Mission driven organisations almost always invest a lot of time, energy and money in making sure they are ‘safe’ on integrity. Stakeholders such as the local councils, boards and donors demand it. Organizations need to account for the implementation of the right policies and procedures. Internal structures such as work councils and paying members scrutinize directors for how they manage these elements in daily practice. Journalists follow every misstep and trust of the public is lost quicker than it is build when it comes to integrity.
This often leads to a tick the box mentality. Specialists are less concerned with developing a comprehensive system and more with something that looks good on paper, satisfies donors and that doesn’t upset internal critical voices too much.
Such a system doesn't always functions well in reality. Crucial elements might be missing. Most often this is the part of the system that helps professionals to deal with the difficult decisions they face. Components could show gaps. Parts of the preventative cycle often are in place, such as measure to prevent conflict of interest, but measures to prevent other types of violations are underdeveloped. Most notably today this is measures to prevention interpersonal violations such as bullying and sexual harassment. Historical developments may have created overlaps. We often see multiple reporting mechanisms, each designed for a different violation that, in the past, was a integrity focus area.
Integrity systems full of holes created impunity, lost of team spirit and prevention coming to a halt
Badly designed integrity system make life of specialists working on the integrity of the organization unnecessarily difficult. Gaps in the system means the perception of impunity lurks especially among staff and outside criticasters of the organisation because what is perceived as a violation cannot be punished or investigated properly. Missing the element that supports teams to make the right decision means that sometimes get stuck on long-running disagreements on how best to serve others. Running several repressive mechanisms next to each other creates confusion thereby lowers the willingness to report which ultimately leads to violations go unreported and continue.
Critically analysing the integrity system requires an idea of what the design of a well-functioning integrity system should be. With the ideal in mind specialists can assess the current system; what is available, what is missing, does it meet the formal requirements and how do different components but also different specialists relate to one another?
The analysis should bring in real experiences of people that work with the system. This means specialists such as integrity officers, managers but also stakeholders such as work council members and confidential counsellors. The result is a grounded, realistic picture of where the organisation stands and what is needed to support employees and managers in acting with integrity.
A design of a well-functioning integrity system that I have worked on creating can be found here.