Integrity Requires Vulnerability

By Gerry Zack

My predecessor, co-founder, and long-time CEO of SCCE & HCCA, Roy Snell, authored an excellent book on integrity titled “Integrity Works: Tools and Skills to Build Integrity.” It’s filled with practical guidance, as one would expect from Roy, who is not one to waste a reader’s time bogged down in theory.

I’ve recently encountered a phenomenon on multiple occasions that I’ve always been aware of, but one that seems to have spiraled out of control in recent years. People too often support their opinions on any issue by adding statements along the lines of “I’ve seen the data” or “the data shows us that…” Of course, politicians quickly come to mind, as they’ve done this for years. But, lately I’ve seen so many other people using this tactic to emphasize how their opinion must be the only correct one. I’ve even seen trained investigators mistakenly using statements like this as they carelessly comment on social or political issues in social media - even though this practice violates one of the most basic rules of reporting on investigations.

There’s one huge flaw in making statements like this – the word “the.” Saying we’ve seen “the” data implies we’ve seen all the data. And this is usually not the case.

So here’s where I’d like to add one more component of integrity to the excellent list that Roy provides in his book – Vulnerability.

It is so powerful to say that our opinion is supported by “the” data – but it’s wrong unless we have truly considered all the relevant data (and “relevant” does not mean only the data that supports our opinions). Saying that our opinion is supported by “this data” or “this study I found” is almost always the more accurate way of expressing support for our opinions. But it feels like we’ve weakened our argument somehow when we phrase it that way. It opens us up to the possibility that we could somehow be – wrong! Or that we didn’t consider everything.

That’s called vulnerability. People with integrity have no problems stating exactly which studies or which data they relied on to reach their opinions. And they will frame it that way, acknowledging that there are limits to what was considered. Here’s what I read and based part of my conclusions on, and here’s the source. They are comfortable with allowing themselves to be vulnerable, to acknowledge limitations. Just like good investigators say in their reports – here’s what I did, nothing more, nothing less. And that’s what I am basing my conclusions on.

People without integrity won’t allow themselves to be put in a vulnerable position. They have to look stronger and more convincing, sounding like they know everything. Yet all they really accomplish by doing this is look weaker and cast greater doubt on their conclusions and opinions.

Finally, being somewhat vulnerable does not mean one can’t be confident in their conclusions. Quite the contrary. When one accepts a level of vulnerability that comes with acknowledging limitations of the research or work performed, it actually fuels the consideration of contrary opinions, such that you’ll be much better prepared for any such arguments when (not if) they come. The confidence that comes with this type of acceptance of vulnerability is much stronger than the phony confidence of pretending to have considered every possible fact.

It’s best to be careful when adding “the” before certain nouns. And to be comfortable with some level of vulnerability. It’s a sign of integrity.