Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235292552

Integrity management of police


organizations

Article in Policing An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management September


2001
DOI: 10.1108/13639510110401672

CITATIONS READS

33 162

2 authors, including:

Muel Kaptein
Rotterdam School of Management
72 PUBLICATIONS 1,641 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Muel Kaptein
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 09 September 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Integrity management of police Integrity


management
organizations
Muel Kaptein
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 281
The Netherlands and
Piet van Reenen
PIOOM Chair, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Keywords Ethics, Audit, Management
Abstract This article presents a conceptual framework for reviewing the integrity of police
organizations, provides a general basis for developing specific activities and gives an overview of
possible strategies and activities. Integrity management has to safeguard the conditions in the
organization that enable police officers to find a responsible balance between three fundamental
types of conflicting interests: the entangled hands dilemma; the many hands dilemma; and the
dirty hands dilemma. We develop seven organizational qualities that encourage a prudent
balance. An integrity audit can help in measuring these qualities. By examining the organization
from this perspective, it is possible to work on improving the organization's integrity.

Introduction
In December 1993, a special investigation team (IRT) investigating illegal drug
trafficking by criminal organizations in The Netherlands was disbanded. The
IRT team operated in the Amsterdam and Utrecht region of The Netherlands
and had used ``innovative'' investigative techniques and tactics. Amongst them
were the controlled importation, redistribution and exportation of large
amounts of soft drugs and small amounts of hard drugs. The team and its
operation were kept secret; only a few superior officers and one or two public
prosecutors knew about the existence, the location and the goals and ways of
operation of the team. Police chiefs briefed in general terms on the team began
to disagree amongst themselves on the legality of the tactics used and the end
of the quarrel was the decision to disband the team. The news of the end of the
team started a public discussion and a hunt for facts by the press and amongst
members of parliament (Haenen and Meeus, 1996). It ended with a
parliamentary inquiry, in which the history and the operation of the team and
the failures of the senior police officers and public prosecutors were unraveled
and mainly made public via television. One of the main conclusions of the
inquiry was that there was a threefold crisis within the criminal justice system:
part of the crisis was of a normative/legal character, another part concerned the
organization of criminal investigations, and a third part, contained a crisis in
the legitimacy within the criminal justice system (Enquetecommissie
Opsporingsmethoden, 1996). During the inquiry or as a result of it a minister
had to resign, various public prosecutors and senior police officers were Policing: An International Journal of
transferred to other positions, one senior officer had to leave the force and two Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2001, pp. 281-300.
had to appear in court on criminal charges. As a result of the public debate # MCB University Press, 1363-951X
PIJPSM about the level of integrity of the Dutch police and also as a result of intensive
24,3 conversations within the police, most police organizations started integrity
projects in order to systematically assess and improve their integrity.
It is not just because of external pressure that police organizations work on
improving their integrity: for moral reasons (police organizations are morally
responsible for preventing dishonorable conduct and encouraging honorable
282 conduct of their employees), legal reasons (police organizations are obliged by
statute and case law to guarantee their own integrity and that of their
employees) and economic reasons (breaches of integrity cost money) police
organizations will not accept or tolerate objectionable practices, or create a
breeding ground for such practices (see, for example, The Knapp Commission,
1972). In spite of the importance of organizing integrity, there is currently a
lack of any conceptual or integrated framework to enable police organizations
to review and improve their integrity themselves (see, for example, Pearson,
1995). Although much has been written on the management of police
corruption (see, for example, Ward and McCormack, 1987) we have not come
across an integrated conceptual framework on the subject. Moreover, breaches
of integrity are generally not studied in relation to each other (see, for example,
Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997), so a patchwork of models and insights has
arisen, which makes it difficult to adopt an effective and efficient approach to
breaches of integrity in practice. In this article, we apply the management
discipline integrity management to the police. LeClair et al. (1998) have made a
start to describe the field of integrity management. We also will describe that
field, but we will approach integrity on a more fundamental level and in a more
coherent way. In our view, integrity management is concerned with
systematically and completely reviewing, analyzing and developing or
safeguarding the ability of police organizations to combat breaches of integrity.
Breaches of integrity occur where conflicting interests are incorrectly weighed
against each other, so that the actor infringes the legitimate interests of the
organization that employs him, or of individuals and parties inside or outside
the organization. Crucial questions in integrity management include: What is
considered to be the subject of integrity management and how can integrity
management be carried out? In particular, it is the task of the management to
find a balance between the conflicting interests employees face and to ensure
that the balance is institutionalized. This article presents a conceptual
framework for reviewing the integrity of police organizations, provides a
general basis for developing specific activities and gives an overview of
possible strategies and activities. First, we will define the concept of
organizational integrity. After this, we will present a model through which the
integrity of a police organization should arise. Finally, we will describe the way
the integrity of police organizations can be audited and improved. The aim of
this article is to make clear that the integrity of a police organization is found in
the organization itself (culture and structure), and that this integrity can be
measured and developed.
The integrity of police organizations Integrity
An all-encompassing and ``hooray'' term management
There are huge differences of opinion between what integrity actually means in
practice and in theory. The term integrity is a typical all-encompassing term,
and it takes on many different appearances. A complicating factor is also that,
in discussions about integrity, the term calls up shouts of ``hooray''. Everyone is
in favor of integrity. This is because it is difficult to get a critical discussion 283
going about what integrity entails.
When someone's integrity is in question or tarnished, the grounds for trust
collapse. The person loses credibility or cannot fulfill the requirements of his/
her job or role. Generally, integrity is associated with virtues such as purity,
solidarity, involvement, intactness, sincerity and scrupulousness (Montefiore
and Vines, 1999). An analogy with fruit comes to mind: a spot on an apple can
indicate that it is rotting inside. A person's lapse raises questions about the
person's character and commitment.

Relational notion
In the world at large, it is often argued that the assessment of whether or not a
person has integrity is purely personal. Individuals should be able to decide for
themselves whether they or others can be considered to have integrity. Reducing
the notion of integrity to a purely personal question ignores the fact that integrity
is important where people act together. After all, it is difficult to maintain that
people can be honest in isolation. The fact that integrity is important where
people live and work together makes it an inherently social or relational notion.
For the police this relational aspect of integrity has a specific content: the
relationship with the public is of an asymmetrical nature. It involves power, the
authority to deprive people of their freedom and the use of force.

Relative concept
As a social notion, integrity refers to the degree to which people or associations
of people satisfy the legitimate expectations of the world around them. The
emphasis here is on the adjective ``legitimate.'' It is not a matter of fulfilling
every expectation; for example the expectation of a murderer not to get caught
by the police. Only those expectations that are widely supported and generally
regarded as appropriate and essential can be regarded as legitimate
expectations. At the same time, integrity is not a question of ``moral head
counting'' or ``paying lip service'' to the prevailing expectations. It is difficult to
maintain integrity especially in police work, due to the fact that others have
expectations contrary to what can normally be included in the description of
sound and honest behavior and duties of a police officer. It is arguments that
persuade, not numbers. Whether or not a person can be considered to have
acted with integrity depends on the specific situation, the place, or the time.
Integrity is therefore a relative concept. Today's acceptable behavior may be
considered objectionable tomorrow. What is considered normal in one country
may be unacceptable in another. A simple and innocent example is the
PIJPSM consumption of alcohol when on duty. In one country the consumption of
24,3 alcohol is strictly forbidden it influences the capacity of an officer to react in
an adequate way; in another country beer is available for consumption for
instance during lunch, and in some countries it is normal to drink wine during
meals when on duty. One also finds differences between different parts of a
country with regard to the use of alcohol.
284 For most organizations integrity also has substance. Therefore, it is more than
merely a relative concept. For the police this substantial element of integrity is of
great importance: laws, human rights law and internal regulation are legal
expressions of integrity. However, the specific resolution of ethical dilemmas
relates to particular situations and is thus somewhat relative in application.

Organizational level
Discussions about the concept of integrity often refer exclusively to a
characteristic that only human beings can have (see, for example, Taylor, 1981;
Becker, 1998). However, we can also speak of integrity at the organization level.
Appropriate expectations and standards for operation also arise in and around
organizations with regard to the tasks and operations of the organization or the
people working for it. The way in which the various expectations are aligned
with one another is of essential importance. Unfortunately, what the outside
world may expect from an organization does not always correspond with the
expectations that have developed in the organization. Consequently,
organizations regularly appear to be relatively insensitive to the legitimate
expectations of external stakeholders (i.e. those whose interests are at stake).
Stakeholders of police organizations are citizens, local business, the office of
the public prosecutor, power holders over the police (governments, ministers,
governors, mayors etc.), suspects, offenders, and other law enforcement
agencies. The specific characteristic of the police on the organizational level is
that it has a monopoly: neither the stakeholders nor the clients can choose
another organization to render police services. Furthermore, proper police work
may sometimes be contrary to the interest of citizens. This especially requires a
police organization that is both sensitive to legitimate expectations and
resistant to illegitimate expectations. Such a situation makes integrity in police
organizations much more difficult than in other types of organizations.

Result
The expectations developing in any organization are given shape by its
employees on a daily basis. Sometimes the expectations are explicit and
formalized in rules and procedures, in which case we can speak of a formal
organization. Informal expectations also develop in organizations: the informal
organization. A couple of the elements of the informal organization are the
degree to which questions of integrity can be discussed and the extent to which
management sets the right example. Police functionaries may or may not be
aware of the unwritten expectations (Drazin and Sandelands, 1992). When we
speak of an organization's integrity, we mean the degree to which its employees
are actually encouraged, both formally (i.e. organizational structure) and Integrity
(consciously or otherwise) informally (i.e. organizational culture), to behave management
responsibly. The organization's integrity is the result, not the sum or the
average, of the integrity of its employees. It is therefore also possible to speak,
as Goodpaster and Matthews (1982) do, of the organization's conscience.

A matter of organization 285


Internal expectations may develop in a way that makes them harmful to the
organization or the operational environment. Organizations display breaches of
integrity in various ways: the actions of the organization or its employees fail to
meet the expectations that are seen as legitimate in and around the
organization. Types of breaches of integrity within police organizations include
abuse of power, discrimination, leaking confidential information to the press or
selling it to criminals, the reckless use of the organization's assets, and
nepotism. Breaches of integrity also include knowingly raising overly high
expectations, obscuring financial failures, private use of confiscated goods,
extorting from suppliers, treating suspects with disrespect, and evading
legislation. When breaches of integrity are possible because of shortcomings in
employee guidance, the blame can also be assigned to the organization in
question. It is therefore a matter of organization, which cannot be tackled solely
at the level of the individual employee.
Developing the integrity of a police organization amounts to developing the
organization in such a way that the various expectations that exist in and
around the organization are in line with each other, and behavioral integrity is
encouraged, if not enforced. It is true that breaches of integrity cannot be
entirely prevented but, by taking measures at the organization level, the
management can ensure that the damage to the organization and its
environment is limited.

A matter of individuals still


Concentrating on the relational and organizational aspects of integrity means
turning away from the type of analysis and remedy that is limited to the
individual level; that is from the ``rotten apple'' type of theory and the ``whistle
blower'' or ``zealot'' theories. There is a good reason to do that: integrity
management concentrates on the aspects of integrity that are manageable on
an organizational level. Of course that does not mean that individual aspects of
integrity are denied; on the contrary. They are of great importance, but are not
dealt with in this context.

The relevant environment


When dealing with integrity we cannot exclude the political and social
environment of the police from our analysis. This environment dictates the
conditions for police work and police management. The political culture and
structures, social and economic conditions and societal norms and values
regarding aspects of integrity, do often limit the possibilities of police
PIJPSM management to manage integrity. In fact, this environmental factor contains a
24,3 major limitation for the improvement of the integrity of the police in many
countries. Generally speaking, the integrity of the police probably cannot be
much higher than the integrity of the relevant environment. A conclusion of
one of the major and classical investigations into police corruption in
Philadelphia, USA, was: ``Corruption within the Police Department and
286 government in general has been such a constant problem down through history
that the Commission believes no single reform can serve as a cure all'' (The
Pennsylvania Crime Commission, 1974), This limitation also applies to the
social reality in which the police operate. Non-integrity in the environment of
the police hampers efforts to improve police behavior.

Integrity management
The relationships between employees and external stakeholders are geared to
each other by means of organizations. We differentiate between three types of
relationships that are relevant from the point of view of integrity:
(1) the relationship between the employee and the organization;
(2) the functional relationship between employees; and
(3) the relationship between the organization and its stakeholders.
If these relationships involve conflicting interests and expectations, we speak
of dilemmas. An integrity dilemma exists if:
. there is a discrepancy between the personal interests of the employees
and the interests of the police organization (the entangled hands
dilemma)[1];
. there is a conflict between the functional interests of employees,
managers, departments and units (the many hands dilemma)[2]; or
. the interests and expectations of the stakeholders are incompatible with
the interests of the police organization (the dirty hands dilemma)[3] (see
Figure 1).

Dilemma of the entangled hands


Organizations can only act through employees. This being so, there is frequently
the matter of entangled roles. An employee fills multiple roles simultaneously
and wears more than one ``hat'' (Nash, 1990). Employees have their own personal
interests and expectations that do not necessarily parallel the interests and
responsibilities of the corporation. We use the entangled hands dilemma as a
metaphor for the conflicts between the interests of employees and the interests of
the police organization in which the organizational assets are at stake. Employees
may use their authority, thereby misusing information, funds, goods, equipment,
time, and colleagues, which compromises their integrity. This dilemma would not
exist, if employees had no interests at heart other than those of the organization:
employees would then have no motive for misusing the organizational assets.
Integrity
management

287

Figure 1.
Three fundamental
integrity problems

Some of the dilemmas that can occur are concerned with the extent to which
employees are allowed to make use of the organizational assets, to hold other jobs
that are incompatible with the interests of the police organization, to accept gifts,
and to make private purchases from the police's suppliers.

Dilemma of the many hands


At first sight, the second type of dilemma probably seems less obvious than the
dilemma of the entangled hands, but this does not make it any less relevant.
Within an organization, each employee has his own job-related duties. Internal
specialization and division of labor make efficient functioning of police
organizations possible. However, the distribution of these functional
responsibilities may be inadequately coordinated, with the result that certain
organizational responsibilities slip through the employees' many ``fingers'' or
get lost. In assigning concrete tasks, police organizations run the risk that
employees or departments do their jobs with blinkers on, no longer concern
themselves with the duties of others and lose the feeling that the organization is
a corporate body. According to Trevino and Nelson (1995), as a result, no one
sees (or takes responsibility for) the whole picture. Specialization creates units
that compete with one another for organizational resources and the interests of
the unit are not necessarily the same as the interests of the entire organization.
Unclear or inadequate responsibilities can result in collective problems being
left unresolved because nobody feels personally responsible for them. The
metaphor of ``many hands'' alludes to the moral risks ensuing from the need to
employ more than one employee in an organization. Once an organization stops
functioning as an entity, there is fragmentation, which impairs the wholeness
(integrity) of the organization. Precisely because employees form part of an
organization and collectively give shape to the organization's responsibilities, it
is necessary to ensure proper agreement between their actions. In an
organization consisting of just one person, this dimension is irrelevant. Some of
PIJPSM the dilemmas that occur in this area concern the extent to which employees
24,3 have to be collectively or individually rewarded, the extent to which internal
cooperation or competitiveness is desirable, who can be held accountable for
mistakes, and the extent to which functional responsibilities may be delegated.

Dilemma of the dirty hands


288 Stakeholders may have a legitimate reason to complain when the police fail to
identify or recognize their interests and/or specific expectations vis-a-vis the
police, or when the police distribution of the costs and benefits between various
stakeholders or between the stakeholder and the police department itself are
inadequate. The dirty hands dilemma arises because stakeholders usually
confront an organization with conflicting interests. Precisely because of the
pressure of realizing targets and not exceeding budgets, police organizations
may become inclined to ignore stakeholder expectations. It is sometimes
inevitable for organizations and their representatives to get their hands dirty
because a choice between conflicting norms, interests, and expectations is
unavoidable. If an organization had no stakeholders, this dilemma would not
exist. The metaphor of ``dirty hands'' alludes to the efforts of the organization to
keeps its ``hands'' clean (i.e. to realize the legitimate expectations of
stakeholders)[4]. Some of the typical dilemmas that occur in this area for police
organizations concern the extent to which police may use questionable methods
to apprehend criminals, the extent to which violence is used, and choosing the
right moment for deciding to prosecute offenders.

Combined dilemmas
In reality the different types of integrity dilemmas sometimes go hand in hand.
The use of police powers for one's own profit may go hand in hand with abuses
of power to solve a crime. For example, a suspect in police custody is ill-treated,
resulting in a confession about a bank robbery and producing information
about the place where the stolen money was hidden. This can result in illegal
money ending up in the investigating police officers' pockets as well as in the
solving of the crime.

Consequences of imbalance
An imbalance between these conflicting interests and expectations leads to
breaches of integrity. These fundamental dilemmas are summarized in Table I.

Relevance
Police organizations differ sharply in the extent to which the three fundamental
integrity problems are an issue and there is, therefore, a difference in the degree
of attention paid to improving employee guidance. The entangled hands
dilemma mainly depends on the extent to which police officers have access to
valuable information, goods or money, or have extensive powers of decision.
The likelihood of undesirable behavior also increases when employees have
intensive contact with each other and there is a major inequality of power.
Fundamental Effects of imbalance Integrity
dilemma Description Cause of dilemma (breaches of integrity) management
The entangled Tension between the Because police officers Careless use or misuse of:
hands dilemma individual interests of represent the time; information; funds;
the employee and the organization, they have authority; equipment;
interests of the access to corporate goods; and staff
organization assets which should be
289
used for the purposes of
the organization but
which they may divert
for their own use
(mixing up of roles)

The many Tension between The organization Counter-productive


hands dilemma individual and consists of staff, competition between staff,
collective jobs, tasks departments and departments and
and responsibilities in divisions (many hands), divisions
the organization each with their own Responsibilities get lost.
functional Unresolved collective
responsibilities, which problems
presents a risk of Responsibilities are
no one having an eye for shrugged off
the interests of Tasks are not performed
colleagues, departmental or only partially
interests and the
interests of the entire
organization

The dirty hands Tension between the The organization is Stakeholders are misled
dilemma interests of the confronted with Stakeholders are misused
organization and the conflicting demands The freedom of
interests of the from stakeholders and stakeholders is limited
stakeholder sometimes has to make Stakeholders are harmed
painful choices (dirty Stakeholders don't assist
hands) police in cases of Table I.
emergency Integrity dilemmas

The many hands dilemma is often a scale problem and generally occurs more
extensively in larger police organizations and departments. The complexity of
the decision-making procedures, the considerable distance between the top
and the bottom, and the partially conflicting interests of various units mean
that large police organizations are particularly prone to responsibilities
getting lost.
The urgency of the dirty hands dilemma generally depends on the extent to
which police organizations operate in a turbulent environment, have to deal
with highly criminal situations, and carry out highly visible activities that
catch the attention of the media. Where tight and shrinking budgets exist, an
extra source of pressure is introduced.
PIJPSM Ethical qualities
24,3 Integrity management has to safeguard the conditions in the organization that
enable police officers to find a responsible balance between the three
fundamental types of conflicting interests. Employee guidance can therefore be
described in terms of three dimensions: the employees' responsibilities vis-a-vis
the organization (``entangled hands''), within the organization (``many hands'')
290 and on behalf of the organization (``dirty hands''). An organization's integrity is
therefore reflected in the degree to which the aforementioned conditions
actually exist. On the basis of an analysis of 150 different, factual and
extremely varied breaches of integrity, Kaptein (1998) has come up with seven
factors that encourage a prudent balance and are applicable in each of the three
dimensions. Here, integrity management is concerned with:
(1) providing clear expectations for employees with regard to making a
responsible choice about the three integrity problems;
(2) providing consistent and unambiguous expectations by, for example,
ensuring managers set a good example;
(3) formulating achievable expectations for employees regarding the three
problems;
(4) creating support for attempts to fulfill the expectations with regard to
making a responsible choice about the three integrity problems;
(5) providing insight into whether or not employees and the organization as
a whole are living up to expectations;
(6) making conflicting expectations discussable, both among employees
themselves and between themselves and their managers, and
encouraging employees and managers to tackle each other about
failures to live up to expectations or any breaches; and
(7) rewarding employees who live up to expectations or make an effort to do
so, and disciplining employees who willfully fail to live up to expectations.
The above conditions are more readily described as a moral virtue or quality.
Organizational virtues or qualities are morally desirable characteristics of the
organization itself, which collectively constitute the organization's integrity.
The integrity of a police organization can be determined on the basis of the
extent to which the following moral virtues or qualities are anchored in the
organization's guidance of its employees (see Figure 2):
. clarity;
. consistency;
. achievability;
. supportability;
. visibility;
. discussibility; and
. sanctionability.
Integrity
management

291

Figure 2.
Seven organizational
qualities

These moral virtues have to be applied to the three types of dilemmas that we
described earlier in this article.
The (partial) lack of one or more of these qualities implies a risk of
breaches of integrity for the police organization concerned. The breeding
ground for breaches of integrity has been created. A police organization may
be tackled about integrity infringements, if its attempts to embed these
moral qualities in the organization have been inadequate. The extent to
which the virtues are embedded is a measure of the organization's moral
excellence or virtuousness. The more embedded the virtues, the fewer
grounds there are for blaming the organization in the event of unethical
conduct arising. The management in particular plays an essential and
irreplaceable role in embedding the qualities in the organization. On the one
hand, the management has the powers of decision to give meaning to the
qualities. On the other hand, managers are important role models and have
to embody the qualities, and thereby indirectly encourage others to imitate
them.

The integrity audit


Four perspectives
Because each organization is unique, effective measures can only be taken if the
management not only has an insight into the sort and extent of breaches of
integrity, but also into their nature, i.e. the organizational causes. An integrity
audit can help clarify and unravel the implicit and explicit, internal and
external (conflicting) expectations confronting employees. The audited and
analyzed expectations can form the basis for taking concrete steps to improve
employee guidance. The four aspects that qualify here for critical investigation
are (see Figure 3):
PIJPSM
24,3

292

Figure 3.
Four integrity audits

(1) the formal expectations in the police organization, such as the explicit
tasks, powers, rules, guidelines, procedures, systems, measures and
organization charts;
(2) the experienced or perceived expectations in the organization, such as
the actual norms and values, implicit codes, etiquette, customs and
practices, rituals and exemplary behavior;
(3) the existing, realized and unrealized expectations of stakeholders: the
realized and unrealized legitimate expectations of the parties in and
around the organization; and
(4) the conflicting expectations: dilemmas caused by the above
incompatible expectations with which police officers are confronted in
their daily work.
Specific audits exist for listing and analyzing each of these aspects. These are
respectively the following audits (see Appendix for further details):
(1) A measures audit maps out the formal organization in so far as it affects
the integrity. This audit can be conducted on the basis of interviews
with key workers, supported by written documentation. During the
review, the auditor may also examine where the organization provides
insufficient structural safeguards against improper conduct by police
officers. The formal organization can be described and assessed on the
basis of the above three groups of seven qualities.
(2) A climate audit (also known as ``the police integrity thermometer'' in The
Netherlands) is a methodology that we developed for describing the
informal guidance experienced by police officers (i.e. the organizational
climate). The integrity thermometer is a written survey which maps out
the degree to which each of the moral qualities or virtues is present in
the daily guidance of officers. The survey consists of approximately 200
propositions with a Likert-type scale from 1 (disagree completely) to 5
(agree completely). The completed questionnaires provide not only a Integrity
score per proposition, but also a score per quality and per fundamental management
integrity problem. An integrity profile can be made for each unit of the
police organization. Because qualities are desirable characteristics, the
relatively strong and weak aspects of the integrity of each unit can be
identified. Organizations and departments can also be compared with
each other and marked against an average score (integrity index) of 293
other organizations. Using the thermometer both before and after
carrying out activities intended to manage improvements in integrity
displays the effectiveness of the efforts made.
(3) A stakeholders audit (in The Netherlands called ``the police monitor'') is
used to delineate the moral expectations of stakeholders and the extent
to which the organization lives up to those expectations. This review can
be carried out by means of a survey of a representative selection of
stakeholders. Besides this type of perception survey, a fact survey can
be carried out to determine the extent to which breaches of integrity
actually occur. This type of survey is often carried out in cases of
suspected fraud, corruption, reckless use of police vehicles, and sexual
intimidation.
(4) A dilemma audit is a method for obtaining an overview of the various
conflicting moral expectations that confront police officers. The analysis
(unraveling/decoding) of the dilemmas revealed, provides an insight into
the moral expectations that police officers consider important. A broad
spectrum of the dilemmas can be collected during dilemma meetings, for
example, when officers are invited to write down their own dilemmas.
When a situation produces a serious dilemma, it implicitly means that
various standards are involved that are competing for precedence.
These are apparently standards that people in the organization believe
should be respected.

Results
The extent, depth and method of an integrity audit depend on the problems and
wishes of the police organization concerned. Besides the possibility of carrying
out each part of the audit separately, various combinations of the parts can
provide additional information. An extensive audit can provide information
about:
. places in the organization where there is a risk of conduct that lacks
integrity, owing to inadequate procedures and rules;
. the effectiveness of existing procedures and rules;
. gGaps in the formal organization that are not covered by the informal
organization;
. significant causes of conduct that lacks integrity;
. vulnerable jobs, activities and departments;
PIJPSM . the integrity dilemmas that confront employees;
24,3 . stakeholders with grounds for complaint because the organization
violates their legitimate interests and expectations;
. a discrepancy between the expectations of stakeholders and the efforts
of the organization;
294 . spearheads for an integrity development program;
. the measures to be taken and activities to be developed to improve the
organizational integrity.

Experiences
To date, we have audited six Dutch police organizations using the integrity
thermometer, asking employees to describe the organizational climate
according to the three dilemmas and seven qualities outlined here. The study of
the Utrecht police force, for example, revealed relatively low scores in clarity
and discussibility: staff were unclear as to how they should handle
organizational resources, and dilemmas and criticism within the organization
were not freely discussed. As a result, employees were using different
standards in the same situation, dilemmas remained unresolved and unethical
conduct was not corrected. An in-depth study involving interviews revealed
that such a degree of interdependence between colleagues and between the
management and employees resulted in people failing to voice criticism for fear
that the other party would interpret this as a vote of no confidence. Sharing
dilemmas was not always customary as employees were worried that their
colleagues would see this as weakness. Most of the other police organizations
we investigated experienced similar relationships. Openness was considered to
be a crucial virtue by all six organizations.
At five police organizations, we made an inventory of the actual dilemmas
and, together with the organization, analyzed which values and standards must
be developed in order to ``solve'' these dilemmas. As regards the entangled
hands dilemma, these dilemmas generally arise in respect of gifts, using police
property for private purposes, pursuing private goals in official working hours
and preferential treatment of friends and family from outside the organization.
Moral standpoints vary considerably, especially as regards dealing with gifts
and police property. For example, 40 per cent of all police officers consider that
accepting presents worth less than NLG 50 from people outside the police is
acceptable, while 47 per cent consider it acceptable to regularly use police
property for private purposes. The audits revealed that at many police
organizations it is the inconsistencies in the organization that create an
atmosphere lacking in clarity, which in turn paves the way for breaches of
integrity. One example is the policy on gathering and disseminating
information. Police organizations often demonstrate double standards as
regards information. If employees leak information, it is regarded as a serious
offense. However, when it is a matter of getting information from others, any
method would appear justified. Based on the dilemmas we inventoried, we were
able to describe the actual code of conduct, the desired code of conduct and the Integrity
gap between the actual and desired situation. management
At the Rotterdam police force, we compared the results of the integrity
thermometer with the results of the police monitor. One of the main conclusions
was that the more employees can discuss their criticism within their team, the
more satisfied stakeholders are about the functioning of the specified unit. We
also made a regression analysis of the result of the thermometer and the largely 295
objective data, and were able to conclude that the more employees rate the
police as a good employer, the more loyal they are and the less damage they
cause to police vehicles. Based on this result, the police organization was able to
explain why the damage to police vehicles was higher at some units than at
others. Other significant findings included:
. a supervisor's decisive responses to abnormal behavior within his/her
team lead to higher productivity;
. policy on proper behavior results in a lower rate of absenteeism;
. improved transparency for citizens leads to a better image; and
. a climate encouraging sanctionability results in a higher percentage of
complaints handled within the time limit set for this purpose.
At another police organization in The Netherlands, we compared the results
from the measures audit with the integrity thermometer. It appeared that the
formal expectations were regularly at odds with the perceived expectations and
that all kinds of short cuts had developed within the organization to avoid many
rules and procedures. Although the corps leaders felt safe amid the numerous
rules and procedures, in practice there were many integrity infringements.
At the police force of Middle and West Brabant, we were able to distribute
the integrity thermometer both at the start of the integrity project and two
years later. It emerged that the climate at those units that had played a
dilemma game and discussed the results of the first measurement had
significantly improved. Openness in particular, which was the main point of
the study, increased significantly.
At one of the Dutch police districts, the Utrecht Region, we used all four
types of integrity audits. In 1995, the first part of the project began, dealing
with the way the resistance of the police force in relation to integrity breaches
could be improved. Each unit participated in a project group that met monthly.
At the start of the project, the integrity thermometer was distributed to the
personnel. Subsequently, each unit held a ``dilemma meeting.'' After playing an
integrity game, most staff members were able to write down two of their own
dilemmas. More than 150 different dilemmas were received and analyzed in the
project group, after which the desired integrity code was determined. Using the
results of the integrity thermometer, stakeholder audits with the public, and the
Measures Scan with key figures within the organization, the main mismatches
were defined between the integrity code and the current situation. An action
plan was written for each of these main mismatches.
PIJPSM Organizational interventions
24,3 The results of an integrity audit form the starting point for the specific
protection and improvement of the police's integrity. Numerous measures are
conceivable that can contribute to improving integrity, such as a code of
conduct, an ethics officer, a compliance officer, segregation of duties, job
rotation, a conflicting interests register containing a description of the external
296 activities of staff members, personification of services which allows
transparency with regard to the actual provider of the services, administration,
an adequate remuneration system, recruitment and selection procedures[5].
Some measures can be deployed to improve a large number of qualities. For
example, a code of conduct may bring a large number of qualities explicitly to
the attention of the employees. Some measures, however, apply to one or a
small number of qualities. A register for conflicting interests of employees can
particularly contribute to an increase in visibility with regard to the entangled
hands problem. Personification of services can contribute to an increase in
visibility with regard to the many hands and dirty hands problem, thus
ensuring that employees can be called to account for reprehensible conduct
(sanctionability) at an earlier stage. Empirical research should show the
interrelationship between qualities and measures[6].
Despite the advantages to adopt a number of measures to prevent breaches
of integrity, we need to be aware that managing integrity is not only about
what measures are adopted. Integrity management tries to improve the way
employees are stimulated to realize legitimate fundamental expectations of
stakeholders. A written code of conduct can be an appropriate instrument to
achieve this (see Kaptein and Wempe, 1999). However, the practice of integrity
management is often more about beginning a focused, organization-wide
process. Among other things, integrity management should focus on the
creation of conditions within which an organization-wide consciousness-
raising effort and internal interaction can take place. Collective insights can
arise from organization-wide discussions. In the first place, these will be
focused on understanding one another's dilemmas within the organization and
getting insight into the different opinions that employees have. That will
quickly lead to the growth of new insights that those involved will experience
as an enrichment. Having the employees to do the coding rather than having
the employees themselves coded is the key to the process. Activities
stimulating this process of coding are for example training programs, group
assessment sessions, individual coaching, dilemma-discussions and
management by walking around. For the Utrecht police, we developed a
discussion method in which the specific organization of each progress meeting
was discussed as a group. Supervisors had previously received training in how
to provide good leadership and how to hold discussions within the team.
Employees also received training in the form of a video on how to recognize
and talk about inappropriate behavior. Using the video as a starting point, the
teams were challenged to look at similar situations in their own team and to
come up with suggestions for improvement. Given the results of the second
measurement with the integrity thermometer, a large-scale implementation Integrity
eventually improved integrity care within this police organization. management
Thus it is possible to develop specific activities to find the right balance
between the conflicting interests and expectations that confront police
organizations and their representatives. It is not a matter of high-sounding
ideals that organizations should strive to achieve. Instead, the task is to
establish tangible and achievable requirements in terms of an organization's 297
integrity. By examining the organization from this perspective, it is possible
to work on improving the organization's integrity. However, realizing all
legitimate expectations of stakeholders will often not be possible due to the
causes of the problems of the entangled hands, many hands and dirty
hands.

Notes
1. Velasquez (1992) speaks in this context of a conflict of interests, which exists if an
employee carries out a task for the organization and the employee has a private interest in
the outcome of the task, which is (possibly) in conflict with the organizational interests and
is (in fairness) substantial enough to influence the employee's independent judgment.
2. Thompson (1987) defines the many hands problem with regard to government
organizations as being the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of identifying who is
morally responsible for political outcomes, owing to the fact that various officials
contribute to government decisions and policy. Those who indicate similar fragmentation
in organizations are, for example, Donaldson (1982), Badaracco (1992), Trevino and Nelson
(1995) and Bovens (1998).
3. In keeping with Sartre (1948) and Waltzer (1973), Thompson (1987) cites the ``dirty hands''
problem in a political context. Whatever the politician does or fails to do, he violates at
least one legitimate interest. By definition, the politician fails to keep his hands clean.
Badaracco (1997) cites the dirty hands problem in the business context, whereby
executives face dilemmas in which several rights are at odds with each other.
4. Employees are representatives of the organization as well as a stakeholder group. The
entangled hands dimension involves the gearing of responsibilities of the employees as
representatives with respect to the organization. The dirty hands dimension involves the
gearing of organizational responsibilities with respect to, for example, the employees as
stakeholders.
5. van Reenen (1997), contains a list of all measures found in police corruption literature.
6. Every measure suggested for improving a certain quality can be formulated as an
hypothesis for empirical research. For example:
H0. A code of conduct can improve the clarity of the organizational context regarding
the problem of the entangled hands.
See also Kaptein and van Dalen (2000).

References
Badaracco, J.L. (1992), ``Business ethics: four spheres of executive responsibility'', California
Management Review, Spring, pp. 64-79.
Badaracco, J.L. (1997), Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and
Wrong, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Becker, T.E. (1998), ``Integrity in organizations: beyond honesty and conscientiousness'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, p. 157.
PIJPSM Bovens, M. (1998), The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex
Organisations, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
24,3
Donaldson, T. (1982), Corporations and Morality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Drazin, R. and Sandelands, L. (1992), ``Autogenesis: a perspective on the process of organizing'',
Organizational Science, Vol. 3, pp. 230-49.
Enquetecommissie Opsporingsmethoden (1996), Inzake Opsporing (Report of the Commission of
298 Inquiry Methods of Investigation, With Regard to Criminal Investigation), The Hague,
pp. 413-14.
Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (1997), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Goodpaster, K.E. and Matthews, J.B. (1982), ``Can a corporation have a conscience?'', in Hoffman,
W.M. and Moore, J.M. (Eds), Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 184-94.
Haenen, M. and Meeus, T.J. (1996), Het IRT Moeras (The IRT Swamp), Amsterdam.
Kaptein, M. (1998), Ethics Management: Auditing and Developing the Ethical Content of
Organizations, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.
Kaptein, M. and van Dalen, J. (2000), ``The empirical assessment of corporate ethics: a case
study'', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 24, pp. 95-114.
Kaptein, M. and Wempe, J. (1999), ``Twelve Gordian knots when developing an organization code
of ethics'', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 853-69.
(The) Knapp Commission (1972), Report on Police Corruption, New York, NY, p. 5.
LeClair, D.T., Ferrell O.C. and Freadrich, J.P. (1998), Integrity Management: A Guide to Managing
Legal and Ethical Issues in the Workplace, University of Tampa Press, Tampa, FL.
Montefiore, A. and Vines D. (Eds) (1999), Integrity: In the Public and Private Somains, Routledge,
London.
Nash, L.L. (1990), Good Intentions Aside: A Manager's Guide to Resolving Ethical Problems,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pearson, G. (1995), Integrity in Organizations: An Alternative Business Ethic, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, London.
(The) Pennsylvania Crime Commission (1974), Report on Police Corruption and the Quality of
Law Enforcement in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, p. 20.
Sartre, J.-P. (1948), Les Main Sales, Gallimard, Paris.
Taylor, G. (1981), ``Integrity'', Aristotelian Society, Vol. 55, pp. 143-59.
Thompson, D.F. (1987), Political Ethics and Public Office, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (1995), Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do
It Right, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
van Reenen, P. (1997), ``Police integrity and police loyalty: the stalker dilemma'', Policing and
Society, Vol. 8.
Velasquez, M.G. (1992), Business Ethics: Conflicts and Cases, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Waltzer, M. (1973), ``Political action: the problem of dirty hands'', Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 2, pp. 160-80.
Ward, R.H. and McCormack, R. (1987), Managing Police Corruption, Chicago, IL.
Appendix. Audit instruments Integrity
Integrity thermometer
management
Some questions are:
. Clarity: The organization makes it clear to me what my responsibilities are towards our
customers.
. Consistency: My manager sets a good example on how to treat our customers 299
responsibly.
. Realizability: The norms regarding our customers can be realized.
. Supportability: I always defend the corporation whenever I'm asked about our consumer
policy.
. Visibility: No employee can get away with irresponsible conduct towards our customers;
the others always find it out.
. Discussability: If an employee treats a customer irresponsibly, he or she appreciates
having me discuss that.
. Sanctionability: Employees who treat customers irresponsibly on a regular basis are
reprimanded and, if necessary, punished.

Measures scan
For analyzing the existing rules the following questions are relevant:
. Which (which rules are formulated and other measures are taken with regarding to the
three integrity problems?)
. By whom (who is responsible for the implementation, execution, and control of these
measures?)
. For whom (for whom are these measures intended?)
. Why (why were these measures taken?)
. What for (what are the purposes of these measures?)
. When (when were these measures first introduced and when were the last changes
made?)
. Worth (are those who are responsible for the implementation, execution, and control of
these measures satisfied with the effectiveness and efficiency of these measures?).
The examination of the weaknesses of the actual processes consists of the following steps:
. Flows (the auditor maps all the flows or processes which could be the object of improper
use by employees).
. Possibilities of violation (an analysis is conducted of the opportunities employees have
to use the various flows to their own improper benefit).
. Risks (the possibility of improper benefit should subsequently be analyzed with respect
to the reasonable chance and potential frequency of a possible break-in and the
repercussions for everyone of such improper use).
. Desired measures (the auditor determines the formal measures that are necessary to
reduce the possible infringements to a minimum for each flow).
. Actual measures (the auditor describes the formal measures already taken within the
organization to limit the possible violations of the risks indicated).
. Discrepancy (determining the degree of discrepancy between the desired measures and
the actual measures).
PIJPSM Stakeholder audit
Some questions are:
24,3 . Authenticity: the police organization makes it sufficiently clear to me what it stands for.
. Transparency: the police organization provides sufficient and relevant information on its
aims and capacities.
. Honesty: the information provided to me by the police organization reflects reality.
300 . Receptibility: the police information is open to my critique, suggestions and questions.
. Vulnerability: the police organization takes proper note of my critique and my reasons
for having given it.
. Empathy: the police organization has a good understanding of the extent to and way in
which my interests are realized.
. Fairness: our mutual benefits and responsibilities are reasonably divided between the
police organization and me.
. Solidarity: if the police organization fails to keep its promises, there are enough ways to
end my relationship with the corporation without all too much cost.
. Reliability: the police organization and its representatives show their willingness to
realize the corporate responsibilities.

Dilemma audit
During a panel meeting employees will analyze the obtained range of actual dilemmas to
determine:
. Which norms and values are in conflict?
. Which risks are related to the options?
. Which principles, core values or considerations merit precedence?
. What demands does this make on the employees?
. What organizational provisions are necessary?
For copies of the audit instruments you can contact: mkaptein@fbk.eur.nl