Download A Framework for Integrity Management in the

A Framework
for Integrity Management
in the Public Sector
Jeroen Maesschalck
Leuven Institute of Criminology
K.U.Leuven, Belgium
[email protected]
Overview
•
Introduction
Definitions
Mental barriers to integrity management
•
Two approaches to integrity management
•
The integrity management framework
–
–
–
•
Instruments
Development processes
Structure/organisation
Conclusion
2
Definitions
• Ethics = generally accepted values and norms that guide
daily behavior
• Integrity = acting in accordance with generally accepted
values and norms
In the public sector, e.g. : loyalty, objectivity, transparency, etc.
Is more than avoiding fraud and corruption
• Integrity management= the whole of management
instruments that are aimed at stimulating and enforcing
integrity within an organization
3
Mental barriers to integrity management
• “There are no ethical problems in our organization”
– One can only know this through a good detection system
– There are ethical dilemmas in every public sector organization
• “Integrity management will only increase the scandalous atmosphere
and the distrust of citizens”
– Short-term vision
– Underestimating citizens
• “Corruption and other integrity violations are so deep in our culture
that we should accept them”
– Normatively: the fact that something exists is not a justification by itself
– Empirically: there are success stories where culturally endemic corruption
was turned around
• “Our staff will feel attacked or accused”
– Can be avoided by emphasizing the “values-based” approach to integrity
management
4
Two approaches
Rules-based
Values-based
• To avoid unethical behaviour
• To stimulate ethical behaviour
• Pessimistic view of human
nature
• Optimistic view of human
nature
• To emphasize external controls
• To emphasize internal control
• Typical instruments:
• Typical instruments
– Legislation
– Workshops, training sessions
– Strict codes of conduct
– Ambitious ethics codes
– Strict procedures
– Individual coaching
5
Integrity management framework
• Instruments
– Determining and defining integrity
– Guiding towards integrity
– Monitoring integrity
– Enforcing integrity
• Development process
• Structure/organisation
– Distribution of responsibilities
– Coordination
6
Integrity management framework:
3 pillars and 2 layers
Instruments
Processes
Core measures
Codes, rules,
continuous integrity
guidance, integrity
development
training and
process, one-off
advice, etc.
projects etc.
Complementary
measures
Integrity as criterion in
personnel
selection and
promotion,
integrity aspects
of procurement,
etc
Structures
Integrity actor,
management
Processes in
Actors in personnel
personnel
management,
management,
contract
procurement and
management,
contract
financial
management, etc.
management, etc.
7
Instruments
• Four functions
– Determining and defining integrity
• E.g. risk analysis, code of ethics, gifts and gratuities policy
– Guiding towards integrity
• E.g. training, coaching, communication, ethical leadership
– Monitoring integrity
• E.g. whistle-blowing policies, daily supervision, measuring through
surveys
– Enforcing integrity
• E.g. informal sanctioning, disciplinary procedures
• Two layers
– Core instruments
– Complementary instruments
• Two approaches
– Rules-based
– Values-based
8
Development process
• Focus on process is important to
– overcome implementation deficit
– survive after initial enthusiasm has waned
– to ensure the framework remains up-to-date
– to ensure coordination
• Follow Plan Do Check Adapt (PDCA)
9
Structures (1)
Determining
and
defining
integrity
Core actors
Complementary actors
Guiding
towards
integrity
Monitoring
integrity
Enforcing
integrity
Management
+++
+++
+++
+++
Integrity actors
+++
+++
+++
+++
personnel mgt,
contract
& financial
mgt, etc.
++
++
++
++
10
Structures (2): management
• Active leadership concerning integrity management
– Explicit support for integrity management
– E.g. ensure there are sufficient means for integrity management, paying
attention to integrity in communication
• “Moral manager”
– Efforts of management to stimulate integrity among their staff
– E.g. correcting unethical behaviour, creating an open culture where staff
can be open about their mistakes
• “Moral person”
– Personal characteristics of the manager concerning integrity
– E.g. honesty, reliability, etc.
– Exemplary behaviour
11
Structures (3): integrity actor
• Institutionalization in one place is essential because of:
–
–
–
–
–
Accumulation of expertise
Management has to be supported in its coordinating role
Continuity after the first launching of the policy
Signaling function
Visibility
• Can take many forms
– An independent bureau
– An individual
– A committee or working group
• But: maintain co-ownership of integrity management among
all staff!
12
Conclusion: two main challenges for integrity
management
• Integrity management should go beyond hollow rhetoric
– Instruments should have an actual impact on the workfloor
• Integrity management should go beyond the rules-based
approach
– Do not only prevent integrity violations
– Also support public servants in dealing with ethical
dilemmas
13