One subject to prepare for during a public service recruitment process is integrity – upholding values, abiding by codes of conduct, and building an integrity culture. This particularly applies to senior and executive roles.

The range of opportunities for integrity challenges may surprise you. Two reports provide insight into this subject.

The integrity mismatch

The UK Demos organisation has published The Integrity Mismatch, Public Service standards in a political world (2024), exploring how public servants can handle the ethics of implementing messy political compromises that may challenge their understanding of standards of integrity. The author, Marcial Boo, explains the concept of integrity in public life, the integrity mismatch between public servants and those in elected office, and steps on how to mitigate the risks associated with this mismatch.

This document can help public service applicants understand:

• what integrity means for public servants and politicians
• options for responding to integrity mismatch
• how to build an integrity culture.

With this understanding applicants can respond better to demonstrate their understanding of integrity, how they respond to integrity issues, and how they help build an integrity culture.

What integrity means for public servants and politicians

The report states that: ‘Common to all approaches is that integrity is a matter of means not ends. Those behaving with integrity do not focus only on the output or consequences of decisions, but on their conduct, the requirements of office, and on process and procedure.’ (p. 6)

The author points out that two people can hold opposing views on a moral issue and act with integrity in their disagreement – reasonable debate, the use of evidence, trust, and a willingness to change one’s mind. (p.6) Applicants may have experience of such disagreements and be able to point to their integrity in that disagreement.

The report draws on Huberts’ work (2018) classifying nine ‘violations of integrity:

‘1. Corruption: bribing

2. Corruption: favouritism

3. Conflict of interest (gifts, jobs, etc.)

4. Fraud and theft of resources

5. Waste and abuse of resources

6. Breaking rules or misuse of power

7. Misuse and manipulation of information

8. Indecent treatment of others (including intimidation or discrimination)

9. Misconduct in one’s private life (rather than in the public role).’ (pp. 6-7)

After exploring how flexibilities of politicians don’t apply to public servants, the report provides a useful table: Integrity violations as they may apply to politicians and public servants. This table shows that severe violations of integrity, like corruption and fraud, must be ‘ethically impermissible for both politicians and public servants, though routes to accountability differ’. (p. 9)

For misconduct that takes place outside work and may not impact on the public role, both categories have some latitude.

Then there are four areas, 5-8 in the above list, where there is ‘an integrity mismatch’ between what may be permissible for politicians and for public servants. For example, ‘it can never be allowable for public servants to knowingly waste resources’, yet ‘there may be times when politicians believe it necessary in order to achieve political goals’. The conclusion reached is:

‘In practice, the integrity mismatch manifests when public servants are reluctant to countenance behaviour or action that politicians consider necessary. This can lead to tension. If poorly handled, the integrity mismatch damages trust and reduces effectiveness: politicians think their legitimate goals are being frustrated by overzealous officials, while public servants believe their legitimate concerns are being ignored by compromised ministers. Overall government performance suffers.’ (p. 9)

These situations are more likely to apply to executive APS roles, however it is useful to be aware of the subtleties of these distinctions.

Options for responding to an integrity mismatch

The report explores three options for responding to an integrity mismatch:

• Follow instructions
• Raise concerns.
• Resign. (pp. 11-12)

Several options are explored under ‘Raise concerns’, none of which is ‘wholly effective’. These options are:

• Raise concerns with colleagues.
• Raise concerns with the politician (‘softly, privately and not in writing’)
• Ask for a letter of ministerial direction
• Blow the whistle.

How to build an integrity culture

The report states that: ‘The cultural norm should be to ask oneself ‘what is the right thing to do?’ rather than ‘what can I get away with?’. (p. 10)

There is a section on induction and training. It states that: ‘Training for public servants should be clear that integrity is a core part of their job, but that politicians must have some license in applying ethical standards due to their different decision-making role.’ (p. 14)

While applicants may wish to refer to, or list in their CV, any relevant training, there is no guarantee that attended training will make any difference to behaviour.

The report also suggests that there should be guidance for public servants ‘on the basic techniques of providing ethical advice gently and reasonably, explicitly understanding issues from a political perspective, and providing workable solutions to ethical dilemmas where possible’. (p. 14)

Applicants can make a stronger case for their integrity credentials by referring to how they handled actual situations.

Identifying examples of handling corrupt conduct

Another report can help with thinking about integrity and identifying examples of building an integrity culture and handling corrupt conduct.

To appreciate the many ways corrupt conduct can occur, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s report, Common Forms of Corrupt Conduct: Risks faced by NSW public sector agencies (2024), is worth a read. This report makes clear that ‘if minor but common instances of corrupt conduct are allowed to continue unchecked, they may be perceived as normal, or at least tolerated. In that sense, corruption is sometimes described as “contagious” or self-perpetuating’. (p. 5)

The report not only makes clear where integrity issues are likely to occur, but also gives case studies, resources, and details of good practices.

The Commission points out where the integrity issues are likely to occur:

• Human resources and staff administration (the most common workplace function reported to the Commission for misconduct) – recruitment practices, outside employment, and timesheet, roster and payroll fraud.
• Funds, materials and services – procurement and contract management, the theft or misuse of public resources (vehicles, equipment and supplies, IT hardware and software, the services provided by the agency itself, car parking, gym access), and the management and misuse of information.
• Improper management of conflicts of interest and associated allegations of favouritism.

Plus, this report examines conduct associated with bribery and gifts, and issues associated with managing misconduct.

Most of the reports received by the Commission alleged some form of favouritism, cronyism or nepotism. (p. 7)

Integrity issues during recruitment processes

Applicants, managers, and selection panel members will benefit from reading the section on recruitment practices. Many of the recruitment-related complaints made to the Commission involved nepotism – favouring relatives, or cronyism – favouring friends and close associates. (p. 8)

There are many ways to manipulate a selection process. In addition to concealing or understating a conflict of interest, a merit-based selection process can be circumvented by:

• ‘writing selection criteria to suit a particular applicant
• limiting the time and placement of the job advertisement to reduce the amount of competition the favoured applicant has to face
• ensuring that the selection panel comprises staff who are less likely to challenge any favouritism (for example, because they are junior, inexperienced or highly agreeable)
• a public official (which could include a member of the selection panel) helping the preferred applicant to prepare their application
• lobbying the selection panel behind the scenes
• recruiting favoured staff through an external recruitment agency.’ (p. 7)

An applicant can also be favoured by avoiding a competitive process altogether, such as by filling the vacancy via short-term labour hire.

The Commission states that CV fraud and similar deceptive behaviour is common, and, drawing on another report, states that between 20% and 30% of job applications contain some form of false information. Matters reported to the Commission regarding CVs include plagiarism, providing false or misleading information, or omitting information to cover previous dishonest conduct.

Understanding conflicts of interest

As failure to effectively manage conflicts of interest is at the heart of many reports made to the Commission, a separate chapter is devoted to this subject.

The report advises that a conflict of interest arises ‘when a reasonable person might perceive that a public official’s personal interest(s) could be favoured over their public duties’. Note the use of could. Having a conflict of interest is neither wrong nor corrupt conduct. ‘However, an official’s conduct could generate complaints and attract the Commission’s jurisdiction if it involves:

• concealing or failing to recognise a conflict of interest
• making a false, misstated or understated declaration about a conflict of interest
• actually favouring their private interest over public duties (that is, acting partially)
• improperly influencing others to favour a private interest.’ (p. 43)

Conflicts of interest can arise in respect of almost any public official function, but the Commission’s analysis indicates that they are most often reported in connection with:

• recruitment, promotion and acting-up opportunities
• procurement and contract management
• outside employment.

The report refers to similar Australian Public Service Commission data reported in their 2023 Employee Census, which found the three most frequently witnessed forms of corrupt conduct were ‘favouring mates, favouring relatives, and covering it up’. (p. 43)

Summary

The detail provided in these two reports can help:

• members of selection panels improve their process and procedures
• job applicants avoid CV fraud and identify relevant examples
• managers and supervisors to improve how they build a culture of integrity.