Reliable insight into integrity: how to get it right?

Imagine receiving the following question during an important job interview: “If I knew I could never get caught, would I be willing to steal a million dollars?”

In a vacuum of pure honesty, many people might hesitate. A million dollars is quite life-changing, and if there are truly no consequences … However, the moment that question becomes a hurdle for a dream job, the answer shifts. Most candidates won't admit to a "flaw" like that when it might negatively influence decisions about themselves. They choose the "correct" answer (a firm No) rather than a nuanced, honest one.

Questions about honesty, following rules or moral conduct are often transparent and easily "fakeable". The result is often the opposite of what was intended: honest candidates who admit to moral ambiguity score lower than those who respond strategically.

How to gain valid insight into how candidates truly reason when values, pressure, and ambiguity collide?

Integrity isn't just about avoiding "bad apples"; it lies at the core of sustainable success.
It’s about cultivating a high-trust environment, strong teams and protecting your brand reputation. Yet how do we objectively measure this during a hiring procedure, when participants obviously want to put their best foot forward? The same problem often occurs in practice: traditional (i.e. self-report) integrity questionnaires often fall short because candidates are highly incentivized to manage their image.

The good news? There are robust, research-backed ways to move beyond this limitation. Rather than relying on what participants say themselves, organisations should look at what integrity really means in practice.

Different angles of integrity cannot be captured in a single, static score or a trait, but are a pattern of judgment and behaviour that unfolds across different contexts.

To get a valid picture, no single test should be used in isolation. Instead, you need an approach that combines three different angles of integrity:

1. The ethical compass (how people think)

Instead of measuring moral intentions, an integrity-oriented Situational Judgement Test (SJT) can provide meaningful insight into situational and ethical judgment in the workplace. An SJT presents candidates with realistic workplace scenarios and multiple response options, each representing a different course of action. A candidate is then asked what the best response is in this situation.

A realistic work scenario for the million-dollar question could be: "If one noticed an accounting error that benefited their department and knew no one would ever find it, what would be the best course of action?"

Candidates who understand ethical standards will indicate that it is clearly better to immediately report it, rather than leaving it to the official audit process or burying the mistake to benefit the team. Knowing what ethical behaviour looks like, and recognising when it is required, is the basis for ethical action.

Our SJT Integrity measures situational and ethical judgment:

• Do candidates recognise that ethical considerations are at stake?
• Do they understand what constitutes acceptable versus problematic behaviour?
• How consistently do they prioritise ethical principles across different situations
  
  

2. Personality (who people are)

While judgment is measured through scenarios, we also need to understand stable personality traits.

Research shows that specific personality traits are systematically linked to reliable workplace behaviour. The strongest and most consistent associations are found for:

• Conscientiousness: Relates to rule adherence and reliability
• Altruism: Reflects a disposition toward fairness and concern for others
• Emotional Stability: Critical because it predicts how likely someone is to maintain their standards under high stress

These insights complement situational judgment by helping you understand how consistently someone is likely to act on their ethical awareness.

3. Behaviour (what people do)

The final piece of the puzzle is observing behaviour in action. Behavioural simulations, such as assessment centre exercises (role plays, group exercises, etc.), place candidates in realistic workplace dilemmas where they must respond in real time. This allows you to see integrity in action rather than relying on hypothetical responses. Similarly, STARR interviews provide a structured way to explore past behaviour in depth, helping you understand how candidates have dealt with ethical dilemmas in real-life situations.

Approach integrity results as a “starting point,” not a verdict

Instead of reducing integrity to a single score or a fixed label, it is far more valuable to treat assessment outcomes as the starting point for meaningful dialogue and informed decision-making.

Our SJT Integrity measures situational and ethical judgment across three dimensions:

• Communicational: transparency and honesty in information-sharing
• Moral: ethical vigilance and standing up for what’s right
• Operational: acting consistently and meticulously in accordance with professional standards and expectations

By combining these insights, organisations gain a richer, more balanced perspective that supports better decisions.

A powerful signal to candidates

Beyond gathering data, incorporating integrity-focused assessment instruments also serves as a powerful signalling function. By explicitly evaluating ethical decision-making, you communicate to every candidate that honesty and responsible judgment are critical expectations from day one. As such, the value of an integrity-focused SJT lies not only in what it assesses, but also in the standards it visibly upholds.

Interested in learning more?

Our full white paper on Measuring Integrity offers a deep dive into the research and the multi-method approach.

Ready to explore the science of integrity further? Or interested in a demo of our new SJT Integrity? See how we’ve translated these insights into a practical, actionable tool for your hiring process.