upset about the decision to decrease furlough allowances, and were privately hoping that it would get overturned."
**
Style 3--Spiritualisation of the present. Current issues and problems are discussed but referred to largely in spiritual terms. Spiritual concepts may be used as a metaphor to refer to other ideas and feelings. For instance, "This mission station needs to pray more", may mean "I am feeling really hurt that people around here seem to overlook me."
**
Style 4--Present focus in vague terms. Current problems are mentioned in indirect, general, roundabout ways. Potentially threatening material is kept at a distance. An illustration would be a team leader who states at an inter-departmental meeting, "Its interesting working around here these days" when the real feeling might be more "The Personnel Department's chronic shortage of staff is significantly undermining our team's ability to recruit needed members."
**
Style 5--Present focus with contact. This involves making genuine, usually direct comments, in which issues, feelings, and reactions are shared promptly. Feelings are seen as vital sources of information rather than stumbling blocks. The result is that everyone involved senses that real contact with each other has been made. "I so appreciate the quality of your work on this project" or "I am frustrated that this agency has an inner circle which makes all the decisions," would be examples.
**
By and large the healthiest style in which to operate is Style 5, for those with a growing relationship. Well, at least this is true for many personnel from the Western world. We believe this reflects the Biblical admonition to "speak truth and pursue peace with one another" (Ephesians 4:25, Zechariah 8:19). The timing, attitude, and setting for such disclosures are, of course, crucial. It is easy to understand the inappropriateness of giving critical feedback at certain organizational or team meetings. The basic guideline is to edify, not simply express oneself candidly (Ephesians 4:29, Proverbs 12:18). Responsibility always takes precedence over spontaneity.

(Based on “Understanding and Managing Stress”, Michèle and Kelly O’Donnell, in MCare 1992)
**

Reflection and Discussion
**List three core qualities that are needed for the "safe people" in your life.
**List some organisational/group practices that help or hinder self-disclosure.
**What are some suggestions to adjust your organisational/group ethos--to provide safe outlets for personnel to authentically connect more with each other?