An integrity assessment measures how consistently a person’s words, commitments, and actions line up, either through a validated questionnaire, through ratings from colleagues, or through records of how commitments are actually kept. For leaders and existing employees, the most useful assessments look at observed behavior over time rather than self-reported values.
Two different things called “integrity assessment”
The term covers two separate uses, and buyers often mix them up.
- Pre-employment integrity tests. These are questionnaires used in hiring to predict counterproductive behavior. They have a long research record. A 1993 meta-analysis by Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt, covering 665 validity coefficients, estimated an operational validity of .41 for predicting supervisor ratings of job performance, with substantial validities for counterproductive behaviors such as theft, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism.
- Developmental integrity assessment. This is used with current leaders and teams to see where integrity gaps exist and whether development, such as coaching, is closing them. It is less about screening and more about behavior change.
This article focuses on the second use: assessing integrity in people already in the organization, and evaluating whether integrity coaching or training is working.
What to measure
Integrity in DorWay’s sense means being whole and complete: words, commitments, and actions fit together. That definition is useful for assessment because it points to observable behavior. You do not need to judge character in the abstract. You can look at how commitments are handled.
| Behavior | What it looks like | How to measure it |
|---|---|---|
| Making clear commitments | Specifies what, by when, and for whom | Colleague ratings; review of meeting actions |
| Keeping commitments | Delivers what was agreed | Delivery records; 360 items on reliability |
| Renegotiating openly | Raises risks early and resets expectations | Colleague ratings; count of late surprises |
| Consistency of message | Says the same thing to different audiences | Upward and peer feedback |
| Owning mistakes | Acknowledges errors without blame-shifting | Peer and direct-report ratings; incident reviews |
| Holding others to agreements | Follows up instead of letting things slide | Direct-report ratings; team agreement reviews |
Methods for assessing integrity
Self-assessment
Quick and useful for reflection, but limited as evidence. A meta-analysis by Heidemeier and Moser (2009) found that self-ratings of performance are more lenient than supervisor ratings and agree with them only modestly. Integrity is likely to show the same pattern, since most people see themselves as trustworthy.
Multi-rater (360) feedback
Colleagues observe whether commitments are kept, so their ratings capture what self-reports miss. Items should describe specific behaviors (“tells me early when a deliverable is at risk”) rather than traits (“is honest”).
Behavioral records
Some evidence already exists in the work: project trackers, action logs, and meeting notes. Looking at the share of commitments delivered as agreed, or renegotiated in advance, gives a concrete measure that does not depend on opinion.
Structured diagnostics
Purpose-built tools combine these angles. DorWay’s PACT™ Leadership Assessment looks at how leaders make and keep agreements, which is where integrity becomes visible to a team.
How to evaluate whether integrity coaching is working
- Set a baseline. Assess the behaviors above before coaching begins, using colleague input, not only self-report.
- Name two or three target behaviors. For example, “renegotiates deadlines before they are missed.”
- Check in at the middle and end. Repeat the same items with the same raters, usually at six and twelve months.
- Expect small, real change. Research on multi-rater feedback by Smither and colleagues found that average improvement is generally small, and is more likely when the leader sets goals and acts on the feedback, such as discussing it with direct reports.
- Look for team effects. Fewer late surprises and less rework are signs that a leader’s accountability has improved and that others are following.
Satisfaction surveys (“Did you find coaching useful?”) are not integrity measures. They show whether participants liked the experience, not whether their behavior changed.
Common mistakes
- Measuring values instead of behavior. Almost everyone endorses honesty on a questionnaire.
- Using a hiring test for development. Pre-employment tests are built to screen, not to guide coaching.
- Assessing once. Without a repeat measure, you cannot see change.
- Ignoring the system. If team agreements are vague, even high-integrity people will appear unreliable. Fix the agreements as well as the individual.
For practical habits that move these measures, see personal integrity at work, and for program options, ethical leadership training.
FAQ
How do you assess someone’s integrity?
Look at behavior over time: whether they make clear commitments, keep them, and renegotiate openly when they cannot. Colleague ratings and work records are more reliable than self-assessment.
What is an integrity test in hiring?
A questionnaire designed to predict counterproductive work behavior. Research shows these tests have meaningful validity for job performance and counterproductive behavior, but they are screening tools, not development tools.
Can a 360 assessment measure integrity?
Yes, if the items describe specific, observable behaviors such as keeping commitments and raising risks early. Trait items like “is ethical” produce less useful data.
How often should integrity be reassessed?
For development purposes, a baseline and a repeat at six to twelve months is common. That gives enough time for behavior to change and for colleagues to notice.