ESSAY UNIT VIII

264 C

NC

N Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2013

Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Contemporary Nurse (2013) 45(2): 264–268.

In countries around the world, academics are working in complex environments with mul- tiple and competing demands, a situation that is impacting on workplace satisfaction, staff morale and motivation. The performance-driven cul- ture in academia is highly competitive, with the requirement to develop and strengthen one’s research profile, publish in high quality jour- nals and undertake funded research in addition to teach, supervise higher degree students and actively engage with community stakeholders (Cleary, Horsfall, & Jackson, 2011; Fitzmaurice, 2008; McDermid, Peters, Jackson, & Daly, 2012).

Many universities have policy documents to inform faculty workload and such documents often incorporate consideration of scholarly activities (e.g., publications, research), commit- tee work, student advisement, and teaching and related activities (Cohen, Hickey, & Upchurch, 2009). Typically, workloads are high for academ- ics and some mistakenly equate high workloads with greater productivity (Soliman & Soliman, 1997). To successfully negotiate the teaching, research, governance, and engagement aspects of the academic role, academics can find it helpful to

Promoting integrity in the workplace: A priority for all academic health professionals

Michelle cleary, Garry Walter*,+, Jan horsfall! and debra Jackson#

Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; *Chair of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; +Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia; !Independent Research Advisor, Sydney, NSW, Australia; #Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia

AbstrAct: The performance-driven culture of universities challenges faculty to meet workplace expectations. In this paper, we draw on the literature to identify key aspects of, and requirements for, promoting integrity in the academic workplace. Integrity is a crucial personal characteristic that can exert a powerful influence in any setting. Any threat to integrity in the workplace can result in a toxic and corrupt environment that may be deleterious to faculty and students. Such an environment can act to prevent faculty from speaking up about ethical issues or workplace concerns, which can result in failure to identify areas for improvement, continuation of suboptimal practices, and problematic professional relationships. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to present an overview of the concept of integrity in the academic work- force and to discuss some of the issues and dimensions, in the hope of creating greater awareness. This is essential if health professional faculties are to recruit and retain staff and create optimal working environments conducive to facilitating high quality outcomes.

Keywords: academia, integrity, bullying, workforce, workplace culture

form collaborative relationships with colleagues, rather than work in isolation (Cleary et al., 2011). However, the success of such collaborations is dependent on collegial trust, and the nature of the professional networks and types of working rela- tionships that can be developed.

Anecdotally, many academics with high research and publication output work in excess of prescribed hours, with little incentive apart from keeping their job or developing and maintaining a ‘track record’. This appears to be possible or manageable in early career stages, and some view this as desirable in order to establish the necessary profile and reputation. However, in the longer term this may not be sus- tainable. Further, with the current global recession, financial imperatives determine priorities (Rolfe, 2012), and money and kudos-earning demands are in conflict with the intentions and activities that are associated with and surround good teaching, rel- evant research, and authentic team work.

What is integrity? Academic integrity is defined as ‘a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.

 

 

Promoting integrity in the workplace

265

C

NC

N

C

NC

N© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2013

that the preservation of moral integrity comprises six stages: (1) vulnerability; (2) getting through the day; (3) coping with moral distress; (4) alien- ation from self; (5) coping with lost ideals; and (6) integration of a new professional self-concept (Kelly, 1998, p. 1134). Stage three – coping with moral distress – occurs as a result of falling short of one’s moral convictions and standards of what it means to be a good nurse, in which nurses ques- tion their knowledge, and the kind of nurse that they are and are becoming. This struggle to main- tain integrity can lead to moral distress, which has been associated with departures from the specific work place and from the profession altogether. In Kelly’s (1998) nurse study, this led eventually to a revision of personal and/or professional identity.

In university settings, it is becoming more diffi- cult for staff to thrive professionally and personally in a manner that does not compromise values and commitments as both nurses and human beings (Rolfe, 2012). Indeed, staff can feel that they are unable to speak up or raise issues of concern, and this has implications for the quality of service that can be provided (Jackson & Raftos, 1997). Faculty may be required to make tough decisions, and the consequences of ‘being aware of “what should be done” and not having the power or the resources to act on this awareness may lead to a “troubled conscience”’ (Lützén et al., 2006, pp. 187–188). When ethical breaches are trivialized, wrong- doings denied, and principles abandoned because of fear or the requirement of self-preservation, many individuals experience moral distress (Deady & McCarthy, 2010). With time, this negative behavior can become entrenched and normalized.

Thus, integrity can readily become con- strained or compromised. Integrity exacts personal resources, such as the courage to stand up and hold the ethical line in situations where others with greater power and authority are not doing so them- selves. At times, this is demanded of the self against a wall of silence, lack of peer and organizational support, concerns about retribution, and lack of job alternatives. Taking the line of least resistance, conforming to group/crowd norms, fear, and awareness of limited job opportunities often sup- port inaction, even in the face of another person’s attempts to enact or promote moral integrity.

From these values flow principles of behavior that enable academic communities to translate ideals to action’ (Center for Academic Integrity, n.d.). As a concept, integrity encompasses ethical principles, such as autonomy, fidelity, privacy, and personal beliefs and values (Mcfall, 1987; Widang & Fridlund, 2003). Acting in accordance with one’s general ethical principles is also in keeping with so- called ‘moral integrity’ (Widang & Fridlund, 2003). Moral integrity requires one to distinguish right from wrong, and be prepared to speak up and act for right and against wrong, even under non-conducive circumstances. It is part of the ‘new professionalism’, encompassing personal virtues, being advocated for health professionals, and there is no reason why this should also not be applied to those in academia (Robertson & Walter, 2011).

Integrity relates closely to ‘good governance’, which addresses the ‘values, principles and norms’ of an organization’s daily operations and the requirement for a workplace to have integrity, standards, guidance and monitoring (Evans, 2012, p. 97). The way we behave towards colleagues is an important aspect of maintaining integrity, but despite the existence of comprehensive and well- intentioned protocols, the literature is replete with evidence of diverse breaches of ethical codes. In both the academic workplace and healthcare set- ting, employees are required to commit to acting with integrity through, as a condition of employ- ment, acceptance of institutional Codes of Ethics, Conduct and other codes designed to uphold work- place propriety such as policies regarding discrimi- nation, conflict of interest, open disclosure and anti-corruption (e.g., NSW Health, 2012). While such codes tend to focus on professional conduct related to teaching, research and professional activ- ity, they also require staff to uphold standards of behaviour associated with respect and collegiality.

How can moral strength in the academic workplace be supported and facilitated? Moral strength is about using ‘courage to act and the ability to provide arguments with the inten- tion to justify these actions’ (Lützén, Dahlqvist, Eriksson, & Norberg, 2006, p. 194). Moral strength contains elements of integrity and, while literature in this area is scant for nurse academ- ics, a study of newly graduated nurses suggests

 

 

Michelle Cleary et al.

266

C

NC

N

C

NC

N Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd

professional staff may participate in or be recipients of these intimidatory interpersonal processes. According to the literature, outspoken women in particular are commonly targeted as they are often prepared to speak up about unjust matters – their competence and success is perceived to be a threat by those engaging in the bullying behav- iours (Khoo, 2010). Therefore, targets of bullying must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of reporting inappropriate behavior directed at them. They may become cast as ‘whistleblowers’, and this status can provide further rationalisation to extend the bullying. There is abundant literature that attests to the negative consequences of bully- ing and/or whistleblowing (Jackson et al., 2010a, 2010b). Irrespective of whether destructive behav- iours are deemed to be merely unprofessional, or are identified as bullying or mobbing activities, the on-going experience of being targeted will invari- ably lead to harmful effects on the well-being, health and/or careers of victims (Vie et al., 2011), In some milieu, the very people who stand by silently and passively hoping that they will not get in the firing line may be harmed as well (McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008).

Workplace culture Even though bullying is perpetrated by an individ- ual or mediated through a network (e.g., in the case of mobbing), it develops as a result of the interplay between people and flourishes with passive or active support that relate to a range of organisational and cultural factors within the work setting (Bond, Tuckey, & Dollard, 2010). Factors that facilitate bullying include competitiveness, autocratic man- agers, rigid rule-bound hierarchal organizations, and environments with poor – or top-down – communication practices, often without formal policies or a culture of policy non-adherence. It is worth emphasising that the existence of formal policies per se cannot mitigate against bullying or other organisational transgressions – managers and other key personnel need to have the moral for- titude to respond appropriately and assertively to breaches when they occur (Jackson, Hutchinson, Peters, Luck, & Saltman, 2012). Currently, the pervasive university focus on performance-driven output within a corporate culture, along with the drive for profit, contributes to the creation of an

Behaviours of concern in the academic Workplace

Bullying acts involve unwanted and persistent psy- chological or physical abuse directed at one person, generally across a timeframe of six or more months (Wheeler, Halbesleben, & Shanine, 2010). Bullying is a serious workplace issue that may not initially be recognised for what it is, as the processes drawn upon can be subtle and insidious and take place in private (Cleary, Hunt, & Horsfall, 2010; Cleary, Hunt, Walter, & Robertson, 2009). Therefore, bullying behaviours can be difficult to identify and tackle, particularly if individual acts are viewed in isolation. Commonly over time, these negative behaviours can become more open and direct, with legitimate and worthy workplace activities and pro- cesses sometimes becoming corrupted and appro- priated as further instruments of oppression and violation (Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2006a, 2006b; Vie, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2011).

Behaviours under the rubric of bullying can also take the form of ‘mobbing’. This involves a group dynamic in which a lead or dominant bully initiates and coordinates harassment through the bully’s various networks within an organisation that tolerates such transgressions (Wheeler et al., 2010). The behaviour can also be subtle and may involve the use of various strategies that may seem innocuous when viewed in isolation.

Khoo (2010) describes academic mobbing as comprising sophisticated malevolent behaviours in which academics ‘gang up’ on a target to undermine her/him via any mechanism available; such methods may include humiliation, trumped-up accusations, and pervasive and persistent but unpredictable ver- sions of harassment (p. 61). These behaviours may be interpreted as attempts to compensate for the lead bully’s unconscious fears and weaknesses and chan- nelling of hostility in ways that unite perpetrators against a common enemy. The targeted person – often a high achiever with strong moral principles and potentially among the organization’s best assets – is thus alienated (Khoo, 2010). Pressure may be applied in various ways, such as through innuendo, the spreading of rumours and lies, or by use of a range of exclusionary strategies.

Academia is identified as one of the common sites for such politely conducted, non-violent mob- bing. In the university, students, academics and

 

 

Promoting integrity in the workplace

267

C

NC

N

C

NC

N© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2013

undesirable practices as the negative and damaging behaviours become normalized.

Academic communities in which productive research alliances can be formed and where staff are able to work collegially within teaching and research teams are essential for the achievement of high level teaching, scholarship and research output, consistent with current academic per- formance targets (Cleary et al., 2011; Jackson, 2008). Good working environments are not magically manufactured, and an environment of mutual respect certainly requires time, good will, effort, and moral courage from leaders at all levels (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Fuimano, 2005).

conclusion As universities become more corporatized, faculties within academic settings are being asked to operate in ways that can potentially challenge and threaten personal integrity. Collegial work place relation- ships do not necessarily avoid challenging others or guarantee ‘success’ in every performance and outcome measure, but in the spirit of academia we must have a preparedness not only to ‘listen, share and learn’ (Rolfe, 2012, p. 736) with others, but to do so with integrity and in respectful ways.

acknoWledgement We would like to thank Sandra Mackey for her contribution to an earlier draft of this paper.

conflict of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

disclosures None for any author.

references Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2010).

Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 37–56.

Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality rela- tionships, psychological safety, and learning from fail- ures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709–729.

Center for Academic Integrity. (n.d.). Center for academic integrity: Fundamental values project. Retrieved from http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/resources-2.php

overworking, exploitative, individualistic and hyper-competitive environment.

It follows that it is incumbent on university lead- ers and managers to encourage and support rela- tionship building and constructive communication flow to ensure inclusivity and a milieu that is char- acterised by dignity and respect. The organizational climate is crucial to workers’ sense of physical and psychological safety. Hence, policies, procedures and decision-making must be seen to be practicable, enforceable and equitable. For instance, when anti- bullying policies and procedures are introduced, they should ideally be accompanied by employee awareness-raising and education, and occurrences of bullying must then be acted upon in constructive protocol-following ways. It has been shown that when academics perceive organisational decision- making to be timely, thorough, transparent and fair, they are more likely to behave with professional integrity themselves (Martinson, Crain, De Vries, & Anderson, 2010). In other words, an ethical culture promotes and supports the moral integrity of individuals. Furthermore, staff who are content in the workplace are usually more productive and innovative in ways that benefit organisations and clients. These staff are more likely to have a com- mitment to their profession and plan and pursue a career trajectory (Shirey, 2009).

All academics have a role to play in identifying and bringing to attention inappropriate behav- iours, in all spheres of academic life (Walter & Bloch, 2001). Academics also have a role in sup- porting those who are willing to actively challenge violations of integrity when others are not. If these processes which are dependent on individual aca- demics, social structures, supportive managers and proactive administrators do not occur, then departmental and institutional reputations will be compromised. As well, there will be financial costs through lower productivity, absenteeism, high staff turnover, and compensation pay-outs, along with the inestimable losses associated with poor staff morale (Bond et al., 2010). Employees who remain in these negative environments may be those with less alternative employment opportuni- ties, and over time they may become demoralised, work below their peak ability, and be less commit- ted to good teaching practices and to students. Furthermore, they may themselves begin to adopt

 

 

Michelle Cleary et al.

268

C

NC

N

C

NC

N Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd

institution. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 3(1), 34–39.

Kelly, B. (1998). Preserving moral integrity: A follow-up study with new graduate nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(5), 1134–1145.

Khoo, S. B. (2010). Academic mobbing: Hidden health hazard at workplace. Malaysian Family Physician, 5(2), 61–67.

Lützén, K., Dahlqvist, V., Eriksson, S., & Norberg, A. (2006). Developing the concept of moral sensitivity in health care practice. Nursing Ethics, 13(2), 187–196.

Martinson, B. C., Crain, L. A., De Vries, R., & Anderson, M. S. (2010). The importance of organizational jus- tice in ensuring research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 67–83.

McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2012). Factors contributing to the shortage of nurse faculty: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 32(5), 565–569.

Mcfall, L. (1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98(1), 5–20. McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008).

Workplace bullying in academia: A Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(2), 77–100.

NSW Health. (2012). CORE values, in NSW health code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/ policies/pd/2012/pdf/PD2012_018.pdf 29 March 2012

Robertson, M., & Walter, G. (2011). Psychiatric ethics and the “new professionalism”. In D. Bhugra (Ed.), Psychiatry’s contract with society: Concepts, controversies and consequences (pp. 221–239). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Rolfe, G. (2012). Fast food for thought: How to survive and thrive in the corporate university. Nurse Education Today, 32(7), 732–736.

Shirey, M. R. (2009). Building an extraordinary career in nursing: Promise, momentum, and harvest. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(9), 394–400.

Soliman, I., & Soliman, H. (1997). Academic workload and quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 135–157.

Vie, T. L., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Health out- comes and self-labeling as a victim of workplace bully- ing. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70(1), 37–43.

Walter, G., & Bloch, S. (2001). Publishing ethics in psychiatry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 28–35.

Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. (2010). Eating their cake and everyone else’s cake, too: Resources as the main ingredient to workplace bullying. Business Horizons, 53(6), 553–560.

Widang, I., & Fridlund, B. (2003). Self-respect, dignity and confidence: Conceptions of integrity among male patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(1), 47–56.

Received 24 October 2012 Accepted 13 February 2013

Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Jackson, D. (2011). Mental health nursing: Transitions from practice roles to aca- demia. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 47(2), 93–97.

Cleary, M., Hunt, G. E., & Horsfall, J. (2010). Identifying and addressing bullying in nursing. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(5), 331–335.

Cleary, M., Hunt, G. E., Walter, G., & Robertson, M. (2009). Dealing with bullying in the workplace: Toward zero tolerance. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 47(12), 34–41.

Cohen, M. Z., Hickey, J. V., & Upchurch, S. L. (2009). Faculty workload calculation. Nursing Outlook, 57(1), 50–59.

Deady, R., & McCarthy, J. (2010). A study of the situa- tions, features, and coping mechanisms experienced by Irish psychiatric nurses experiencing moral distress. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 46(3), 209–220.

Evans, M. (2012). Beyond the integrity paradox – towards ‘good enough’ governance? Policy Studies, 33(1), 97–113.

Fitzmaurice, M. (2008). Voices from within: Teaching in higher education as a moral practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 341–352.

Fuimano, J. (2005). Become the environment you want to create. Nursing Management, 36(3), 18–19.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006a). Like wolves in a pack: Predatory alliances of bullies in nursing. Journal of Management and Organization, 12(3), 235–251.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006b). Workplace bullying in nursing: Towards a more critical organisational perspective. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2), 118–126.

Jackson, D. (2008). Servant leadership in nursing: A framework for developing sustainable research capac- ity in nursing. Collegian, 15(1), 27–33.

Jackson, D., Hutchinson, M., Peters, K., Luck, L., & Saltman, D. (2012). Understanding avoidant leadership in health care: Findings from a secondary analysis of two qualitative studies. Journal of Nursing Management.

Jackson, D., Peters, K., Andrew, S., Edenborough, M., Halcomb, E. J., Luck, L., & Wilkes, L. (2010a). Trial and retribution: A qualitative study of whistleblowing and workplace relationships in nursing. Contemporary Nurse, 36(1–2), 34–44.

Jackson, D., Peters, K., Andrew, S., Edenborough, M., Halcomb, E. J., Luck, L., & Wilkes, L. (2010b). Understanding whistleblowing: Qualitative insights from nurse whistleblowers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(10), 2194–2201.

Jackson, D., & Raftos, M. (1997). In uncharted waters: Confronting the culture of silence in a residential care

 

 

Copyright of Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession is the property of eContent Management Pty. Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.