Integrity

[Marlin]

Is "controlling your test" anything like "mastering your domain"?? 

Yes... you can smell the testosterone in the room (Forum).   

[RDTroja]

RDTroja, I have to admit that I got a chuckle from your post.  However, the Broadzilla bashing does seem a bit over the top.  All of this discussion about "controlling your test" is rather beside the point.  BZ never referred to the integrity (or lack thereof) inherent in leaving the test half complete in a room full of test takers.  That wasn't the point of the example.  The point was that the others in the room didn't cheat off of his test, and in doing so they displayed integrity.  Maybe it's not the best example ever given, but give the guy a break.  Making Mary Poppins references and questioning his test making skills seems a bit extreme when based solely on this one hypothetical scenario, am I right? 

-Tim     

If you got a chuckle then you got the point. He was giving an example of what he called integrity when there was a more obvious violation taking place, then he danced to say the situation wasn't what he said and danced further to say he really didn't do it and gave an encore performance to say his own example was invalid in the first place because he's too good to do what he posited. Didn't have enough bullshit flags to throw.

What I was trying to accomplish was poking, not bashing. BZ has been putting people down (sometimes hard) on this site for years because he feels so superior to the rest of us. I am sure he thinks he is justified in doing so, but that doesn't matter (and only proves him wrong.) Overinflated egos just need a poke now and then. I just couldn't resist.

[heavymetal atom]

If you got a chuckle then you got the point. He was giving an example of what he called integrity when there was a more obvious violation taking place, then he danced to say the situation wasn't what he said and danced further to say he really didn't do it and gave an encore performance to say his own example was invalid in the first place because he too good to do what he posited. Didn't have enough bullshit flags to throw.

What I was trying to accomplish was poking, not bashing. BZ has been putting people down (sometimes hard) on this site for years because he feels so superior to the rest of us. I am sure he thinks he is justified in doing so, but that doesn't matter (and only proves him wrong.) Overinflated egos just need a poke now and then. I just couldn't resist.

Fair enough.  I can't argue with you there.

[Preciousblue1965]

I swear I had a drawing for just such an occasion........(trying to remember where it went).

[Neutron Whisperer]

Can integrity be trained into people?

[sovbob]

Can integrity be trained into people?

I agree.  The short answer to your question is 'no'.

To elaborate a little, every time a person makes a decision it's based on the cost/benefit ratio of the (apparent) options available.  Sometimes these decisions are easy, and the cost/benefit determination is transparent.  Other times these decisions weigh heavily upon us and are given considerable thought.

Such is the case when a person chooses to violate their integrity.  They consider the options and choose the one with the lowest cost/benefit ratio given the information available at the time.

So all you would need to do to influence a person's decision to violate their integrity would be to change the cost/benefit ratio.  If you increase the severity of punishment, you have now increased the cost.

"In the late 60s, Gary Becker incorporated into his formal model of deterrence theory an explicit statement that the theory´s components—certainty and severity of punishment—are more or less influential than one another depending on an individual´s preference for risk. The certainty of punishment is more influential than the severity of punishment in the decision of whether or not to commit crime if an individual is risk acceptant..."

In other words, a person is less likely to cheat if there is a proctor diligently observing the test.  So the cost becomes not necessarily the severity of the punishment, but also the risk of being caught.  Increased supervison leads to a higher risk (and hence cost) associated with the choice to violate one's integrity.

So all you need to do is watch your workers, review every action, breathe down their necks, not trust them, and make sure they understand that severe punishments will be meted out to those who don't do as they're told, and you won't have any integrity violations.  Sounds kinda fascist, but it works.

The alternative is to raise the perceived benefit of making the "right" choice.  In some cases, the benefit might simply be leniency in punishment.  It might be job satisfaction, or avoidance of a worse situation in the future.

So all you need to do is convince your workers that making the "right" choice may be harder in the short term, but will pay off big dividends in the future.  This raises the perceived benefit of not violating ones integrity.

While certainly the 2nd option is more sustainable, economically feasible, and conducive to morale in general, it's much more difficult to accomplish.  That's why you often see people favor the 1st option.

Getting back to the original question about whether you can instill integrity into a person.  You can train a person (through a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement) to act a certain way and behave a certain way.  But if they don't believe that doing things the "right" way is important, then the only thing holding them back from violating their integrity is the risk of being caught/punished.

And we all know that you can't supervise everybody every minute of the day.

So perhaps a better answer to your question is "Probably not" since it takes a LOT of training to change a person's attitude.

[Preciousblue1965]

You mean this one?
 

Ohhhh Nooooo Mr. Bill!  We had to break into a locked thread to retrieve this post.

Yeppers that would be the one.  Ahhhhh the memories.

[DDMurray]

I agree.  The short answer to your question is 'no'.

To elaborate a little, every time a person makes a decision it's based on the cost/benefit ratio of the (apparent) options available.  Sometimes these decisions are easy, and the cost/benefit determination is transparent.  Other times these decisions weigh heavily upon us and are given considerable thought.

Such is the case when a person chooses to violate their integrity.  They consider the options and choose the one with the lowest cost/benefit ratio given the information available at the time.

So all you would need to do to influence a person's decision to violate their integrity would be to change the cost/benefit ratio.  If you increase the severity of punishment, you have now increased the cost.

"In the late 60s, Gary Becker incorporated into his formal model of deterrence theory an explicit statement that the theory´s components—certainty and severity of punishment—are more or less influential than one another depending on an individual´s preference for risk. The certainty of punishment is more influential than the severity of punishment in the decision of whether or not to commit crime if an individual is risk acceptant..."

In other words, a person is less likely to cheat if there is a proctor diligently observing the test.  So the cost becomes not necessarily the severity of the punishment, but also the risk of being caught.  Increased supervison leads to a higher risk (and hence cost) associated with the choice to violate one's integrity.

So all you need to do is watch your workers, review every action, breathe down their necks, not trust them, and make sure they understand that severe punishments will be meted out to those who don't do as they're told, and you won't have any integrity violations.  Sounds kinda fascist, but it works.

The alternative is to raise the perceived benefit of making the "right" choice.  In some cases, the benefit might simply be leniency in punishment.  It might be job satisfaction, or avoidance of a worse situation in the future.

So all you need to do is convince your workers that making the "right" choice may be harder in the short term, but will pay off big dividends in the future.  This raises the perceived benefit of not violating ones integrity.

While certainly the 2nd option is more sustainable, economically feasible, and conducive to morale in general, it's much more difficult to accomplish.  That's why you often see people favor the 1st option.

Getting back to the original question about whether you can instill integrity into a person.  You can train a person (through a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement) to act a certain way and behave a certain way.  But if they don't believe that doing things the "right" way is important, then the only thing holding them back from violating their integrity is the risk of being caught/punished.

And we all know that you can't supervise everybody every minute of the day.

So perhaps a better answer to your question is "Probably not" since it takes a LOT of training to change a person's attitude.

Leadership according to Murray.  There are three general types of nukes in the navy.
1.  Strong work ethic, raised that any job worth doing is worth doing right.  They'll do well not matter what.
2.  Guy (or gal) that doesn't like what they're doing, but they care enough about their peers, that they don't want to bag them so they'll do the right thing most of the time.
3.  Guy doesn't like what he's doing and he'll do the right thing to minimize any pain that falling short of expectations will bring, so they'll reluctantly do the right thing, especially when watched.

There are some people that are combinations and some that are motivated by recognition, but people generally fall into one of these categories.  Our job as leaders is to turn people into # 1 or at least get the most out of their talents.  If you can get someone to see the reasons for doing things right, they are much more likely to grow into it vice the "my way or the highway" mentality. 

This same basic concept applies to integrity to some extent.  Depending on your upbringing (and training), some things may not appear as obvious integrity violations.  Cheating on an exam doesn't fall into that category.  Everybody knows it is wrong.  When the command culture makes it easier to take shortcuts (or harder to do the right thing), then we test everybody's integrity.  Once a senior guy condones cheating (or lets it get by) then you've opened the floodgates (i.e. the Hampton).  I've been lucky enough to never have served where cheating was the norm.   

Derek

[Neutron Whisperer]

So all you need to do is convince your workers that making the "right" choice may be harder in the short term, but will pay off big dividends in the future.  This raises the perceived benefit of not violating ones integrity.

That's too much work.  It's far easier to have an incident, critique it, remove people from watch standing, determine corrective actions, conduct training, document everything, report your corrective actions to your superiors...have an incident, critique it...

[Fermi2]

1: It's not ego when you can back it up.

2: No leaving a test on a desk is not giving unauthorized help as I should be able to trust me peers.

3: Yes, whenever I take an exam and hand it in I have handed in the key. I'm that good.

Mike

[RDTroja]

1: It's not ego when you can back it up.

2: No leaving a test on a desk is not giving unauthorized help as I should be able to trust me peers.

3: Yes, whenever I take an exam and hand it in I have handed in the key. I'm that good.

Mike

Yes, it is still ego. It may be what you consider justified, but it is still ego. And if you consider it justified that is more evidence of egotism. Sorry to break the news to you. Blowing your own horn is just noise and is never justified unless you are applying for a job. Bragging (yes it is still bragging even if it is accurate) is boorish behaviour no matter who it comes from.

Leaving an unattended test out is a compromise of the test no matter who you trust. If we could just trust everyone there would be no need for security of any type.

There are plenty of people that ace tests on a regular basis. I would suggest you don't let it go to your head, but that happened way too long ago to be corrected now.

[Already Gone]

I'm reminded of an axiom that I heard somewhere: "Locks are there to keep out the honest people."
It struck me as sadly true.  A thief will have no more compunction against destroying a lock than he will over taking what is locked up.  Most people can find a way past any lock if they try hard enough or think it over well.
One of the first things the Company Commander told us at boot camp was that the sailor who leaves his money out is as much to blame for its theft as the sailor who steals it.  I lock my doors even though I trust my neighbors.
Humans are fallible creatures, and those who believe they aren't susceptible to temptation are only fooling themselves.  If you leave an exam on a table, or your wallet on your bunk, you are creating an opportunity that would not otherwise exist.  This is why there are rules against doing that.  If you break that rule, you are at least partly responsible for the compromised test or stolen money.

[co60slr]

+1. In my short commercial career, I have yet to see integrity as an issue out here. I am not saying there aren't integrity issues, just that I haven't seen them yet. In contrast, someone's integrity was always in question everywhere I went in the Navy. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out Mike.

Ditto.  Separately, and at the risk of overanalyzing the term, I think someone with Intigrity wouldn't want to cheat on an exam and perhaps wouldn't even notice an exam left out.  Someone without Integrity has varying skills of risk management and "slyness".   "What's the benefit of cheating, that's the risk of getting caught, what are the consequences?"   If someone finds themselves in the middle of a mess, the problem for some is that they think the benefit of cheating outweighs the risk.

My favorite was the standard CO quote that came with a Good Conduct Medal..."Congratulations, you didn't get caught".  Nice values...and then some people wonder why HAMPTON happened?   No Good Conduct Medals for them.

[DDMurray]

+1. In my short commercial career, I have yet to see integrity as an issue out here. I am not saying there aren't integrity issues, just that I haven't seen them yet. In contrast, someone's integrity was always in question everywhere I went in the Navy. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out Mike.

Justin

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to the XXXXX nuclear power plant as part of a settlement agreement involving a contract security sergeant who falsified a form at the plant. The NRC Office of Investigations concluded that the sergeant deliberately falsified an equipment inventory form, and caused XXXXX to be in apparent violation of NRC regulations. "

"During an NRC investigation conducted between February 20, 2008 and December 16, 2008, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. ……on January 25, 2008, a Chemistry Shift Supervisor deliberately entered false data into the Chemistry Department internal laboratory statistics database. Specifically, on January 24, 2008, the licensee employee failed to perform the required QA/QC standard check for the evening shift, and the following day entered false data into the database. This information was material to the NRC in that the substance of the information is used to determine compliance with the Technical Specifications. The Chemistry Shift Supervisor's deliberate entry of false data into the internal laboratory statistics database caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 (a).
This is a Severity Level IV violation. "

Derek

[Already Gone]

Can integrity be trained into people?

Yes, but it most probably has to start with childhood.

People, as has been pointed out here above, will make choices based on the expected or perceived value attached to each choice.  If integrity has been instilled as something of value in one's mind, that will factor into the decision.

Of course, we all learned that if we steal that gum, we will get into trouble.  Or, did we?  Perhaps we learned that if we get caught stealing that gum we will be in trouble.  This leads into the value calculation:
Option 1 -- If I steal that gum, I'll have gum and not have to pay for it.
Option 2 -- If I get caught, I'll have to pay for it, and I'll be punished.
I handicap the odds of getting caught and decide whether it is a better value for me to take the gum or not.

Somewhere along the growing up process, we either learned on our own or were taught that there is another, intangible value to attach to one of the options.  So, the calculation evolves:
Option 1 -- If I steal that gum, I'll feel bad.
Option 2 -- If I don't steal that gum, I'll feel good.

Eventually, even this choice becomes emotionally stressful:
Option 1 -- If I think about stealing gum, I'll feel bad.
Option 2 -- If I avoid the moral dilemma over stealing, I will never have the anxiety that comes with that kind of choice.

In the end, integrity is something that you teach yourself, but your parents probably planted the seed.  If we saw Dad stealing cable TV service or submitting false insurance claims and feeling pretty good about it, we could be led to believe that getting over on the cable company or "getting your money's worth" from that big insurance company are repugnant, guilt-ridden activities that Dad simply rationalized away or that they are pretty cool ways to get what you want.  But if Dad never tried to pull of a "harmless" little caper like those, we  are never tempted to follow the same path of rationalization.

The moral of the story:  Your kids may or may not copy what you do, but they are watching you for clues about how to live.  If you show no value for integrity in your own life you cannot expect them to embrace it in theirs.

[JustinHEMI05]

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to the XXXXX nuclear power plant as part of a settlement agreement involving a contract security sergeant who falsified a form at the plant. The NRC Office of Investigations concluded that the sergeant deliberately falsified an equipment inventory form, and caused XXXXX to be in apparent violation of NRC regulations. "

"During an NRC investigation conducted between February 20, 2008 and December 16, 2008, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. ……on January 25, 2008, a Chemistry Shift Supervisor deliberately entered false data into the Chemistry Department internal laboratory statistics database. Specifically, on January 24, 2008, the licensee employee failed to perform the required QA/QC standard check for the evening shift, and the following day entered false data into the database. This information was material to the NRC in that the substance of the information is used to determine compliance with the Technical Specifications. The Chemistry Shift Supervisor's deliberate entry of false data into the internal laboratory statistics database caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 (a).
This is a Severity Level IV violation. "

Derek

Thanks for finding one. I still have yet to see it personally. Even the tech that tripped off one of our recirc pumps recently owned up to it. I was impressed.

Justin

[drayer54]

Another bad headline in the Navy rag.....



This one was about the officers on the Memphis who were cheating on CTE's.

They used a long round about way to try and justify it because the tests were impossible and the officers felt the pressure to score higher because of their leadership positions.

Just thought I'd share.

[drayer54]

you know, youd figure that after half our chiefs got canned that the rest of the fleet would realize its probably not a good idea to make cheating rings...

Well, it was far greater than half on our ship but I think it's probably tied to something else.

I agree with the idea of constantly training and re-teaching topics. It makes sense.
The integrity issues come in when people who are ORSE-minded come in and want these amazing CTE scores so they put these scores on the pedestal so people feel they must get these scores (usually under the threat of less liberty and a myriad of excess paperwork) and then people feel the pressure and lose the "I" word.

I am not justifying it, but I have seen this training thing go from "Can I get an Electrician to draw this thing from E4-04" (not making new accusations, only making a reference to the incidents of fall 2008) and then to Khaki over the shoulder watching your every movement.

Our old RO used to email us with the threats of no overnight liberty and dinq-hours or early liberty in port all of the time for low CTE scores and then MM3 new to the ship hazmat PO is finding ways to stay out in Dubai a few extra hours. You also have the FTN minded get me out of here folks who don't want the extra crap and don't care about the consequences.

But when the leadership in the wardroom who are supposed to be the example are doing it, it's reached a whole new level.

It's time for another Adm. Donald letter I guess. Also, if CO's are fired for this kind of thing, how many nuclear departments need integrity scandals before Adm. Donald's job comes into question??

Clearly his steps to fix earlier problems are not working...

[HydroDave63]

It's time for another Adm. Donald letter I guess. Also, if CO's are fired for this kind of thing, how many nuclear departments need integrity scandals before Adm. Donald's job comes into question??

Clearly his steps to fix earlier problems are not working...

Two thoughts:

1. Would you really trust the current crop of "No Nub Left Behind, Insufficient ASW patrols near China^TM" sword polishers to "fix" the NAVSEA08 program in the correct direction?

2. If yes, then barring WW3 I would expect the cleanup to start no earlier than a year or so into Bldg. 65's decom, when there is finally a surplus of qualified bodies to take the place of those who should walk the plank for cheating/gone soft/Panda hugging/proto pump vs. filter/DEP waiver piñata parties etc.

[Gamecock]

Well, it was far greater than half on our ship but I think it's probably tied to something else.

I agree with the idea of constantly training and re-teaching topics. It makes sense.
The integrity issues come in when people who are ORSE-minded come in and want these amazing CTE scores so they put these scores on the pedestal so people feel they must get these scores (usually under the threat of less liberty and a myriad of excess paperwork) and then people feel the pressure and lose the "I" word.

I've always hated the CTE program....

[retired nuke]

MY Dad was very subtle about teaching this lesson;

Me - "Dad, look at that cool thingamajig!"

Dad - "Is it yours?"

Me - "No."

Dad - "You got money to buy it?"

Me - "No."

Dad - "Then keep your busy eyes and hands off of it and move on!"

I miss my Dad.

Sounds a lot like my dad... 

[retired nuke]

those who should walk the plank for cheating/gone soft/Panda hugging/proto pump vs. filter/DEP waiver piñata parties etc.

You can always count on HD for the warm, fuzzy, liberal secular humanist approach...

[spekkio]

It's Saturday morning in port, 0640.  The EDO wants to get the primary sample done early in the morning and get it out of the way before duty section turnover at 0700.  So the ELT is in the lab, getting ready to head down to the primary sample sink.  The EDO orders the SRO (an EM1) to open the IX isolation valve.  The SRO says it's not necessary yet, and premature opening of the valve will unnecessarily cool down the plant.  The EDO orders the SRO to open the valve again.  The SRO says "You do it, sir."  The EDO, feeling particularly ballsy, walks over to the RPCP and defiantly turns the switch.

Ah, malicious compliance. At least it's not restricted to my boat.

No one gives a s**t about the extra degree or two you'd lose by opening the valve sooner. You should've just opened the valve as ordered instead of being difficult.

It's too bad the EDO didn't know better.

[HydroDave63]

Ah, malicious compliance. At least it's not restricted to my boat.

No one gives a s**t about the extra degree or two you'd lose by opening the valve sooner. You should've just opened the valve as ordered instead of being difficult.

It's too bad the EDO didn't know better.

Ever heard of a BFPL curve? It's too bad the khaki(s) didn't know better.

[DDMurray]

The name of this thread is integrity, not stupidity.  SRO was stupid.  The EDO was stupid.  Both of them blew off basic watchstanding principles over arrogance.