Measuring integrity is valuable, but be cautious during recruitment and selection

Integrity in the workplace is an important and fundamental value for many organizations. So it makes sense that they would want to measure it. But measuring integrity can be quite challenging. As part of feedback for employees themselves, it’s not too difficult, but when it comes to broader personality assessments for recruitment and selection, things quickly become more complex. In this article, you’ll learn how to approach measuring integrity in an organization in a way that’s both valuable and responsible.

The Challenge of Measuring Integrity

Integrity is a personal trait that ensures you are honest, sincere, and consistent-and, for example, not susceptible to bribery. Employees who act honestly, reliably, and responsibly contribute to a stimulating and healthy work culture and to the achievement of business goals. Measuring integrity can therefore be valuable and insightful for organizations-including during the recruitment and selection process. After all, as an organization, you want to know what kind of people you’re bringing on board. Still, measuring integrity in the workplace is quite complex. Integrity tests can certainly be useful, but it’s important to look beyond just the numbers and test results. It also depends on the purpose of the assessment. As part of a feedback survey for employees themselves, it’s certainly a useful tool. However, when used as part of recruitment and selection processes, it becomes more complex. Why is that, exactly?

Scientific Research on Reliability

Over the past few decades, a great deal of scientific research has been conducted on the reliability of integrity assessments and the context in which these assessments take place. In these assessments-especially in recruitment and selection-the following factors often complicate matters:

1. Social desirability

People want to present themselves in the best possible light, especially during job interviews. This can lead to socially desirable responses, causing candidates to portray themselves as more honest or ethical than their actual behavior suggests.

2. Overestimation of One’s Own Behavior

Various studies show that people often unconsciously and sincerely overestimate their own behavior when it comes to ethics and integrity.

3. Complexity of Behavior

Integrity is a broad concept and certainly not just black and white. What is seen as “ethical” behavior in one situation may be considered unethical in another. Moreover, it is not a fixed trait or a one-time achievement. It is something you can work on, and environmental or organizational influences (which, in turn, can change) play an important role in this process. Many studies emphasize that a high integrity score does not automatically mean that someone actually behaves with integrity. This is partly due to the risk of socially desirable responses, as this 1993 American study already demonstrated. However, reliability does appear to increase when questions focus on behavior in a specific context, as this study and other research have shown. For example, integrity surveys among students proved to be more reliable when questions focused on their behavior in a specific situation, such as “at school” or “at the university.”

How can you make effective use of integrity surveys?

For a broad integrity policy within an organization, it is valuable to make integrity a regular topic of discussion. Not only during recruitment and selection, but also, for example, at regular intervals within the standard review cycle. Take the context of behavior into account and invest in a culture of openness where employees feel involved in promoting ethical behavior. When it comes to providing employees with feedback on their self-awareness, performance, or development opportunities (such as 360-degree feedback), these assessments are definitely useful. For other personality assessments, we at hrmforce recommend exercising caution with these measurements. If you do wish to use them for recruitment and selection, you must be sure to thoroughly discuss and explain the results. Otherwise, it can become a sensitive issue that may be misinterpreted. An important point to consider is the difference between a person’s personality-which relates to aptitude and potential-and behavior that is actually observable. You cannot conclude, based on the measured results, whether someone is or is not a person of integrity. It does, however, say something about their potential for development. And keep the previously mentioned context in mind. If an integrity score comes out somewhat “lower,” you can also ask about specific past (work) situations during interviews. How did the person handle those situations? You can find more specific interview questions in the hrmforce competency handbook.

What else can your organization do to promote integrity?

In addition to making integrity a recurring topic of discussion and fostering an open culture, paying attention to the context of behavior is a key focus area. In addition to testing behavior or personality traits, you can therefore also develop tests (or conduct interviews) that focus on the specific context in which the behavior occurs. This can be done, for example, using scenarios in which candidates or participants describe how they would act in certain situations. Furthermore, organizations can invest in structured behavioral observation and, for example, feedback methods such as 360-degree feedback. This can certainly yield valuable information for the intended purpose.

Integrity and Organizing Leadership

In the field of leadership development, integrity is a key focus area-for example, when facilitating and developing organizational leadership. Among all the leadership styles that exist-and the many hybrid forms thereof-this one has been gaining significant traction in recent years. In addition to greater self-awareness across different levels of the organization, a clear Leadership Operating System (LOS) can also significantly increase and accelerate the impact of organizational leadership. It serves as a framework for discussions, shared protocols, and communication and decision-making flows that enable leaders to “steer” the organization in the right direction.