"Integrity, understood as a disposition to behave in prosocial, ethical, and principled ways rather than corrupt or self-serving ones, is among the strongest and most consistent predictors of job performance and leadership effectiveness. The reason is far from mysterious. Leadership, whatever its context, is a collective enterprise. No meaningful goal, from building empires to running companies, has ever been achieved alone. Across history, not just in humans but also other animals, cooperation has depended less on raw power than on trust."
"The same logic applies in modern organizations. Teams perform better when members believe that leaders will act fairly, keep promises, and avoid exploiting asymmetries of information or power, or are so focused on their personal gain that they have little concern in harming the group. In line, research shows that leaders perceived as lacking integrity struggle to attract talent, elicit discretionary effort, or sustain collaboration over time. Conversely, leaders known for ethical consistency benefit from faster coordination, lower monitoring costs, and greater willingness among others to take risks on their behalf."
Integrity reliably predicts job performance and leadership effectiveness because leadership is inherently collective and depends on cooperation. Cooperation historically relied on reputation and trust as enforcement mechanisms, with cheaters excluded from trading networks and guilds. In modern organizations, trust in leaders’ fairness and promise-keeping improves team performance, coordination speed, and risk-taking by others. Leaders lacking integrity face higher monitoring costs, reduced discretionary effort, difficulty attracting talent, and weakened collaboration. Leaders demonstrating ethical consistency lower coordination frictions, reduce the need for oversight, and foster willingness among team members to support collective goals.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]