Integrity in the Workplace

 By Larrywomack.com

Saturday lunchtime with my 4-year-old grandson is often the highlight of my week.  His incessant questions are as stimulating as any raised by my colleagues, clients, or my workday readings. 

One Saturday with dark skies and high winds, while we were waiting in the drive-through lane at McDonald’s, he pointed to a tall building in the distance and asked, “Coach, if the wind blows real hard will it blow that building over?”

“Great question, Moose,”  I replied, while trying to think of an appropriate answer.   Continuing my stall, I asked, “What do you think?”

He  thought for a moment and said, “I don’t think so.  It’s made out of rocks, not sticks or straw.  Right, Coach?” 

“Great answer, Moose!” I replied, not realizing at the time the wisdom in his explanation.

 

Architectural Integrity

William J. LeMessurier (LeMeasure) was a structural engineer consultant to architect Hugh Stubbins, the designer of the Citicorp Tower in New York City.  When the slash-topped silver skyscraper was built in the early 70s, it was the seventh tallest building in the world.  LeMessurier was lauded by his peers for the innovative and elegant structure and elected to the National Academy of Engineering, the highest honor his profession bestows.

To accommodate St. Peter’s Church located on the property,  Stubbins and LeMessurier set their 59-story building on four massive nine-story pylons.  Rather than placing the pylons on each corner, as one might expect, they placed them in the center of each side.  This innovative scheme allowed the designers to cantilever the building’s corners 72 feet out over the church on one side and over a plaza on another.  The building seemed to hover weightlessly over the street—an engineering marvel.

 

Question of Integrity

In 1978, a young engineering student working on a class paper called LeMessurier to ask the engineer about the building’s integrity; according to the student’s professor, the columns were in the wrong place.  LeMessurier first humored the young student, then told him that his professor was wrong and didn’t understand the problem that was solved.  LeMessurier did agree, however, to discuss the matter with the student later.

In preparing to meet with the student, the acclaimed engineer reviewed the project.  He discovered some disturbing information:  by defining the pylons and their incumbent wind braces as trusses instead of columns, the contractors were exempted from certain standard safety factors.  The exemption allowed the pylons to be bolted, rather than welded, to the frame of the building.  Concerned, but not afraid, he quickly arranged for a wind tunnel test of the design.  The findings were frightening.  The test disclosed that the building’s integrity was sound during usual straight-on high velocity winds of a turbulent storm, but that the bolts might not withstand unusually strong hurricane-type winds attacking the columns from an angle.

He calculated that, within a given year, there was a 1-in-16 chance that a storm would reach a velocity strong enough to damage or even topple the magnificent edifice.

When wind blows against a building, the force is offset  by a counterforce of gravity that tends to hold the building in place.  Construction joints, therefore,  must be strong enough to resist the energies from the opposing forces—the amount of wind tension minus the amount of compression.  The strength of the joints is the key to a building’s integrity.

LeMessurier went public with his concerns and eventually the construction errors were corrected and the Citicorp Tower deemed structurally safe.  Because of LeMessurier’s swift and courageous actions, his reputation was enhanced, not damaged.

 

Integrity Defined

The integrity of a building, a bridge, or any other object with two or more parts is determined by how well it is put together, stays together, and by how well it works as a system.  Wholeness, completeness, and soundness are synonyms of integrity in this context.

The dictionary definition of personal integrity is “steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.”  The story of the Citicorp Tower and William LeMessurier brings clarity to the importance of the relationship between the integrity of systems and the persons who design, build, manage, or use them.

 

Question of Loyalty

Many see a serious erosion of integrity in today’s workplace.  It has become difficult for managers and workers to know whom to trust, what to believe, and what’s going to happen.  Employees express disrespect for authority through thievery, poor workmanship, and territorial protectionism.  The workplace seems to have become a battlefield for personal survival instead of a laboratory for collaboration, creativity, and accomplishment.

Companies, or business systems, appear not to be loyal to employees.  Long-term dedicated workers are being euphemistically “laid off” forever.  Leaders make promises they can’t or don’t back up.

My youngest daughter was hired as a customer service representative for a large office automation company.  At the beginning of her third week with the company, she attended her first “all hands” meeting—conducted by the president of the firm.  He directed most of his remarks to the new employees.

He stated that he was proud to have them “on board.”  “We don’t have employees here,“ he said.  “We have associates.  This company is a team.”  The president then read the company mission statement to those assembled and told them that if they worked hard and followed the mandate set forth in the mission, the opportunity to advance was theirs.  “All you have to do to have a career path at this company is to be loyal, work hard, and become a team player.”

Two weeks later, the head of the service department called my daughter in and let her go.  The president, without giving advance notice, decided that the expenses of the service department were too high and must be cut 15 percent immediately.

My daughter was the last one in, first one out.  So much for a career path.  So much for loyalty to the system, respect for authority, or integrity.  What are the contributing factors to the current state of integrity in the workplace, and what can be done about it?

 

Blame it on Buffalo Bob

The growth of commercial television has been a contributing factor in the loss of respect for authorities everywhere and the decline of integrity in the workplace.

Television fundamentally changed the way human beings access information by communicating everything to everyone at the same time.  Unlike books and even language, television requires no skills for access.  It’s just there.

Television was the first dispassionate means of sharing information.  It forever changed our view of authority:  it creates the illusion of being present at an event and exposes the secrets of  our “backstage behaviors.”

Throughout history, there have been many underclass and dissident rebellions, but not until the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations had such events been witnessed by so many at once.  Television altered the we way learn about and view one another.  By opening our eyes to the “backstage behaviors” of authorities, television has diminished our respect for them.

 

It’s Bill Gates’s Fault Too!

Just as television pulled back the veils of unearned respect for authorities, the computer redefined the source of power on which most authority was based—knowledge.

The instant access to information through the computer has forever changed the path to power and control, just as television altered our view of authority.  When computers made information available to the masses, power began to shift from the “old white guys” who had always controlled commerce to most anyone with the intellect, technology, and desire to participate.

Computers have virtually destroyed the need for the traditional vice president and for many workers.  In the past, vice presidents interpreted areas of specific expertise for superiors and subordinates.  Now, superiors and subordinates can interpret for themselves through the use of personal computers.  And many workers have been replaced by machines that perform tasks and make decisions without holidays, bonuses, retirement plans, or sick leaves.

 

Modern Times

These are difficult times for finding continuity and security in the workplace as machines continue to replace people in both the manufacturing and service industries at all levels of organizational hierarchy.  Leaders and managers are desperate for answers on how to best address the challenges of these modern times.

Many turn to books, audiotapes, and videos on how to better manage the affairs of business and how to lead people to higher performance and productivity.

The Coveyites preach brotherhood and spiritual renewal.  Tom Peters advises hiring “crazy people” and putting them into self-directed teams.  Michael Hammer tells us to start all over with a blank sheet of paper and reengineer our entire business from top to bottom.

Yet, even with advice abounding from the intellects of the priests and practitioners of commerce, something feels wrong or at the least tentative in the relationships between managers and workers.  The problem with most of the advice available through print and electronic media is that much of it is based on the old definitions of authority and drawn from an historical perspective alone—a time that will never return.  There is no future in the past.

In the past, leaders could promise employees that if they were loyal to the company, the company would be loyal to them—provide continuity, security, and rewards.  The employee was expected to be at work on time and in a proper frame of mind, perform average or better work, and not cheat or steal; in other words, be loyal to the company.

Today it is difficult for a leader or a manager to know what to promise employees for being loyal.  Security, continuity, bonuses, advancement, or a career path may not be possible because the information on which the promise is made may be invalidated with the next rising of the sun.  The new motto of the workplace is “No decisions are final.”

 

The New Authority

The late quality management guru W. Edwards Deming said that only 20 percent of opportunities to increase productivity and profitability are at the operator or worker level of an organization. Eighty percent of opportunities for building a better company rest with management or at the top.

Reestablishing a workable authority system, creating real trust, and rebuilding integrity in the workplace are 80 percent a management challenge. There are four undeniable, unyielding absolutes that managers must embrace to serve the company and its employees during these times of rapid and confusing change. If you as a manager or leader want to establish a workplace where authority is respected, loyalty is understood, and integrity reigns, you must always:

 

Mean what you say

Lloyd Webb, my high school band director, was well liked by all the students. We worked hard for him and respected his authority. Several years ago a friend and fellow former student and I were reminiscing about Mr. Webb. I wondered why we all held Mr. Webb in such high esteem. My friend said that just before he left for college to study to become a band director, Mr. Webb gave him some sage advice: “If you really do become a teacher or a band director, never make a rule that you can’t enforce.” My friend said that he carried that advice with him through several careers, and attributes much of his success to the wisdom of that special teacher. Never tell your employees something that you are not absolutely positive that you can back up. Don’t say things that you don’t mean or that may come back to haunt you. If you don’t know, haven’t made up your mind yet, or are not yet ready to share your information, say so! Honesty is the only policy that always works. Leaders lose their integrity through unkept promises more than through any other behavior.

Place the decision where the knowledge is

The primary role of a leader is to set a vision for the company predicated on accurate predictions of the future and on realistic assumptions drawn from those predictions. Leaders must also provide knowledge, information, tools, and environment required to perform the work and make decisions related to it. Leaders shouldn’t waste time messing with the present! The quality of the work is dependent on the quality of the decisions of leadership. If the work is not right, then empowerment was either inappropriate or incomplete, or the desired future was not properly translated into present work. 

The role of the operations management function is to create successful work schemes drawn from the vision and missions created by the leaders. Any assessment of the outcome of the work should begin at the top, not with the work. The work is the output from the visioning and planning of the leaders! Outcome assessments must begin at the top where the first decisions were made and then move down through the organization to determine how to improve productivity, performance, and profits.

Reward appropriate work appropriately

In some organizations, advancement is the prize for the leader’s “most like me contest”! But those who are skillful at performing present-oriented work are rarely interested in advancing up to leadership. Individuals who are stellar performers in the present work are becoming increasingly valuable. Help those employees to become better at what they do, instead of trying to make them more like you. Not everyone wants to be a “suit.” It is a travesty that bright young accountants, designers, technicians, and wordsmiths enter the workplace looking for rewarding careers in their chosen fields of endeavors, and find that advancement is available only in management and marketing positions. It is also important to learn how to articulate the types of behaviors you desire from employees and reward only those behaviors. And remember that most persons who work in the present prefer transactional management (carrot and stick). They’re rarely turned on by the leader’s vision or by fancy rhetoric.

Know and address the visions of your employees

It is more important that you know what your employees want out of life than for them to understand your vision or to buy into your dreams. Stop trying to push your vision down into the organization and begin to understand what really turns your people on. Most employees don’t respond well to mission statements, or rah! rah! rhetoric. They either don’t believe or don’t understand its meaning or purpose. Especially if the mission statement or the rhetoric proves empty over and over again. What the employee wants to know about the direction of the company is that you have one and that you are capable of achieving it. The guys in the engine room don’t need to know where the ship is going to do a good job. But if the captain knows that the crew is salivating for a big barrel of Jamaican rum at the end of the voyage, he’d do well to let them know it’s waiting there.

A friend who just retired from years of government service told me that he always tried to understand what motivated his employees and to provide it for them. To those who idolized technology he gave difficult technological challenges. He observed that those in the clerical and secretarial services were most often motivated by recognition for day-to-day accomplishments and by opportunities for socialization with their peers. He made sure that praise was abundant and that opportunities for communizing with colleagues were always available. “Find out what your employees want,” he said, “and accommodate them!” 

New Loyalty
In the new workplace, management should express its loyalty to workers by providing them with continuing education. In a corporate culture where continuing education is made a part of work, the company creates a better quality workforce and also prepares its employees for their futures, wherever they might be.

Employees are better served by being loyal to themselves and their own dreams and goals than to those of the company.  Personal loyalty requires that you mean what you say, make only those decisions for which you are qualified, get better qualified to make better decisions, respect and recognize those who contribute to your successes, and know and respond to the needs of others.   These are also the characteristics of a good citizen, a good parent, and a good friend, and the expectation of my grandson when he asks me about the things we see and hear on our Saturday adventures.

Employees must have a clear understanding that the goal of any commercial venture is to make a profit.  If the company focuses on the bottom line, it will provide an economically stable environment where independent, self-loyal workers can flourish and grow in mutual benefit.   Integrity is found in systems that are well designed, well built, and well maintained.  Ultimate authority comes from respect for others and from a continuous search for truth and knowledge.  Loyalty must always begin with oneself.

 

Postscript

Skyscrapers don’t fall, because they are usually set on ground with bedrock beneath the surface.  Long poles of steel are driven deep into the bedrock and secured by concrete footings.  The skyscraper is then built over these long poles.  The weight of the building and the depth of the steel poles prevent the building from toppling in a forceful wind.  If a strong wind blows from the north, the weight of the building shifts to the south where gravity takes control, preventing the building from being lifted into the air.

Our faith is not in the integrity of the building, but in the integrity of the builder.  The building is only as strong as the knowledge and self-loyalty on which it is built.  

The success of any commercial endeavor is dependent on the integrity of its leaders.  It is they who must set the course, choose the resources, empower the work and the workers, provide appropriate advancement and reward, and take responsibility for the outcome of the work.

 

“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”—Samuel Johnson, English Poet