Leadership Integrity Measurement Development

Iin Mayasari, Handrix Chris Haryanto, Iyus Wiadi and Handi Risza

Universitas Paramadina

handi.risza@paramadina.ac.id

Keywords: Integrity, Leadership, Measurement

Abstract: This research aims to develop a measuring instrument of integrity based on the presence of more holistic

elements in understanding leadership. The research in the study of integrity is seen to be still very partial in

nature to be used as a basis for evaluating the performance of individuals as leaders or organizations so that

it is necessary to develop an eclectic measurement. The parameters in the eclective measurement lead to the

existence of organizational elements and organizational systems that support the effectiveness of leaders in

managing an institution. This study uses a qualitative approach through interviews with experts in confirming

measuring instruments. The results of the development of this integrity measurement tool can strengthen the

integrity dimension that can be used as a guide in assessing the perceptions of the leaders of institutions. This

aspect of perception will also provide input for improving the performance of leaders by paying attention to

aspects of the consequences of behavior. In addition, the existence of the integrity dimension can be realized

in the form of policies and guidelines to become the standard and basis for evaluating employee performance.

1 INTRODUCTION

Understanding the value of integrity in leadership

aspects is important because, according to Petrick and

Quinn (2000), leader integrity is the main resource

besides capital in soft-competence owned by

institutions. Core competence is an aspect of

competitiveness for institutions to be able to

demonstrate the performance and sustainability of the

institution in the long run. Mayasari et al. (2012)

show that the integrity inherent in individuals in

organizations, including leaders, can be something

unique and serve as the identity of institutions that

have a good reputation in the eyes of stakeholders.

Integrity becomes something that is not easily

imitated because it has become an inherent part of the

organization. The value of integrity that is

consistently applied can increase trust (Ingenhoff &

Sommer, 2010); minimize deviant behavior (Dineen,

et al., 2006); reduce aggressive behavior (Vardi &

Wiener, 1996); support the implementation of a

healthy business (Brown, 2006); avoiding deviations

of values and anti-social (Palanski et al., 2015);

support ethical leadership (Resick et al, 2006;

Kalshoven et. al., 2011). Koehn (2005) argues that the

value of integrity is the value of morality and forming

individual or leader character. Morality is a leader's

confidence that what will be executed is part of a

community system. Leaders with morality aspects

will consider the implications of actions on the

system as well as a guide in carrying out one's actions.

In other words, according to Engelbrecht et al. (2015),

leaders who have integrity as moral values will create

ethical leadership.

In reality, the manifestation of integrity in daily

life, especially in leadership in an organization and

even the behavior of government officials, is still

quite alarming, especially in Indonesia. Based on

Transparency International's assessment, the value of

integrity represented by the low level of corruption

has not been achieved. Based on the results of the

Transparency International-The Global Coalition

Against Corruption study, it shows that the average

corruption perception index in Asia Pacific countries

has a low Corruption Perception Index. Based on the

results of the Transparency International survey, low

ranking countries are perceived to be untrustworthy

and unable to play a role as public institutions that

serve the community well. Anti-corruption laws have

been drafted, but, in practice, regulations have been

largely ignored due to bribery, abuse of authority,

corruption of politicians, and low standards of

integrity.

Mayasari, I., Haryanto, H., Wiadi, I. and Risza, H.

Leadership Integrity Measurement Development.

DOI: 10.5220/0009401701770186

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity (ICOACI 2019), pages 177-186

ISBN: 978-989-758-461-9

177

Integrity in Indonesia during 2012-2018 shows

that the category is still red, namely at a coefficient of

30, which means that it is unclean. The range of

numbers is between 0-100, meaning that the closer it

is to number 100, the less corruption. The sector

under study involved political parties, the

government, parliament or people's representatives,

the police, the business sector, the courts, the media,

the education system, social institutions, and the

military. Table 1 explains the summary of the

corruption perception index. Transparency

International used to construct the index to allow for

comparison of scores from one year to the next.

Corruption Perception Index (CPI) draws on 13

surveys and expert assessments to measure public

sector corruption in 180 countries and territories,

giving each a score from zero (highly corrupt) to 100

(very clean). Based on a 2012 survey, Indonesia

ranked 118 out of 174 countries with a coefficient of

32; a survey in 2013, Indonesia ranked 114 out of

177 countries with a coefficient of 32; survey in

2014, Indonesia ranked 107 out of 174 countries with

a coefficient of 34; survey in 2015, Indonesia ranked

88 out of 167 countries with a coefficient of 36;

survey in 2016, Indonesia ranked 90 out of 176

countries with a coefficient of 36; survey in 2017,

Indonesia ranked 96 out of 180 countries with a

coeffient 37 and survey in 2018, Indonesia ranked 89

out of 180 countries with a coefficient 38.

Table 1. Corruption Perception Index of Indonesia

No Year Index Country Rank

1 2012 32 118 of 174 countries

2 2013 32 114 of 177 countries

3 2014 34 107 of 174 countries

4 2015 36 88 of 167 countries

5 2016 36 90 of 176 countries

6 2017 37 96 of 180 countries

7 2018 38 89 of 180 countries

Source: Transparency International

Leadership with integrity will support the creation

of ethical leadership, meaning leaders who consider

the interests of all stakeholders. Previous studies have

shown that the types of leadership that support the

realization of ethical leadership include

transformational leadership (Bass, 1999); charismatic

leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1988); serving

leadership (Zehir et al., 2014). Ethical leadership,

according to Trevino and Brown (2004), is a moral

leader who not only shows good character, honesty,

can be trusted, responsible, and applies good work

standards. Regarding the measurement of ethical

leadership, Kalshoven et al. (2011) developed

measurements with seven dimensions namely people

orientation, fairness, power-sharing, concerns for

sustainability, ethical guidance, role clarification, and

integrity.

Gardner (2003) argued that the types of

leadership, including charismatic, tend to neglect

leadership with integrity. Bass (1990) also shows that

transformational leaders reinforce only aspects of

influence, inspiration, intellectual, respect for

individuals. Parry and Proctor-Thompson (2002)

argue that leaders with aspects of influence may not

necessarily have integrity. Integrity leadership needs

to be strengthened to create a good social order.

Mayasari et al. (2012) show that integrity is needed in

leadership because 1) can help business people and

individuals in organizations to form good morals

including avoiding adverse public actions such as

bribery, embezzlement, violation of personal

interests; 2) understand all the risks and consequences

along with the good and bad actions and put forward

the view of ulitarianism to be the main concern; 3)

integrity becomes a guideline for making decisions so

that corruption will be avoided;

4) individuals can determine attitudes without

being bound to something that must be implemented

as long as in accordance with conscience, and the

value of integrity pays attention to the emotional side

and the human side.

1.1 Problem Formulation

The Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi

Pemberantasan Korupsi) from time to time handle

corruption issues. The results of the Laboratory of

Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of

Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University

(2016) showed that corruption cases in Indonesia

tended to increase. This increase shows that there

needs to be a constructive solution in terms of

integrity. This behavior is due to the weak integrity

value possessed by the leaders. Thus, understanding

the elements that exist in leadership integrity needs to

be analyzed further so that managerial elements will

need to be understood and strengthened and

implemented in the work environment at the same

time can be used as a performance measure for

leaders or managers concerned.

Measurement of integrity by taking into account

aspects of a system of the organization while

understanding aspects of psychology will strengthen

the dimensions of integrity. These measured

dimensions of integrity can be used as a guide for

assessing the performance of institutional managers

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

178

whose perceptions are. However, this aspect of

perception will provide input for improving the

performance of leaders to pay more attention to all the

consequences of behavior. In addition, these.integrity

dimensions can be realized in the form of policies or

guidelines that can become the standard and basis for

evaluating employee performance.

In line with the results of the Transparency

International study, there is a further need to analyze

aspects of integrity with a broader measurement

dimension. Integrity measures used in previous

studies are still partial in assessing the performance

of individuals as leaders or organizations, so there is

a need for effective measurements to provide a more

comprehensive understanding of leadership integrity

dimensions. Palanksi et al. (2015) also argue that

research related to integrity is still very limited to

understanding the dimensions that explain integrity.

The Worden (2003) defines integrity as consisting of

only two aspects, namely consistency and includes all

aspects related to the implications of integrity. Audi

and Murphy's (2006) conceptual study shows that

aspects of integrity include four dimensions of

honesty, sincerity, fairness, and trust. Research by

Palanski and Yammarino (2007) emphasizes that the

value of integrity with three dimensions is

consistency, the fulfillment of promises, and honesty.

Analyzing the aspects of integrity by

understanding from a broader range of aspects, will

basically support the creation of a leadership system

in the organization, which also strengthens important

elements. In addition, strengthening leadership

integrity is manifested in organizational tools,

including culture, work values, structure, and work

systems that will ultimately support the optimal

implementation of integrity. On the other hand,

strengthening the value of integrity with various

dimensions will essentially create an ethical leader

who will have implications for the institution more

broadly. These ethical leaders tend to be able to show

consistency between attitudes and actions (Kannan-

Narasimhan & Lawrence, 2012; Palanksi &

Yammarino, 2011; Simmons, 2002; Simmons, 2009;

Kalshoven et al. 2011; Engelbrecht et al., 2015; Liu

and Wang, 2014), which will ultimately create trust

by stakeholders and demonstrate overall good

institutional performance (Eisenbeiss, et al., 2015).

In the development of the integrity literature,

Vargas-Vernandes et al. (2013) also show that

integrity is able to support future leadership, but a

holistic measurement is needed to understand

integrity. This holistic measurement is characterized

by eclective characteristics that include elements of

the organization, and organizational systems support

the effectiveness of leaders in managing an

institution, which is not only from the character of the

leader. This measurement is important to be used as a

parameter in assessing the performance of leaders and

institutions.

This research formulates the research questions as

follows.

a. What elements are able to form the concept

of leadership integrity?

b. How is leadership integrity measured?

The purpose of this study is to create elements that

are able to identify leadership integrity and to develop

measurement. The analysis of the elements more

holistically will provide a broader understanding of

the meaning of integrity inherent in leadership.

Understanding the meaning of integrity is

strengthened by developing measurements on each

element that defines integrity. Measurements

developed are expected to be the work parameters of

individual leaders so that they can become

performance evaluations that are targeted.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Integrity

Integrity is defined as the moral quality of self-

management at the individual level. According to

Palanski and Yammarino (2007), integrity has five

meanings. First, wholeness (roundness or unity).

Integrity is a union between thoughts, attitudes,

words, and behavior all the time. Integrity with

wholeness is oriented globally and locally. Both

global and local, individuals should have unity.

Second, consistency in diversity. When individuals

are faced with decisions whose situation is complex

because it will involve many parties, the individual

remains consistent in his stance. Individuals are not

easily influenced by others because they have to

decide something based on the insistence of one party

that is not necessarily the true consequences of his

decision. Third, authentic. Individuals try to show

that they are truly people who have something in

common between words and words. Conformity

between words and words not only arises because

there is social coercion, but this conformity is already

embedded in a person by itself. Fourth, consistency

of words and actions. Consistency of words and

actions must be in line. Individuals must not only

rhetoric but must be applied in daily actions on an

ongoing basis. Thus, individuals will always

remember to do good by not breaking the rules. Fifth,

Leadership Integrity Measurement Development

179

ethics and morality. Integrity is related to ethics and

morality.

2.2 The Dimensions of Leadership

Integrity

Vargas-Hernández et al. (2013) explains that

leadership integrity can be effectively created if it is

It is supported by a system of organizational integrity

management capacity or organizational management

integrity capacity system. This integrity capacity

system is supported by individual integrity and

organizational identity. Leadership integrity will be

strong if each element supports one another. The

integrity literature reinforces that integrity needs to be

supported from personal to collective aspects, to

organizations, and even at the global level. Individual

and organizational integrity is an interactive attitude

because it pays attention to the consequences of

behavior on all organizational stakeholders

(stakeholders).

2.3 Individual Integrity

Dimensions that support individual integrity are:

1) Moral awareness. This concept is the

capacity to feel and to have sensitivity related to

ethical issues that are relevant in making decisions

that have implications for others. The decision

making must pay attention to the voice of people or

other aspects of the organization. The system

sometimes blinds the eyes of the heart. However, with

the moral sensitivity possessed by individuals, this

will lead individuals to make decisions that do not

deviate from existing regulations or codes of ethics.

Decisions made will benefit the organization's

stakeholders.

2) Moral deliberation. The second component

of process integrity relates to the capacity to process

the analysis of a decision. Analysis of a decision must

consider the long term with regard to all risks and

their consequences. This analysis involves ethical

arguments that can be interpreted fairly by all parties

involved.

3) Moral character. Moral considerations

become part of an individual's character, which can

include a number of aspects of enthusiasm, honesty,

justice, common good, trust, compassion,

compassion, and aspects of caring for others. This

moral character will influence every decision made

by paying attention to its impact to give attention to

individuals who receive business decisions.

4) Moral conduct. Moral action becomes

something that can be seen and used as a reference by

other individuals. Moral action becomes a business

practice that is always used as a reference by

everyone in the organization.

These four dimensions are expected to be

internalized in individuals and organizations. The

four dimensions are made a commitment to act in

accordance with an ethical framework. Business

activities that are based on integrity will be

characterized by good employee performance,

positive public perception, loyal consumers, loyal

investors, and positive financial performance.

2.4 Organizational Integrity

The concept of organizational integrity is rooted in

Weber's bureaucratic thinking that there is a need for

universal rules that provide certainty for individuals

to complete a job well. This concept of integrity

reinforces the autonomy, competence, credibility of

political institutions, and work efficiency in both

public and private companies. Organizational

integrity is a standard of personal morals and

relational values with outsiders. This organizational

integrity is a focus on kindness with others and

strengthens the engagement between people in the

organization. Organizational integrity creates

standards for strengthening cultural cohesion for

professional responsibility and competence in

handling problems in organizations (Vargas-

Hernández et al., 2013). Kolthoff (2007) argues that

organizational integrity is defined as a code of

conduct related to moral values, standards, norms,

and rules that accepted by all members of the

organization and stakeholders and upholds the

commitment to provide services to all citizens. This

integrity also includes consistency between principles

and actions accepted by the community and has

become a joint consensus. Integrity is also

strengthened in ethical culture through open

communication, interaction, accept diversity, and

dialogue in the framework of ethical thinking,

organizational integrity also encourages systems that

strengthen anti-corruption.

Mayasari et al. (2012) reinforce that

organizational integrity can be supported by a number

of aspects as follows.

1) The value of integrity contained in the vision

and mission. Vision has a forward-looking

orientation that becomes a guideline in making

strategies for stakeholders. The vision must reflect the

value of integrity, thereby affecting every policy

formulated by the organization. The mission relates

to what is done by the company and who are

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

180

consumers of the company. The mission must be

based on integrity.

2) Develop a code of ethics with integrity

values. Organizations must develop a code of ethics

with integrity values. This code of conduct can be

used as a guide in carrying out daily organizational

activities and is followed by all employees in the

organization Recruitment policy. In recruiting

employees, personality testing must be conducted

with a focus on integrity. Thus, organizations can get

employees who work with a tendency to value high

integrity.

3) Top management. The chosen leadership

must have integrity characteristics because it will be

a role model and reference in the actions of

employees who are at the management level below.

4) It is creating a work climate by prioritizing

the value of integrity. The working climate, by

focusing on integrity, will create a work climate that

is mutually supportive, collaborative and avoids the

conditions for competition.

5) Training the value of integrity. Integrity

value training needs to be done routinely, and the aim

is to provide solutions to ethical issues. This training

should be done routinely to remind employees to

always act according to ethics.

6) Integrity audit. Every year the organization

conducts audits to evaluate and monitor the

occurrence of unethical behavior. Thus there is a

control mechanism in business activities.

7) Policies that are a requirement of gender

equality. Organizations must implement policies that

always pay attention to gender composition. This

policy with regard to gender composition will have

implications for equality of work participation and

focus on the positive values of feminism.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

This research data was analyzed through two

qualitative approaches. A qualitative research

approach through interviews with experts to confirm

the measuring instrument and conducting interviews

related to the use of the instrument measurement with

leaders in an institution. The unit of analysis of this

research is the individual. Individuals in this study are

leaders. Individuals related to leaders are used for the

initial interview to strengthen the dimensions of

leadership integrity.

For research with a qualitative approach that is

interviews with leaders consider a number of criteria.

The leader has worked at least in the same position

for more than 2 years from various industries. The

consideration is that the individual can provide

experience related to aspects of integrity needed in

completing his work, including in handling existing

work conflicts.

4 ANALYSIS

Below, there are items made based on the concepts of

individual integrity and organizational integrity in

The context of leadership. Vargas-Hernández et

al. (2013) explain that leadership integrity can be

effectively created if it is supported by a system of

organizational integrity management capacity or

organizational management integrity capacity

system. This integrity capacity system is supported by

individual integrity and organizational identity.

Leadership integrity will be strong if each element

supports one another. The integrity literature

reinforces that integrity needs to be supported from

personal to collective aspects, to organizations, and

even at the global level (Paine, 1997). Individual and

organizational integrity is an interactive attitude

because it pays attention to the consequences of

behavior on all organizational stakeholders

(stakeholders).

The content validity assessment sheet measuring

tool used Aiken's V content validity approach. The

expert as a panelist in assessing the items below is

based on the extent to which the items have strong or

weak relevance to aspects and indicators of behavior.

Value 1 indicates that the item is very

unrepresentative or highly irrelevant to the behavioral

indicators and aspects to be measured, and value 5

indicates the items are very representative or very

relevant to the behavioral indicators and aspects to be

measured. The panelists are welcome to give a mark

(V) on each item in accordance with the assessment

of the relevance of the item to the behavioral

indicators and aspects that already exist.

5 CONCLUSION

In the initial stage, this research has compiled the

main construct specifications of each dimension of

leadership integrity through a literature study.

Constructing the construction specifications is done

through documentation studies through a number of

literature related to previous research. In more detail,

future research will focus on developing measuring

devices that will follow a number of procedures

Leadership Integrity Measurement Development

181

according to those formulated by Churchill (1979).

The procedure is as follows.

Conduct data collection by means of a survey.

This stage is related to distributing

questionnaires that contain measuring tools for

leadership integrity dimensions. Selection of

respondents for data collection of individuals

who work at a company for at least 2 years

working at the same company.

Use face validity and content validity tests on

experts.

It is measuring the reliability of data generated

from surveys.

Collecting data back by surveying the results of

Data reliability testing. This stage is related to

distributing questionnaires that contain

dimensions of leadership integrity. The

selection of respondents for data collection

involved all individuals working in the Jakarta

area.

Measure validity.

Developing norms, this is related to individual

perceptions to compare scores or scores

obtained. At this stage, the study will confirm

the measurement scale.

REFERENCES

Audi, R. & Murphy, P. E. 2006. The many faces of

integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 3-21.

Bass, B. M. 1990. From transaction to transformational

leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational

Dynamics, 18, 19–31.

Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and

authentic transformational leadership behavior. The

Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217.

Brown, M. T. 2006. Corporate integrity and public interest:

A relational approach to business ethics and leadership.

Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 11-18.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. Charismatic

leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness. San Francisco: CA Jossey-Bass.

Churchill G. A. 1979. A Paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing construct. Journal of Marketing

Research, 16, 64-73.

Dineen, B.R., Lewicki, R.J., and Thomlinson, E.C. 2006.

Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity:

Relationship with employee citizenship and deviant

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 622-635.

Engelbrecht, A. S., Heine, G., & Mahembe, B. 2015. The

influence of integrity and ethical leadership on trust in

the leader. Management Dynamics, 24 (1), 2-8.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D. 2015. Doing well

by doing good? Analyzing the relationship between

CEO ethical leadership and firm performance. Journal

of Business Ethics, 128, 635–651

Gardner, W. L. 2003. Perceptions of leader charisma,

effectiveness and integrity. Management

Communication Quarterly, 16 (4), 502-524.

Ingenhoff, D. and Sommer, K. 2010. Trust in companies

and in CEO: A comparative study of the main

influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 339- 355.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B.

2011. Ethical leadership at work Questionnaire (ELW):

Development and validation of a multidimensional

measure. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (1), 51–69.

Kannan-Narasimhan, R. & Lawrence, B. S. 2012.

Behaviourial integrity: How leader referents and

trust matter to workplace outcomes. Journal of Business

Ethics, 111 (2), 165-178.

Koehn, D. 2005. Integrity as a business asset. Journal of

Business Ethics, 58, 125-136.

Liu, G. & Wang, X. 2014. Ethical leadership and Ba Ling:

a survey on the perception of accounting interns in CPA

firms. Chinese Management Studies, 8 (4), 642-664.

Mayasari, I., Wiadi, I., Maharani, A. & Pramono, R. 2012.

Penerapan nilai integritas dan perspektif gender dalam

perilaku beretika. Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi Kinerja,

16 (2), 153-179.

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino, F. J. 2007. Integrity and

leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion.

European Management Journal, 25 (3), 171-184.

Palanski, M. E., Gentry, W. A., Cullen, K. L., & Nichols,

C. M. 2015. Virtuous leadership: Exploring the effects of

leader courage and behavioral integrity on leader

performance and image. Journal of Business Ethics:

132, 297–310.

Palanski, M.E. & Yammarino, F.J. 2011. Impact of

behavioural integrity on follower job performance:

Athree-study examination. The Leadership Quarterly,

22, 765-786.

Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. 2002. Perceived

integrity of transformational leaders in organisational

settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75–96.

Petrick, J. A. & Quinn, J. F. 2000. The integrity capacity

construct and moral progress in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 23: 3-18.

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson,

J. K. 2006. A cross-cultural examination of the

endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 63, 345– 359.

Simmons, T. 2002 Behavioural integrity: The perceived

alignment between managers’ word and deeds as a

research focus. Organizational Sciences, 13(1): 18-35.

Simmons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L.A., Parks, J.M. 2009.

The importance of behavioral integrity in a

multicultural workplace. Cornell Hospitality Report,

8(17), 6-16.

Trevino, L. K. & Brown, M. E. 2004. Managing to be

ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths.

Academy of Management Executive, 18 (2), 69-81.

Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. 1996. Misbehavior in

organizations: A motivational framework.

Organizational Science, 7, 151-165.

Vargas-Hernández, J. G., León-Arias, D., & Valdez-

Zepeda, A. 2013. Enhancing leadership integrity

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

182

effectiveness strategy through the institutionalization of

an organizational management integrity capacity

systems. Contemporary Legal and Economic Issues IV

Worden, S. 2003. The role of integrity as a mediator in

strategic leadership: A recipe for reputational

capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), 31-44.

Zehir, C., Müceldili, B., Altindag˘, E., Ehitog˘ lu, Y.S., &

Zehir, S. 2014. Charismatic leadership and

organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role

of ethical climate. Social Behavior and Personality, 42

(8), 1365-1376

APPENDIX

Item of Individual Integrity

Aspect Indicators of Behavior Item Relevance Value

1 2 3 4 5

Moral awareness in

individual integrity is the

capacity to feel and to have

sensitivity related to ethical

issues that are relevant in

making decisions that have

implications for others

 Having sensitivity

related to ethical issues

in making decisions

 Have other aspects

considered in making

decisions.

 Being able to realize

the ethical mistakes

made when making

decisions

 Focusing on

considerations that can

benefit various parties

in decision making.

Someone has

sensitivity aspects

related to ethical issues

that affect others.

In making decisions, it

must pay attention to the

voice of people or other

aspects of the

organization.

It is necessary

according to

conscience in making

decisions so as not to

deviate.

Decisions made will

create many benefits

for the organization's

stakeholders.

Moral deliberation relates

to the capacity to process

the analysis

of a decision. Analysis of a

decision must consider the

long term with regard to all

risks and their

consequences. This

analysis involves ethical

arguments which can be

interpreted fairly by all

parties involved.

 Able to take long-term

decisions well based

on the value of justice

 Able to calculate risks

and consequences well

to get a fair decision.

1. The analysis of a

decision must consider

the long term with

regard to all risks and

their consequences.

2. Consideration of the

decision can be

interpreted fairly by all

parties involved.

Moral character is a moral

consideration that is part of

an individual's character

that can include a number

of aspects of spirit, honesty,

justice, common good,

trust, compassion,

compassion, and aspects of

caring for others. This

moral character will

influence in every decision

making by paying attention

to its impact to give

 Have a high sense of

enthusiasm

 Consider honesty in

every decision

 Consider fairness for

all parties in decision

making.

 Focusing on shared

needs in consideration

of decision making

 Having compassion in

making every decision.

 Pay attention to the

conditions that exist in

1. Has the spirit aspect

2. Having honesty

3. Have a fair sense

4. Concerned with the

common good

5. Have the love of

others

6. Have attention for

others

7. Show trust for others

Leadership Integrity Measurement Development

183

attention to individuals who

receive business decisions.

others

 Can trust others.

Moral conduct is a moral

act that can be seen and

referred to by other

individuals. Moral action

becomes a business

practice that is always used

as a reference by everyone

in the organization.

 Able to carry out

decisions that are in

accordance with the rules

properly

 Showed firm rejection

when the decision was felt

to only benefit one party

 Avoid fraudulent

behavior that based on

shortcuts

1. Moral actions can be

imitated by others

2. Moral action becomes

a business practice that is

always used as a reference

by everyone in the

organization.

3. Can be a role model

for the organization

Item of Organizational Integrity

Aspect Indicators of Behavior Item Relevance Value

1 2 3 4 5

Organizational integrity

means there is a value of

integrity contained in the

vision and mission. Vision

has a forward- looking

orientation that becomes a

guideline in making

strategies for stakeholders.

The vision must reflect the

value of integrity thereby

affecting every policy

formulated by the

organization. The mission

relates to what is done by

the company and who are

consumers of the company.

The mission must be based

on aspects integritas.

 There is a value of

integrity in vision and

mission

 Vision that is able to

provide guidance in

the future

 A mission that has

good operations based

on integrity

1. There is a value of

integrity contained in

the vision and mission.

2. Vision has a forward-

looking orientation that

becomes a guideline in

making strategies for

stakeholders.

3. Mission related to

what is done by the

company and who are

consumers of the

company based on

aspects of integrity

Organizational integrity

means developing a code of

ethics with integrity values.

Organizations must develop

a code of ethics with

integrity values. This code

of conduct can be used as a

guide in carrying out daily

organizational activities

and is followed by all

employees in the

organization.

 Have a code of ethics

based on the value of

Integrity

 Organizational code of

ethics that can be a

guide.

 A code of ethics that is

followed by all

employees.

1. Organizations must

develop a code of ethics

with integrity values.

2. This code of ethics can

be used as a guide in

carrying out daily

organizational activities

3. The code of ethics is

followed by all

employees in the

organization.

Organizational integrity

means inherent in

recruitment policy. In

recruiting employees,

personality testing must be

conducted with a focus on

integrity. Thus,

 The purpose of

recruitment is

based on

personal search

that has the

character of

integrity

1. Employee

recruitment, personality

testing must be

conducted with a focus

on integrity

2. The organization is

expected to get

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

184

organizations can get

employees who work with

a tendency to value high

integrity.

 Able to get employees

with high integrity

values.

employees who work

with a tendency to

value high integrity

Organizational integrity

is inherent in Top

management. The

chosen leadership must

have integrity

characteristics because

it will be a role model

and reference in the

actions of employees

who are in the

management level below.

 Leaders with integrity

 Leader's integrity

character that can be a role

model

 The leader as a role

model

1. Leaders chosen must

have integrity as a role

model.

2. The leader chosen

must have integrity

character as a reference

in employee actions.

3. The leader shows a

good role model.

Organizational integrity is

inherent in the creation of

a work climate. The

working climate by

focusing on integrity will

create

a work climate that is

mutually supportive,

collaborative and

avoids the conditions

for competition.

 Integrity-based work

climate

 Collaboration-based

work climate

 A work climate that

avoids competition

1. Work climate by

focusing on integrity

2. Supporting working

conditions for

collaboration.

3. There is no element

of competition.

The value of integrity is

inherent in training the

value of integrity that

needs to be done

routinely whose purpose

is to provide solutions to

problems related to

ethics. This training

should be done routinely

to remind employees to

always act according to

ethics.

 Implementation of

integrity training

 organizational ability to

prepare employees

 Training the value of

integrity as an evaluation

1. Integrity value training

needs to be done

routinely

2. Preparing all

employees to solve

problems.

3. As a way to remind

employees to always

act according to ethics.

Integrity value in the form

of integrity audit. Every

year the

organization conducts

audits to evaluate and to

monitor the occurrence

of unethical behavior.

Thus there is a control

mechanism in business

activities.

 Conducting an ethical

behavior audit

 Organizational

monitoring related to

ethical behavior

 Organizational control

mechanism in conducting

business

1. Every year the

organization carries out

audits

to evaluate the

occurrence of unethical

behavior

2. Every year the

organization conducts

audits to monitor the

occurrence of unethical

behavior.

3. There is a control

mechanism in business

activities

Leadership Integrity Measurement Development

185

The value of integrity

inherent in policies that

are a condition of gender

equality. Organizations

must implement policies

that always pay attention

to gender composition.

This policy with regard to

gender composition will

have implications for

equality of work

participation and focus on

positive values of

feminism

 Gender-based policies

 Implications of gender

equality

 Feminism is positively

related to gender equality

1. There is a policy that

requires gender

equality

2. Gender equality has

implications for equality

of work participation.

3. Gender equality

focuses on the value of

positive feminism.

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

186