Integrity as an idea that can deliver more than the sum of the parts
People who add up to something are remarkable, while at the same time being more common than we might think.
As I’ve discussed elsewhere, integrity is also about “wholeness”. The “adding up” aspect is relevant, because it links the parts to the whole. Many people achieve extreme and, sometimes, amazing feats; these are typically formed from many steps. But then to do that repeatedly, and continually exceeding one’s earlier achievements, has the effect of generating an overall record of achievement which is much greater than the sum of its parts.
Perhaps our expectations are limited by our tendency to diminish our own achievements and not to commit to something larger than ourselves, as Dr. Martin Seligman describes it in a video (at 15:32). (This video is embedded at the end of this Post).
Of course, many extraordinary achievements are not widely reported and this is the sense in which they are more common than we might imagine. Nevertheless, when other people continue to do things that add together into something bigger, then that is a motivating example on another level.
Teams who add up to something are also extraordinary, while again being all around us. The inches in the speech by Al Pacino add up to something.
Often, the setting of the goal, as being beyond what we imagine possible is the key. The satisfaction comes not from any absolute level of achievement, but from the actual achievement relative to our predicted achievement; from seeing something as being out of reach, overcoming obstacles and achieving it.
On May 25, 1961, US President John F Kennedy made his historic speech, including the words “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth”. NASA had put a man into “sub-orbital” flight for the first time, but not yet into orbit, only 20 days earlier. Most people working on the space program thought that the president had set them an extreme challenge!
NASA had to make do as best they could and they had very little time. It is reported that there was insufficient time to design the vehicle thoroughly, so they roughed out the main subsystems required, complete with a limit on dimensions, weight, location of the centre of gravity and power consumption. Then they subcontracted the design of the subsystems to various suppliers; when they complained that they could not meet the requirements, the suppliers negotiated with one another for space, weight and power!
Yet again, the whole added up to more than the parts. This is something worth thinking about and I’d like to refer to examples of it in future posts.
By John Lewis
The Martin Seligman video
Learning from Dogs 