How differing conceptions of integrity and self-integration influence relationships: Implications for management, personal and professional development

Abstract

As human beings we need to relate to others; the exercise of our professional roles demands it. Relationships, however, bring about challenges to the self that require us to act with integrity. Different approaches to integrity configure different ways of cognitively and intuitively feeling and acting in our relationships. Moreover, different ways of understanding human development are related to different ways of understanding integrity in the self. While not an exhaustive account, we sketch out three models of human development that capture much of this diversity, the so-called autonomous self (AS), processual self (PS) and inter-processual self (IPS). Each has a particular way of defining integrity in the self and understanding action. The AS and PS models understand integrity as internal coherence thanks primarily to rational exercise, with priority given to the content of action, while relations are seen as resources. AS and PS focus on cognition through rational or emotional and external mastery of our relationships and our relationship to our own integrity (self-integrity is also handled as a cognitive exercise mirroring how external relations are understood). The IPS understands integrity as the dynamic to growth and cognition itself as a relational act that, when it arises from within, affects all dimensions of the person and hence how to ethically relate to others and ourselves. Different kinds of integrity are also related to practical wisdom. Based on this, we explore consequences of these different ways of understanding self-integration and relationships for approaching management and leadership roles to open up reflection in the field of management on leadership, relational integrity and personal development.

In search of a fitting moral psychology for practical wisdom: Exploring a missing link in virtuous management

“…Practical wisdom in IPS overcomes the reductionist and analytic assumptions that guide AS in that it is neither an abstract theory of development, nor an idealistic pursuit of the good life and (practical) wisdom, but rather involves a personal‐relational action process ( praxis ) whereby a particular (virtuous) way of life (Vigo, 2008) enables development. This, of course, taps into virtue as an aspect of a stable personal character because integrity of character is required for practically wise forms of action that maintain genuine humanity and integrity (Akrivou et al, 2020; Robson, 2018) while displaying practical wisdom within a richer, nuanced repertoire of key virtues. This virtuous growth involves a more dynamic process; it requires self‐awareness, wisdom, and experience put to good use for deeper understanding, while it emphasizes interpersonal virtues, including trust, cooperation, gratitude, forgiveness, and even charity (Alford, 2018; Melé, 2009; Polo, 2007).…”

Management Education and Interpersonal Growth: A Humanist Transcendental-Personalist Perspective

“…Given the strong relational dimension of the managerial vocation, personalist managers' sense of self is close to what has been referred to as the 'relational-self-of-virtue' (Fernández González, 2019b), understood as a deep disposition towards virtuous growth in communities of virtue. This also entails a sense of personal and professional vocation that aspires to use one's freedom and socio-professional role as a service to the other (Akrivou, Orón & Scalzo, 2020), rather than for personal profit.…”

A personalist approach to business ethics: New perspectives for virtue ethics and servant leadership

“…By committing to the cultivation of this disposition, the person is set on a path of realizing her highest potential as a human being, but this endeavor requires a sense of self that has been called a “relational self of virtue” (Fernández‐González, 2019b) and is characterized by a profound commitment to engage in networks of interpersonal growth in virtue. It also requires honest self‐inquiry that avoids moral hypocrisy (Batson et al, 1999), that is, the tendency to want to maintain self‐esteem by at least appearing moral and good to ourselves and others, as well as an integrated sense of personal and professional vocation, that is, aspiring to use one's freedom and socioprofessional role as a service to the others (Akrivou et al, 2020) rather than for pure personal profit. The person's moral development is per se transcendental in the sense of transpersonal and interpersonal 4 . Rather than independent autonomous selves, humans are relational beings whose intimacy is capable of being freely open to other intimacies and, therefore, the person's moral development is spurred on in coexistence: “There is a higher freedom … being for the other, being free for the other.…”

“…By committing to the cultivation of this disposition, the person is set on a path of realizing her highest potential as a human being, but this endeavor requires a sense of self that has been called a “relational self of virtue” (Fernández‐González, 2019b) and is characterized by a profound commitment to engage in networks of interpersonal growth in virtue. It also requires honest self‐inquiry that avoids moral hypocrisy (Batson et al, 1999), that is, the tendency to want to maintain self‐esteem by at least appearing moral and good to ourselves and others, as well as an integrated sense of personal and professional vocation, that is, aspiring to use one's freedom and socioprofessional role as a service to the others (Akrivou et al, 2020) rather than for pure personal profit.…”