 What Is Meant by Organizational Integrity? An Analytical FrameworkCarsten Stark
Chapter Chapter 1 in Organizational Integrity, 2019, pp 1-8 from Springer Abstract: Abstract Analyzing corruption or other kinds of misconduct in organizations sometimes leads to a discussion about the particularities of different cultures. There is a wealth of literature dealing with the correlations between the Chinese culture (Schweitzer 2009), the Russian culture (Shulzhenko 2012), the Indian culture (Soumi 2012), or the Hungarian culture and the theme of corruption. Of course, it is very easy to blame culture for people’s misconduct and somehow it seems self-evident to ascribe it to the specific features of different regions of the world (Hofstede 1991). However, from a practical point of view this dimension is not very helpful. Culture may be described, but it can definitely not be changed. You can blame this situation for the discussion about international standards and higher ethics in managerial behavior. However, this kind of discussion makes the analytical problem even worse. If we cannot change culture, how can the focus on ethical behavior solve the problem of misconduct of managers? Actually, in everyday life we can always observe misconduct of employees, and we are tempted to assume bad manners or criminal personalities. Though we might blame society or the individuals, we are trying to focus on the missing link between society and the individual. Let us therefore look into the organization itself, not only because it is easier to analyze, but also because it is changeable. In what way can the organization be called the missing link between society and the individual? We are well aware of the fact that organizations have a substantial impact on individual behavior and especially on interaction (McGregor 1966). The reason for the existence of organizations is to force people to adopt a specific behavior so as to pursue the organizational goals (Goffmann 1961). One might not immediately recognize this power behind every organizational objective but it exists nevertheless determining the relations and interactions between individuals in organizations (Weber 1922). There are still correlations between society, culture, and the personality of people. What we have to do is understand the organizational part. To do so, the action must be deconstructed into different analytical spheres (Parsons 1964, 1978). We can then figure out specific yet sometimes inconsistent values that cannot be described without any analytical deconstruction. Inconsistencies actually exist between culture and society, but also between the expectations cherished within the organizations. Keywords: Hungarian Culture; Misconduct; Deconstructive Analysis; Spherical Analyzer; Contradictory Evaluations (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:spbrcp:978-3-319-94087-8_1 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94087-8_1 Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in SpringerBriefs in Business from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.