The Triangle of Integrity
Introduction
The premise of this book is to suggest that many of the problems encountered in the relationships between people can be thought of as issues of interpersonal integrity. Currently, there are no established means of working with the subject of interpersonal integrity, and without the Triangle of Integrity, these problems are difficult to identify, difficult to think about, difficult to reason with, difficult to see and acknowledge, and seem intractable. But with the Triangle of Integrity, problems of relationships can be represented in abstraction, can be used to form larger structures, can lend itself to reasoning, understanding, and resolvability. Being deliberate in fixing problems in a relationship then becomes a matter of restoring interpersonal integrity. For anyone that values a straightforward approach and characterizes themselves as an analytical thinker, this development in handling human relations may offer great relief and reveal new possibilities.
As a matter of laying the groundwork for the Triangle of Integrity, consider the following statements as bare propositions. If you find all these statements to be truthful and valid, then you will find the content of this book to be in alignment with the directionality of your thinking.
► Each relationship is a series of interactions occurring between two people over a period of time.
► A person will feel motivated to continue a relationship when they feel satisfaction from participating in the relationship.
► To be satisfied is to have expectations, whether verbalized or subconscious, followed by interactions that fulfill the expectations.
► Sometimes people have expectations which they are consciously aware of and sometimes people have expectations which they are unaware of.
► Knowing what other people expect of you helps you to meet the expectations and therefore keeps other people satisfied with you.
► In every relationship, each participant is simultaneously an expectation holder and one who is trying to meet expectations.
To accept those previous set of statements as truthful implies an orderedness to relationships. How can we harness these natural tendencies and help ourselves build the facilities to acquire, keep, and maintain relationships as long lasting, stable, and beneficial to both individuals?
It is my hope that this book begins to answer that question through the introduction of the concept of the Triangle of Integrity. This concept, the Triangle of Integrity, has been perhaps my greatest teacher, opening doors that no singular person has ever even suggested as existing. And the more I contemplate and consider this concept, applying it to new scenarios and memories of my past, testing it frequently for validity, the more it seems to expand far beyond the constraints of even singular interpersonal relationships, potentially applying to situations between groups of people, organizations and perhaps even to the relationships between nations.
In conclusion of this introduction, there are three main reasons why the Triangle of Integrity is worth consideration. The first reason is how often and broadly this form and structure seems to fit situations and add insights. As a figment of natural tendencies, encountering opportunities to utilize and apply the Triangle of Integrity will be a function of how often social contacts are needed, which for many of us, is routine.
The second reason is the way that it engages the visual reasoning systems of the mind, effectively taking a commonly frustrating topic and having it enter a different processing center of the the mind which might offer better results. Then, the Triangle of Integrity is more about helping you see the problems differently and causes inner reflections that help guide you to the better solutions.
The third reason is that so many of us all deeply desire harmonious relationships and the feeling of being connected, so any improvements here could mean more progress for many individuals.
An Observation
The development of the Triangle of Integrity started in a happenstance manner, as I was not actually in search of anything resembling a grand solution. Just casually mulling over the relationships between words and ideas. In this next section I want to recount to you the steps that unfolded to arrive at the content of this book, recalling the story as it developed.
About twenty years ago, early in my career, I had some work experiences related to the idea of integrity that caused me to develop a real fondness for the word. With the job that I had at that time, the leadership, the coworkers, and the work done on behalf of the clientele all seemed to reflect what I understood at that time to represent integrity. It was the experience of being surrounded by integrity. I believed I liked the word because I associated the word with two things that everyone should generally want: trust and stability. This association was particular to the specific job I had back then. As it would turn out, none of the work experiences that followed featured such a connection between my daily tasks and environment and the idea of integrity. After I left that job and moved on to a series of different environments, I felt the contrast to some degree, but did not ponder this topic deeply. Rather, I went on with my life, and I shifted my focus to getting by and the next set of objectives of the next jobs.
Moving forward to the recent past, I was recalling those earlier times and experiences in casual reflection. That time in particular, along with the way I developed a sense of the word and idea of integrity, now stood out to me as an anomaly in comparison to all the experiences I had been through since back then. But this absence extended beyond the workplace even to my interpersonal experiences with people generally. I questioned myself that if I believed that everyone wants trust and stability and therefore integrity, then why have I not encountered many people using the word to describe other people or otherwise. Scanning through my years of memories, I seriously could not recall much of any frequent usage in interpersonal dialogue. Only that original point in my life where I made the first associations in the workplace and otherwise a feeling of lack. I recognized these thoughts as contradictory because if integrity represented a good thing that everyone wanted, then why would they only rarely use the word and rarely make reference to the idea of it in common usage?
Puzzled, I asked myself to define the word integrity without using a dictionary, and then I realized that is kind of a difficult task. I concluded that people must not find this word to be useful if it is too difficult to describe and that is why people do not use the word. If integrity is a great thing for everyone, but no one uses it because it is not well defined, then is there a way to bridge this gap? Next, I thought of the following thought experiment to address the disconnect.
A Thought Experiment
Consider the following thought experiment where there are three people named as follows: Person A, Person B, and Public Official X. Person A and Person B are two people who do not know each other but do understand the same language. Public Official X is a person who is a public figure and is well known. Person A walks into a small room with a desk, a chair, a paper, a pencil and a television. Person A sits down and watches a brief segment from a news show on the television featuring Public Official X in a sit down interview with a media personality. Person A is asked to write down the relevant details from the television segment that determine if Public Official X has demonstrated integrity. Person A is asked to only express what they noticed that influenced their determination but omit the actual conclusion they reached. After finishing writing, Person A leaves the room. At some indeterminate time afterwards, Person B enters the room and picks up the piece of paper. What content and/or format for the content would the paper need to have in order for both Person A and Person B to regularly and decidedly agree that the Public Official X has demonstrated integrity?
The form of this thought experiment is supposed to resemble a mathematical proof. In a proof, all the steps leading up to the final conclusion should demonstrate the validity so well that the final step could be omitted and it would still be obvious what the conclusion is to anyone who reads through the proof. Hence, the series of details strongly supports and is the exclusive basis for the conclusion. If the content of the paper from the thought experiment could capture all the details needed as preconditions to integrity, then the idea of integrity as it relates to people would not be so ambiguous.
Derivation of The Triangle of Integrity
To help solve for the thought experiment, I started with asking myself a few simple questions: What does it mean to have integrity in a single instance? What properties identify when integrity has occurred in the past? I found myself identifying feelings of satisfaction, even long after the event or interaction had transpired, was some kind of element to integrity. Certainly, the feeling of dissatisfaction is an indicator that something is wrong with a situation and would therefore be contraindicative of integrity. But satisfaction and dissatisfaction are feelings and feelings are unreliable and not amenable to systematization as is desired of the content in the proof-like environment proposed in the thought experiment. A substitute for satisfaction is expectations since satisfaction occurs when expectations are met. The expectations of the individual who is receiving the benefit of integrity sets up the interaction between the two people. Ideally the expectations are obvious to both individuals and derive from the nature of the relationship.
After identifying Expectations as a foundational element to a single instance of integrity occurring, the details of how those expectations are met should be recorded in some way, thus demonstrating how satisfaction was achieved. But anyone who has dealt with being lied to knows that, relatively frequently, people will say one thing and do another. When lies are encountered, the solution would need to reflect that the interaction was contraindicative of integrity. Thus, keeping separate the details of what was said from the details of what was done would be helpful in distinguishing where a discrepancy might be occurring. In addition to the Expectations element, the solution needs an element representing the Words that potentially fulfill the Expectations element. And the solution needs another separate element representing the Actions potentially taken that fulfill the Expectations element. Segregating the totality of an interaction with another person between the wordings and the actions is also helpful since different parts of the mind are potentially processing these details as input.
Thus, the solution must contain the three elements of Expectations, Words, and Actions that each exist to capture the essence of how a single interaction either does or does not demonstrate integrity. These elements serve as prompts and answer the following questions:
► What are the Expectations of the interaction?
► What are the relevant Words, said or written, of the interaction?
► What are the relevant Actions that were taken for that interaction?
In an interaction where integrity is specifically intended in the interaction, all these elements are consistent with one another. The Expectations are consistent with the Words used, spoken, or written of the interaction. The Expectations are consistent with the Actions taken in the interactions. And the Words used, spoken, or written are consistent with the Actions taken in the interaction. The solution needs to demonstrate the following additional questions:
Applying the Triangle of Integrity to the thought experiment, Person A would have been prompted to apply the following questions of Public Official X:
► What are the Expectations of Public Official X in the media appearance?
► What are the relevant Words, said or written by Public Official X in the media appearance?
► What are the relevant Actions taken by or alluded to by Public Official X in the media appearance?
► Was there consistency between the Expectations and the Words of Public Official X in the media appearance?
► Was there consistency between the Expectations and the Actions of Public Official X in the media appearance?
► Was there consistency between the Words and the Actions of Public Official X in the media appearance?
After Person A has completed these questions, Person B could use the answers as an exclusive basis to determine that integrity happened in a single instance between Person A and Public Official X.
When a past interaction between two people is described by applying the Triangle of Integrity, the structure will show clearly either that integrity has been demonstrated, indicated by the completeness of the triangle, or demonstrate that some problem exists due to not all the edges being asserted. The value is that now there are six criteria that are needed before integrity can be indicated. For anyone that truly values integrity, using the Triangle of Integrity helps you to be clear and certain about describing the past accurately as it relates to the idea of integrity. It can also help guide your interactions so that you can understand what is required in order for either party to the relationship to be satisfied.
One general property of working with the Triangle of Integrity is that when the participants are deliberate and intentional in operating with integrity, then analyzing the situation using the Triangle of Integrity is easy and clear. But to analyze a scenario where no one has been specifically intending to operate with integrity, or perhaps has intended to be deceitful or opportunistic, then this leads to difficulties in completing the analysis. The nature of integrity is that the correct answers are a limited and constrained set of answers, whereas the ways that an answer can be incorrect are nearly infinite. The focus is to have concern for correctness. In this way, analyzing situations with the Triangle of Integrity can act as a barometer would, the greater the ease in completing the triangle, the more likely that the participants acted with integrity as a priority.
In the following section, formal definitions as well as visual representations extending the Triangle of Integrity are presented.
Definition of The Triangle of Integrity
Definition: The Triangle of Integrity is defined by three vertices and three edges. The foundational vertex represents the expectations of an interaction and is labeled Expectations. A second vertex represents the dialog of the interaction and is labeled Words. The last vertex represents the actions related to the interaction and is labeled Actions. The edges between each vertex exist only if there is consistency between the content of the two adjacent vertices. If all edges exist, then the completeness of the triangle indicates an interaction that adds to the overall efforts to maintain integrity. See Figure 1.
Definition of Fully Consistent
Definition: A Triangle of Integrity is Fully Consistent when each edge indicates that consistency is asserted between the contents of the two adjacent vertices. The triangle is Fully Consistent when it has all the elements.
Definition of Perceiver
Definition: In an analysis using the Triangle of Integrity, a Perceiver contributes an expression of expectations to fill out the vertex of Expectations. The vertex of Words and the vertex of Actions are statements or expressions of fact from the perspective of the Perceiver that correspond to the Interactor who is the other party of the relationship. The Perceiver is the beneficiary to integrity. Referring back to the thought experiment from earlier, Person A would be a Perceiver.
Definition of Interactor
Definition: In an analysis using the Triangle of Integrity, an Interactor is a person or entity that becomes the object of attention for the Perceiver in a specific instance. What the Interactor says either verbally or in writing becomes the content for the vertex of Words of the Perceiver. What actions the Interactor takes becomes the content for the vertex of Actions of the Perceiver. The Interactor influences integrity by either consistency or inconsistency with the Expectations of the Perceiver. The Interactor is the provider of integrity. Referring back to the thought experiment from earlier, Public Official X would be the Interactor with Person A as the Perceiver.
Definition of Unit of Interaction
Definition: To use the Triangle of Integrity, you must think in terms of a single interaction at a time. Visually, the Unit of Interaction is meant to encapsulate a Triangle of Integrity by showing that there are more contextual details than just what the Triangle of Integrity is limited to. Thus, the Unit of Interaction concept is like a moment of time in a timeline. See Figure 2.
Chains of Units of Interaction
Our minds take in information about each other chronologically. Each relationship is a series of interactions occurring between two people over a period of time. To depict this, adding a timeline with sequential Units of Interaction that encapsulate Triangles of Integrity builds a structure that represents one side of a relationship. See Figure 3.
Chains of Units of Interaction with Impact on Value
Continuing on with building visualizations of structures, the following illustration adds an axis for Value where any Fully Consistent Triangle of Integrity would add to the value of the relationship and any not Fully Consistent Triangle of Integrity subtracts from the value of the relationship. See Figure 4.
Depiction of an Ideal Relationship
In an ideal relationship, only Units of Interaction with Fully Consistent Triangles of Integrity happen and this adds to the value of the relationship. See Figure 5.
Depiction of a Liability Relationship
When Units of Interactions occur and the Triangle of Integrity representation is consistently not Fully Consistent, then the relationship becomes a liability to the Perceiver. The Perceiver will likely want to end the relationship, out of fear of loss of some kind. The Perceiver will want to limit losses. See Figure 6.
Recap of Illustrations
These illustrations show an evolution from the visualization of the Triangle of Integrity and build upon that structure to show how the concept of integrity in terms of a relationship can be understood as an abstraction, representing how we each think about our relationships from either side of the relationship. Reviewing the steps taken, we began with the definition and visualization of the Triangle of Integrity. Encapsulating the Triangle of Integrity in the Unit of Interaction follows naturally from the way that there are many contextual elements to our interactions, but only some of the contextual elements have an impact on integrity. Since each Unit of Interaction could be represented as sequential points on a timeline, adding an axis for time and showing the orderedness of events also follows from how we experience relationships. Finally, an axis for value is added to depict how the relationship becomes more valuable and gainful when Fully Consistent Triangles of Integrity happen and contrastingly becomes less valuable when not Fully Consistent Triangles of Integrity are occurring. Then, for any relationship, asking whether the relationship is more like the Depiction of an Ideal Relationship or more like the Depiction of a Liability Relationship gives the parties to a relationship a sense of directionality and guidance on how to make the relationship become more ideal.
Trust and the Triangle of Integrity
Trust is a decision. All decisions require a calculus. When someone is asked to trust another person they must base their decision to trust on something. Likely, that person will look to the past and consider the interactions that have already occurred for a sense of what to expect in the next interactions with the other person. Picturing the relationship as a Perceiver, their mind will consult the Chain of Units of Interaction. The closer the relationship is to the Ideal Relationship depiction, the more the Perceiver will be inclined to agree to trust. If the relationship is more like the Liability Relationship depiction, where not Fully Consistent Triangle of Integrity records are more numerous, the Perceiver will know that the query for trust is likely to disappoint the Perceiver and will be inclined to reject trusting the other.
For the purposes of this approach, the definition of trust is given as follows.
Definition of Trust
Definition: Trust is a byproduct of attention to or lack of attention to integrity.
Goals of The Triangle of Integrity
Here is a list of what goals can be achieved by making use of the Triangle of Integrity:
► The goal is to identify when people are committed to integrity.
► The goal is to be specific about what went wrong when problems with integrity occur.
► The goal is to recognize what our expectations of each other are.
► The goal is to have long lasting relationships that do not break down due to trust issues.
► The goal is to create opportunities to correct course when people have either been short on time or careless but actually intended to be trustworthy.
► The goal is to identify when people are not being forthcoming.
► The goal is to create a sense of equality in a relationship through negotiation of expectations.
► The goal is to be flexible, sensitive, and allow for repeated problems to be recognized earlier in relationships.
► The goal is to engage our visual senses to reason about our long term relationships.
► The goal is to create a formatted and well defined way for a person to express themselves before the relationship reaches a point of frustration.
The Fundamental Expectations
As you are starting an analysis using the Triangle of Integrity, if there is a known, patterned, and reasoned idea of how problems happen generally, then it would be helpful for the approach to incorporate recognition of the common pitfall. With the subject matter of relationships, there are a few behaviors that fall into this category, namely dishonesty, indecency, and flawed logic. These concepts are addressed by the establishment of the following three Fundamental Expectations and they are intended to apply to everyone. Be mindful in your analysis of these frequent problems because as soon as you recognize the flaw, you should cite the corresponding Fundamental Expectation, saving yourself the time and effort of devising your own statements of Expectations. No one should have to justify or explain the need for these Fundamental Expectations.
The Fundamental Expectation of Honesty
There are two primary ways that people lie. One way is to tell you what you want to hear and the other way is to craft a fabrication. When someone is telling you what you want to hear, the edge of consistency between Expectations and Words is asserted, however, likely neither of the other two edges are asserted. The Triangle of Integrity reflects the lapse in integrity because it will show that the interaction is not Fully Consistent.
When someone is telling you a fabrication, then the edge between Expectations and Words will not be consistent, something will seem to not add up. In some way, dealing with a fabrication in place of truth is the same as dealing with lapses in logical thinking. Refer to the discussion on the Fundamental Expectation of Logical Thinking that follows.
The Fundamental Expectation of Decency
This Fundamental Expectation is meant to be a defense against scandal in the general sense. From the perspective of a Perceiver, they might encounter situations where the Actions of the Interactor are outside of what is considered normal. The behavior is not only a matter of whether or not Expectations are consistent with Actions, but that the content of the element of Actions itself is contraindicative of integrity.
The Fundamental Expectation of Logical Thinking
Consider a criminal who decides they are going to rob a bank. It is more than intuition that they know they should not tell anyone of their intent to rob the bank ahead of time. The element of surprise is all on the side of the robber if they do not let anyone know ahead of the robbery.
A similar phenomenon can happen occasionally in the conversations between people. When a person has an ulterior motive as they are beginning their discussion with you, they will not announce their ulterior motive. They will leave out key details, tell you their conclusion, allude to half truths, perhaps make statements to incite you. As with the bank robber, they hope you do not notice the missing pieces they left out. If you accept their ideas without scrutiny, then they are successfully manipulating you.
When a criminal robs a bank, they go through some kind of planning phase, thus to keep silent about intent becomes a deliberate thought and they operate with full awareness of keeping silent. Whereas verbal manipulators do not always plan carefully and might not even have a conscious thought as they are undertaking a manipulation. Their intent is semi-conscious to themselves. Their inner dialogue is simply “I know what I want and I know what to say to get what I want... let’s do this”. Therefore, this is not always a matter of malicious intent, it can sometimes just be carelessness or an artifact of semi-conscious behaviors.
If things have come to the point where you are dealing not just with a matter of integrity, but a matter of deceit, than this is a case where you need even more tools than just the Triangle of Integrity. There are two that I can mention as guidance.
The first tool for dealing with deceit is the idea I call “cross examination against a timeline”. All genuinely constructed logical conclusions have a timeline. Realize that to form a conclusion begins with gathering sources and phases into successively reviewing one cause-effect relationship at a time. Therefore, conclusions are essentially experiences. It is natural that the general timeline a person is experiencing has overlap with the timeline of forming the logical conclusion. If the other person did in fact form a conclusion, then you can ask them questions about the time and the developments that happened in between each step in the process of forming the conclusion. In a fabrication, these details are often missing because there is not an authentic timeline element to their thought process or story.
The second tool is to develop a cursory understanding of the most common fallacious arguments so that you recognize their general forms, even in the midst of conversation. If you are completely unfamiliar with logical fallacies, the idea is to protect yourself from false arguments that tend to sound true, but in reality could be a ploy, lazy thinking or superficial in some way. I can not direct anyone to a single best source. Some sources are good because they are exhaustive, but bad because it would be a material investment in time, focus, and attention to learn them all. How much you need to deal with defending against logical fallacies should govern how much time and effort you would want to expend. But a little bit of time is probably wise for anyone. As a cautionary note on this topic, I have encountered times when people use this knowledge in an offensive way as opposed to a defensive way, and I find that disappointing. Seek a diverse set of sources to learn from.
Scalability of Fundamental Expectations
Beyond these Fundamental Expectations, if you are adding the Triangle of Integrity approach into your organization and the subject domain lends itself to common pitfalls, then you could conceivably add more fundamental expectations that are intended just for your group. This approach is flexible enough to allow for scalability as needed.
Improvements for a Single Individual
Can a person benefit from knowing the Triangle of Integrity, even when other people do not know or understand this concept?
One example is parent-child relationships. Depending on where the child is at on the developmental path to adulthood, the child might not have the cognitive skills to think in terms of a conceptual device such as the Triangle of Integrity. They will probably not have the problem solving capacity to help resolve relationship issues either. But the child is still in a relationship and the underlying dynamics of relationships still apply. You, as an adult, can shift your own thinking to consider the perspective of the child, their expectations, and where or how things might not be aligning. Being ahead of the game with setting expectations correctly could help them avoid feeling upset due to disappointments. When you are not ahead of the game, communicating to the child that you see they expected one thing, got another and this is why they feel disappointed or upset might bring the child a sense of relief because now they see you understand their situation. When you explain in this way, the child will also benefit from clarity into their own emotions. To be consistent here could improve the overall long term trustability between the parent and the child.
Another example where you benefit from the Triangle of Integrity even if no one else has an awareness is with taking in news and societal developments. Naturally, this is a one sided relationship because an individual usually has little influence on news developments or the direction society seems to choose to take. But the effects can sometimes have the power to start riots and economic attacks. If you feel agitated by these sources, the Triangle of Integrity guides you to consider your Expectations and compare to the events that unfolded in terms of the Words and the Actions so that you come to some resolution on the topic for your own sake. Potentially, your Expectations might be incorrect. For example, maybe you previously thought very highly of a public figure, but learned something that feels like a betrayal of some sort. You will not always be able to read people right the first time, but now you reset your Expectations and now you know better than to have such high regard for that individual. However, the situation may be that you know your Expectations are correct, but the Words or the Actions of the person are clearly inconsistent. Regardless of how everyone else acts, or whether the Words or Actions constitute a crime, you walk away with an understanding that integrity is contraindicated. The not Fully Consistent Triangle of Integrity is like a receipt for you. There is likely a sense of relief for you in that it no longer is just an emotion, you also have clear evidence and you can state your perspective with authority. Clarity is on your side, even if the rest of the world does not notice or act.
The Triangle of Integrity can also be used for self reflection. Do you hold an expectation within yourself of self-love? If you do, how do you follow through with that in terms of speaking to yourself or actions that reflect self-love? Is self-love a negotiable expectation? Are there times where your own expectations of self are too high or too low? If you end up having repeating patterns that seem to be problematic, perhaps viewing these behaviors through the lens of the Triangle of Integrity can create opportunities for new insights.
Finally, The Triangle of Integrity could also serve as a guide if you are not currently in a spousal relationship but hope to be some day. What guidance would you give for the other person to help them understand what you are expecting? For a young person who does not have examples of good and healthy relationships, one suggestion could be to see how relationships are depicted in novels, movies and television shows. Writers are usually drawing upon their own experiences as they write these types of works and the stories often contain some hint of truth. Figure out what characters represent aspects of yourself. When the character encounters a relationship issue, what would the Expectation, Words, and Actions of the Triangle of Integrity look like for that character? Is that a valid expectation that you hold as well?
Improvements for a Relationship
The Triangle of Integrity can help you identify issues sooner and be able to adapt to the new issues before they become problematic or chronic. Without this type of introspection, the relationship may start to resemble the Liability Relationship depiction more than the Ideal Relationship depiction. The decrease in value of the relationship can develop into feelings of frustration and resentment. There is one piece of this approach that might be particularly helpful to consider for improving the relationship as it starts to degrade. Each person is retaining their own autonomy of perspective when they record their own expressions as a Perceiver. A person is initially not asked to compromise at all when they express their Expectations. Compromises only happen as a result of their own independent decision to compromise, not because the other person is demanding a compromise. If one of the parties to the relationship ends up feeling like a victim, they may find relief in the feeling of empowerment that comes with expressing their own Expectations without compromise.
Improvement for Leaders
With as many books as there are on the topic of leadership, it would seem that the corporate world should be filled with many good examples. But if a leader needed guidance, they could consider a shift of approach to one where the leader has as many interpersonal relationships as the leader has people taking direction from them. In fact, for a leader, having a formal means of relationship management might be one of the most compelling use cases for two reasons: competitive pressures and limited time frames. Having periodic Triangle of Integrity analyses with each person under direction and in written form might add the insight needed to truly favor positive feelings and come to greater understandings within a team dynamic.
Improvements for Organizations
The hope of all for-profit organizations is to have the situation where revenue is exceeding expenses. Revenue is a quantification of the extent to which one entity solves problems for other entities or other people. Improving the relationships with your clients and customers is like investing in the income streams that result from the long term relationship. Almost always the customer or client is genuinely and specifically looking for vendors that they can trust for the long haul to a point where they might consider a trust premium on the service. In other words, you might have even more revenue when you take the time to see the perspective of the client through the lens of the Triangle of Integrity.
Now consider employee relationships within the company. One likely cause of employees leaving organizations might be simply that there are too many one sided relationships and it would be easier to start new relationships than try to improve the ones at the current organization. This is especially likely when there is a perceived power imbalance where the employee is having regular feelings of being overpowered. Adding regular Triangle of Integrity analyses would allow for employees and management to communicate better. Employee retention can sometimes lead to the cost savings necessary for achieving competitive advantage in the workplace.
Improvement for Governmental Entities
The following is an illustrative example of how the United States (US) Congress could some day utilize the Triangle of Integrity.
[Beginning of Scenario]
This scenario takes place a decade or so in the future. In the time that elapsed between now and the time when this scenario takes place, the American public found that an ethics based approach of self governance for the members within the US Congress was not working well. But it found a new approach based on the concepts of integrity and the Triangle of Integrity and they implemented the new self governance system based on these ideas. Let us refer to the old system as the ethics system and the new system as the integrity system.
The impetus with the integrity system could be stated as this: In exchange for the privilege of serving in the US Congress, each member has a responsibility for helping maintain the overall integrity of the organization. For anyone to act with disregard for integrity, would be to contribute to the potential for distrust from the public. Since every interaction a member has with the public has the potential to influence the trust of the public, a record keeping system for the integrity system was implemented to organize, retain, and recall most all interactions between the member and the public. These records were formatted based on the tool known as the Triangle of Integrity. Each member has learned to operate with an awareness of the integrity system and they have staff who help organize their activities to facilitate the documentation activities to submit to the integrity system. That means when a member gives a speech on the floor, or makes an appearance on a television show as a member, or likewise, the staff and the member have already matched systems of citation and systems of cross-referencing to submit this information to the record keeping system so that the public can easily understand were the information came from if they want to conduct their own fact checking. These actions ensure that due diligence and adhesion to facts is always top of mind for the members and their staff. In the past when the ethics system was in effect, the public had no meaningful defense against lying by members. With the integrity system, if the public believes a member has lied and the public is found to be correct, then this becomes an infraction against integrity committed by the member.
There is also a defense for the public against scandals which, compared to the old ethics system, is now far more effective. Verified allegations of indecent behavior are recorded in the integrity system. There is no more having the media report in one news cycle only for the scandal to be forgotten about as the next news cycle catches the attention of everyone. Proving a member is both honest and decent are clearly demonstrated in the integrity system since these items are easy for the public to retrieve.
Additionally, it used to be that members of a party would be told either by the party leader or potentially from another source to say specific things as a parrot would rather than form their own opinions and conclusions. This would have the effect of flooding the public with certain thoughts as if to program the public or subdivisions of the public. The defense for this is for members to consistently submit informal proofs of the points they advocate for. In the submission of informal proof, the source of the information is made clear. The intermediate points that demonstrate how the conclusion was formed are also there. If the member wants to advocate for the conclusion of another member, then the informal proof already exists in the system and it is only a matter of referencing to another entry in the same system. Now there is transparency where there was not before. This is the way that intellectual integrity in advocacy has been achieved. Members are expected to curate an independence of the mind and provide proofs on a regular basis as a part of being in the position of privilege.
Ever since the integrity system was implemented and in effect, decisions related to whom to empower become a function of the contents of the integrity system instead of back deal negotiations and favoritism. The member who gets titles such as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader or other Committee Chairman roles are the ones with the highest number of Fully Consistent Triangle of Integrity records. Thus, the integrity system can also serve as a power brokering mechanism. The most trusted members become the most powerful.
[End of Scenario]
If the measures detailed in the scenario for improving the US Congress seem like an oddity or an impossibility, I would like to point out that there is a system managed by government for the public benefit that is already in place and is substantially similar. I am referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR website (https://www.sec.gov/edgar/about). This website is where every publicly traded company posts financial statements and notifications about specifically defined developments that occurred within the company that any investor would need to know. The thinking is this: In exchange for the privilege of selling the securities of the company on the public market, the company owes the public key pieces of information needed for sound decision making. The companies have a responsibility to submit reports on their own activities. Thus, the notion that responsible parties would submit their own internal information for the public to materially rely on is not an entirely original idea.
Now You Have Been Introduced
Now you have been introduced to the concepts of the Triangle of Integrity. I hope this mechanism is of service to you in any capacity that you might need or want.