This chapter provides recommendations to strengthen integrity leadership in the Brazilian federal public administration. Promoting integrity leadership can be enabled by including integrity as a core competence and performance indicator for senior civil servants. A regular staff survey could measure relevant dimensions to track progress and impact. Moreover, integrity leadership behaviour could be strengthened actively by implementing a strategy aimed at identifying and training integrity leaders in every public entity and connecting them through a dedicated network.
Strengthening Integrity Leadership in Brazil’s Federal Public Administration
Applying Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity
OECD Public Governance Reviews
3. A strategy to promote integrity leadership behaviour in Brazil
Abstract
3.1. Promoting change
Evidence from theory and practice, as well as from our daily lives, suggest that the behaviour we observe from our direct peers and, in particular, from our leaders (our role models) matter for our own behaviour (Chapter 1). This has, at least, two practical implications when thinking of how to promote cultures of integrity in public entities: first, the good behaviour from leaders and peers needs to be visible (and the bad behaviour sanctioned) and second, influencing the behaviour of leaders as internal vectors can impact the behaviour of other employees, while these good practices could be reinforced through peer learning. As such, measures targeted at leaders’ behaviour could be a particularly efficient means to achieve broader change in an organisation.
The following sections provide recommendations on how this could be achieved in the Brazilian federal public administration. First, Brazil could implement some basic foundations to enable an environment where working on integrity leadership will be easier. On the one hand, integrity could be included as a core competence and performance indicator for senior civil servants and, on the other hand, regular staff surveys could include relevant questions to get a sense of where different entities stand with respect to integrity leadership and to monitor progress and impact. Second, integrity leadership could be promoted more actively by implementing a strategy aimed at identifying and impacting on the behaviour of leaders in public entities.
3.2. Setting the foundations for integrity leadership
3.2.1. The Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services, in co-ordination with the CGU and the ENAP, could more explicitly include integrity in the competences for leaders and provide for periodical performance evaluations of senior public servants
Promoting integrity leadership requires governments setting up selection, appointment and promotion procedures to ensure the people appointed to leadership positions have an integrity profile. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Brazil has recently carried out reforms to strengthen leadership, but gaps remain in the areas of selection and appointment of senior public officials and strengthening of integrity competences. First, integrity is currently not explicitly included as a core competence for leaders, which weakens the selection, appointment and development processes of leaders. Although the competence “self-knowledge and personal development” includes a reference to “promoting ethical public service values such as accountability, integrity, rectitude, transparency and fairness” (ENAP, 2021[54]), integrity could be placed more explicitly within this framework to ensure public institutions attract and select integrity leaders. For example, the competency framework in the New South Wales Government in Australia identifies five levels of integrity and the behaviours associated with each (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Act with integrity: A framework for assessment in New South Wales, Australia
Source: (OECD, 2020[18]); from New South Wales Government Public Service Commission, The NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, www.psc.nsw.gov.au/workforce-management/capability-framework/access-the-capability-framework/the-capability-framework, (accessed 22 February 2020).
Therefore, the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services, in co-ordination with the CGU (to ensure coherence with integrity policies) and with the ENAP (to ensure coherence with training and learning offers), could review the competences for leaders in the federal public administration and ensure that integrity and other relevant competences for integrity leadership and an open organisational culture are more explicitly included in such framework. This could be done by breaking down the competences into sub-components to provide greater clarity and nuance to the qualifications within the current framework or by developing complementary guidelines that further describe the expected behaviours of leaders to uphold integrity while carrying out their public duties, in alignment with the current competences for leaders. Examples from other jurisdictions, like Canada, could be used by the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services, the CGU and the ENAP as inspiration (Box 3.1).
Box 3.1. Ethical leadership as one of the Key Leadership Competencies in the Canadian Service
The Canadian Key Leadership Competencies (KLCs) define the behaviours expected of leaders in the Public Service to create and sustain a professional, ethical and non-partisan public service and serve as the basis for selection, learning and development, performance and talent management of executives and other senior leaders.
One of the KLCs Canadian executives and senior leaders are measured against is to ‘Uphold integrity and respect’. This means that leaders are expected to exemplify ethical practices, professionalism, and integrity, as well as to build an open organisational culture in which employees are confident to seek advice, express diverse opinions and uphold collegiality. Examples of effective and ineffective behaviour to uphold integrity and respect are given for different roles (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2. Behaviours to uphold integrity for different executives and senior leaders in Canada
Source: (Government of Canada, 2016[55]), adapted by OECD authors.
Additionally, a list of examples of effective behaviours associated with the KLCs are given for the Supervisor and Manager roles. Although there is no policy requirement for supervisors and managers to be assessed on the demonstration of the KLCs, the aim is to help them to identify their learning and development needs and to inform career planning (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3. Guidance for Canadian supervisors and managers in the federal public service
Source: (Government of Canada, 2016[55]), adapted by OECD authors.
Finally, list of examples of generic ineffective behaviours for all roles are given:
places personal goals ahead of Government of Canada objectives
shows favouritism or bias
does not take action to address situations of wrongdoing
mistreats others and takes advantage of the authority vested in the position.
Source: (Government of Canada, 2016[55]).
Second, as mentioned in Chapter 2, public servants who occupy high-level positions within the Brazilian federal administration are currently not being evaluated under the existing performance evaluation framework. Although there are some public entities that have voluntarily introduced performance assessments for their leaders, such as the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, CADE) that implemented a pilot assessment of performance of selected leaders in 2019 and 2020, most senior civil servants are not being evaluated. However, once leaders are selected and appointed, they require support and reinforcement to be integrity leaders (OECD, 2020[18]). To do so, one of the available tools are performance agreements and assessments. To ensure that performance systems promote and reward integrity leadership, these should not only focus on what leaders achieve, but also on how they achieve it (OECD, 2020[18]).
Aware of the importance of conducting performance evaluations of senior civil servants of the federal administration, the former Ministry of Economy conducted a leadership performance assessment pilot with the participation of around 50 of its leaders. This pilot started in 2020 and included three cycles of evaluation in which leaders’ performance was assessed against annual goals set at the beginning of the cycle and the competences for leaders’ framework. Several conclusions were drawn from this pilot, including the importance of making the performance assessment process for leaders simple and intuitive, the high rotation of senior public officials that creates challenges for a continuous an impactful evaluation, and the need to strengthen an open organisational culture in which constructive feedback is welcomed.
Considering this as well as the main conclusions derived from the leadership performance assessment pilot, the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services could provide for the periodical evaluation of senior civil servants’ performance by making it mandatory for all leaders within public institutions of the federal administration. Moreover, as in a growing number of OECD countries, it could be considered to involve other stakeholders in the performance evaluation process of senior civil servants beyond the direct supervisor, including direct subordinates.
As a first step, the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services should consider a revision of the current performance evaluation system, including simplifying performance assessment as recommended in the OECD Public Service Leadership and Capability Review of the OECD (OECD, 2023[50]). Then, the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services could consider developing specific procedures, guidelines and formats to ensure homogeneity across the federal administration, including criteria aimed at both ensuring leaders achieve specific deliverables and goals linked to integrity as well as testing for their integrity and moral reasoning (balance between what leaders achieve and how they achieve it). Box 3.2 provides an overview of some tools that can be used to implement such integrity checks. To ensure coherence with other efforts of the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services, the performance evaluation system for leaders could be developed as part of the broader reform aimed at unifying the performance evaluation framework of the federal administration.
Box 3.2. Tools to implement integrity checks
Public organisations in OECD countries use a variety of targeted tools to implement integrity checks and assess personal character:
use of uniform curriculum vitae formats, allowing to apply integrity filters to ease identification of suitable candidates
pre-screening integrity test (e.g. online), personality tests or similar examinations, as a first step to be considered for the position, and/or as input into the final decision
interview questions asking candidates to reflect on ethical role models they have had previously in the workplace, and/or to discuss ethical dilemmas they have faced and how they reacted to them
situational judgement tests and questions that present candidates with a morally ambiguous situation and have them explain their moral reasoning
role-play simulations and gamification to be conducted in an assessment centre
reference checks which include questions related to ethical decision making and assessment from peers in previous positions on the ethical nature of the person and their ability to manage others ethically
questions that enable the candidate to demonstrate awareness of and model moral management behaviour (recognising that being an integrity leader is not only about being a sound “moral person”, but also about actively role-modelling ethical decision making, communicating about ethics to employees, using rewards and sanctions to promote ethics, and giving employees an appropriate level of discretion and guidance to make their own ethical decisions).
Source: (OECD, 2023[56]; OECD, 2020[18]).
Moreover, once a mature performance assessment system covering senior civil servants has been set up (OECD, 2023[50]), the integrity component of performance assessments could be reinforced by rewards and sanctions (OECD, 2020[18]). For instance, senior public officials who are performing well on integrity could be identified for career development opportunities, in particular, to positions of higher ethical intensity. In turn, those senior public officials with low assessments should be given improvement opportunities and, if necessary, removed from their position if significant risks are identified (OECD, 2020[18]).
3.2.2. The CGU could measure dimensions of integrity leadership through a regular staff survey
To identify good and bad leaders in terms of integrity, audits, administrative data collected by the CGU, reporting channels and surveys can be used in a complementary manner. Internal audits can shed light on systemic weaknesses in the organisation related to “the tone-at-the top”, the first attribute of a control environment in the COSO model, and can help assessing ethical climates (Kgomo and Plant, 2015[57]). Reporting channels focus more on unveiling individual cases of misconduct. Regular staff surveys, in turn, can provide a broader picture on where an organisation stands with respect to integrity leadership. Indeed, social scientists have been debating over the past years on the best approach to measure integrity leadership and several useful questionnaires and scales have been developed to measure it (Box 3.3).
Box 3.3. Measuring integrity leadership
Tools to measure integrity leadership can be divided into three broad types (Argyropoulou and Spyridakis, 2022[58]): those in which the leaders evaluate themselves (self-referential), those in which the sub-ordinates or other low-ranking leaders rate the leader (hetero-referential) and those that combine the first two and add evaluations by senior leaders and colleagues (360 degrees method).
Some well-known measurement tools are:
The Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS) measures if leaders exhibit high ethical standards, display fair treatment of employees, and hold employees accountable for ethical behaviour (Brown, Treviño and Harrison, 2005[22]). The ELS consists of ten items which measure different aspects, each of them scaled from 1 (“highly unlikely”) to 7 (“highly likely”). The scale is unidimensional and hetero-referential.
The Ethical Leadership at Work Questionnaire, developed by (Kalshoven, Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2011[59]), distinguishes between seven types of behaviours: fairness, power-sharing, role clarification, people orientation, ethical guidance, and environmental orientation. The survey consists of 38 items on a 7-point Likert scale measuring these behaviours.
The Ethical Leadership Questionnaire measures ethical leadership by using a 15 items survey, each of them with a 6-point Likert-style format (Yukl et al., 2013[60]). Specifically, the survey allows us to understand the degree of emotional support between a leader and a follower and how the leader influences work unit performance. The survey is hetero-referential and provides a composite score.
The Broad Ethical Leadership Scale measures styles of leadership linked with ethical or integrity leadership (Shakeel, Kruyen and van Thiel, 2020[61]). These leadership styles (virtuous, positive and authentic, “moral manager”, professionally grounded, social responsibility and transformational) are measured through 48 items on a Likert scale and is self-referential.
There are several other instruments which measure concepts related to integrity leadership along similar lines (Argyropoulou and Spyridakis, 2022[58]).
Arguably, however, the measurements above could underestimate the prevalence of bad leaders, as they measure desirable ethical behaviours which could lead to virtually all managers receiving acceptable ratings (Kaiser and Hogan, 2010[62]). Therefore, the measurement of integrity leadership could be complemented by a measure of unethical behaviour. For example, the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS), has 31 items that ask about abusive or unethical behaviour (Craig and Gustafson, 1998[63]).
Therefore, the CGU could build on previous and existing experiences – including the most recent 2022 CGU Perception Survey of Federal Civil Servants on Public Integrity (Pesquisa de Percepção com Servidores Públicos Federais sobre Integridade Pública), the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch and the 2021 Survey on Ethics and Corruption in the Federal Public Service – to develop a regular integrity staff survey. In addition, experiences from other relevant stakeholders – including the Secretariat of Personnel Management and Performance (Secretaria de Gestão de Desempenho de Pessoal, SGP) of the former Ministry of Economy with its 2020 public sector wide survey – could also be considered to regularly collect information on integrity leadership. This survey was conducted by the former SGP in partnership with ‘Great Place To Work’, the ENAP and the República Institute with the aim of understanding the perception that the public servants have and enabling management to develop people management policies to respond to the demands identified.
This regular integrity staff survey should include dimensions related to integrity leadership, measuring both desired and undesired behaviour. The results of such a regular staff survey could be used as an outcome to measure the performance of the Public Integrity System of the Federal Executive Branch (Sistema de Integridade Pública do Poder Executivo Federal, SIPEF),1 track its progress in achieving cultures of public integrity and measure the impact of specific targeted interventions aimed at improving integrity leadership as discussed in the following section. To go beyond classical survey questions and to measure impact of strategies aimed at promoting integrity leadership, such a survey could include vignette experiments, as implemented, for example in the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch. Vignette surveys allow for a more nuanced analysis able to elicit preferences and the drivers of stated hypothetical choices. Several research findings reported in this study are based entirely or in part on vignette experiments, for example (Stouten et al., 2013[20]; Bhal and Dadhich, 2011[43]). Indeed, such survey experiments perform well in simulating real world situation and understanding choices of respondents (Hainmueller, Hangartner and Yamamoto, 2015[64]).
3.3. A road map for strengthening integrity leadership behaviour in Brazil
Beyond setting integrity as a core competence for leaders, establishing a performance assessment system that incorporates integrity and measuring integrity leadership, Brazil could take more specific actions to promote integrity leaders. The following section outlines a strategy which is based on the analysis carried out in Chapter 2 and relies on the assumption that individuals form their values and adapt their behaviour through socialisation by observing and interacting with peers and role models. The activities proposed in the strategy are divided into three steps. Together, the foundations for integrity leadership and the three-step strategy are expected to result in more committed and better-prepared senior public servants in terms of public integrity and, through them, contribute to promoting cultures of organisational integrity and openness in the federal administration in Brazil.
The next sections provide more details for each step of the strategy. To fine tune and ensure that the measures unfold the desired impact, the CGU could consider implementing a pilot programme by first selecting a subset of public entities where the strategy for strengthening integrity leadership behaviour could be tested. Lessons from the pilot could then lead to improvements in the different steps before implementing the strategy at scale in the federal administration through the SIPEF.
The steps of the strategy, summarised in Figure 3.1, are building upon one another to increase the likelihood of achieving the desired impact:
Identification: The first step consists in identifying potential integrity leaders within a public entity. By being identified as an integrity leader, the senior civil servant feels motivated and more committed to the values of the institution and to actively promoting these values within their teams. In turn, such integrity leaders may be better placed to transmit the messages related to integrity policies to the employees.
Training: In the second step, both senior civil servants and the identified integrity leaders are trained. Senior civil servants could be reached effectively through existing programmes, while integrity leaders could be trained though a more specific and intensive training and mentoring programme. By receiving targeted training, the selected leaders build additional skills and competences to self-reflect on their own behaviour as leaders and to better promote integrity and an open culture within their teams.
Network: Finally, the third step relies on the CGU establishing a network between the integrity leaders. This step can be implemented in parallel with the training activities (second step). By building a network that meets regularly, the engagement of the leaders is maintained over time, participants develop additional capacities by learning from one another (peer learning) and leaders may be more committed because of the peer pressure.
Figure 3.1. A road map for strengthening integrity leadership behaviour in Brazil
3.3.1. Step 1: The Integrity Management Units (UGIs) could identify a set of leaders as internal allies for promoting integrity values and integrity risk management
Dedicated “integrity actors” in public entities can contribute to overcome the challenge of mainstreaming integrity policies to ensure implementation in public entities and to promote organisational cultures of integrity. International experience shows the value of having a specialised and dedicated person or unit that is responsible and held accountable for the internal implementation and promotion of integrity laws and policies (OECD, 2009[30]; G20, 2017[65]; OECD, 2019[66]). Recognising this, Brazil established in 2021 the SIPEF through Decree 10.756/2021. The SIPEF requires every public entity of the direct, autarchic and foundational administration at the federal level (administração direta, autárquica e fundacional) to establish an Integrity Programme (Programa de Integridade) and an Integrity Management Unit (Unidade de Gestão da Integridade, UGI).
As emphasised in an earlier OECD report (OECD, 2021[15]) and in the forthcoming Integrity Review of Brazil, the SIPEF and the UGIs are an important step towards mainstreaming public integrity in the federal administration. The UGIs, as units of the second line of defence, have the potential to become the driving forces that can promote the implementation of integrity measures within the entities. Nonetheless, interviews conducted by the OECD with staff from the UGIs revealed that promoting change in the organisational cultures is perceived as a mayor challenge and that they would welcome the help of leaders in the organisations as internal allies. While all public employees and in particular senior civil servants of course have responsibilities in upholding and promoting values, not all are likely or able to become leaders in that area.
Therefore, the UGIs could identify a set of senior civil servants within their entities that already are or show the potential of becoming such leaders. These integrity leaders could become the link between UGIs and other civil servants at all levels. The integrity leaders would be a source of knowledge and information and a role model to follow (Figure 3.2). These integrity leaders ideally should be part of the permanent staff of the public entity, they should also be highly valued by peers and employees and be recognised for their soft skills. The identification of the integrity leaders could happen actively by the UGIs, approaching senior civil servants that have shown interest and engagement and/or through a call-for-interest within the public entity. Also given the results of the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch regarding the differences in the level of comfort and security to discuss misbehaviour and report cases of corruption between female high-ranked officials and male high-ranked officials, the UGIs should pay attention to select both female and male integrity leaders.
Figure 3.2. The roles of the CGU, the UGIs and integrity leaders in promoting integrity risk management cultures in the Brazilian federal executive
Source: (OECD, 2022[14]).
Being identified as an integrity leader is likely to reinforce and support a positive self-image of the senior civil servant. Indeed, people typically act in ways that make them feel better about themselves (the “ego effect”) (Dolan et al., 2012[67]). Unconsciously, this may contribute to increase the motivation and ownership of the leaders to the integrity policies and their commitment to communicating and promoting them actively. It may also impact positively on their own ethical behaviour, reinforcing their credibility as models of integrity.
In addition, such recognised and valued integrity leaders are likely to be taken more seriously by employees, raising the likelihood that their messages will be followed. Indeed, research evidences that the source of information matters (the “messenger effect’): the authority of the messenger (the integrity leader), the existence of shared characteristics between messenger and receiver (e.g. belonging to the same public entity), the consistency of the messenger’s behaviour over time (does the integrity leader really behave the way he/she speaks?) and the sympathy for the messenger all make it more likely that the messages coming from such integrity leaders will be taken more seriously and will be followed (Dolan et al., 2012[67]; OECD, 2020[37]).
3.3.2. Step 2: The CGU could partner with the ENAP to develop and provide integrity leadership trainings for senior civil servants and in particular for the identified integrity leaders
Obviously, promoting integrity leadership requires supporting people in leadership positions to carry out their functions as integrity leaders (OECD, 2020[18]). This includes providing leaders with training opportunities on aspects of the government’s integrity standards and system, as well as providing them with opportunities to further develop relevant skills of managers for integrity. As discussed above, managers for integrity are role models who discuss integrity issues openly, who reward good behaviour and who empower their employees to make ethical decisions (OECD, 2020[18]). At the same time, as emphasised in Chapter 1, such trainings should be designed and implemented carefully: ethical leaders should not feel as “morally superior” compared to their employees as a result of the trainings (Stouten et al., 2013[20]). To achieve this, governments can provide leaders with training opportunities to develop relevant skills such as guiding and advising employees on integrity concerns, communicating openly with employees, discussing moral decision making with colleagues, and building trust among employees to express any grievances.
To be effective, three aspects are essential when designing and implementing integrity training: the timing and frequency of the training, the target audience and the content and delivery methods (OECD, 2020[18]). Regarding the latter, governments can use several methods to develop the skills of integrity leadership (Table 3.4). For instance, while lectures or online learning modules can cover various aspects of the integrity standards and system in place to ensure that there is a common understanding of leaders’ integrity obligations and the mechanisms and tools available to help managers meet them, case studies of real leaders facing real ethical dilemmas can be used to teach and practice moral reasoning.
Table 3.4. Main training methods
Note: Rules-based methods aim to impart knowledge about specific integrity standards, rules and administrative procedures that exist to guide integrity in the public sector; values-based methods focus on developing attitudes and behaviours in response to potential integrity issues that public officials may encounter while carrying out their duties; and combination methods, focus on providing a combined experience in which trainees are offered courses but also participate actively in sharing views and discussing dilemmas
Source: (OECD, 2020[18]).
When designing and implementing integrity trainings, it is important to consider the monitoring and evaluation of the training outcomes (OECD, 2020[18]). This includes monitoring and evaluating the quality of training activities (what participants and trainers thought and felt about the training) as well as their impact (the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes resulting from the training, the extent of behaviour and capability improvement, and the impact on work environment or results).
As previously mentioned and evidenced through the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch (Figure 2.1), Brazilian senior civil servants currently do not participate very often in integrity trainings, which affects the possibility to deepen their knowledge on the integrity standards and system in place and further develop relevant integrity leadership skills. This contrasts with a great interest in participating in integrity related training (Figure 3.3), suggesting the need to increase and diversify the offer of integrity trainings for senior civil servants.
Figure 3.3. The interest amongst Brazilian senior civil servants in trainings or activities on integrity leadership
Source: CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch.
Therefore, the CGU, the ENAP and the UGIs could together develop and implement a two-pronged approach to building skills and capabilities for integrity leadership in the federal administration, by:
Including integrity more explicitly into existing programmes, senior civil servants could be introduced and supported in their roles both as models and managers of integrity.
Acknowledging, however, that not all senior civil servants are likely to be interested nor able to become integrity leaders within their entities, a more specific training and mentoring programme could be implemented for the integrity leaders identified by the UGIs as internal allies.
Brazil could target senior civil servants through already existing programmes to raise awareness and provide general guidance to leaders
Senior civil servants could be reached effectively through existing programmes, such as the CGU’s campaign “We Are All Integrity” (“#Integridade Somos Todos Nós”) and the ENAP’s LideraGov Programme (Box 2.1). The former could aim at raising awareness on the role senior civil servants have within the integrity system both as models and managers of integrity, while the latter could be used to help senior civil servants further develop specific skills and capacities needed to become integrity leaders and encourage an open organisational culture within their teams.
Box 3.4. Championing an integrity culture: The Senior Executive Services Integrity Masterclass Series
In May 2022, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) partnered with the Australia and New Zealand School of Government to launch the Senior Executive Services (SES) Integrity Masterclass Series. This assists senior leaders from the Australian Public Service (APS) to strengthen integrity culture and capability within their organisations and across the wider public service. While every member of the APS is obliged to act with integrity, SES leaders – as stewards of organisational culture – play an important role in setting expectations and modelling behaviours.
With this in mind, the APSC developed the SES Integrity Masterclass Series to equip SES participants with the knowledge and tools needed to build key integrity capabilities on both individual and organisational levels. The series comprises three masterclasses, with modules delivered online and in-person. The modules include an opening address from the APS Commissioner, a panel discussion with prominent APS integrity experts, videos, and a face-to-face workshop.
On completion, participants have the knowledge and tools to:
Champion integrity – cultivate an environment where employees feel confident to raise integrity concerns and have positive and empowering conversations about integrity.
Lead with integrity – foster a positive and collaborative working environment conducive to high performance.
Promote integrity – implement tools and resources to build the integrity capability of teams and organisations.
Regarding the “We Are All Integrity” campaign, the CGU could consider developing a specific module on “integrity leadership”, clarifying that leaders are expected to both uphold the values underpinning public service and communicate openly about integrity within their teams while giving employees opportunities to safely voice their opinions and discuss their integrity concerns. Particular examples of expected behaviours could be included for different leadership positions or situations that leaders may encounter in their day-to-day activities.
Regarding the LideraGov Programme, the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services and the ENAP could consider involving the CGU in future trainings and introducing specific modules within the Programme’s structure on how leaders can promote integrity, encourage employees to seek guidance and come forward with concerns and new ideas. For instance, specific modules could be introduced within the leadership competence “team engagement” and the transversal competence “communication” to highlight how future leaders can engage, encourage and empower employees with the aim of building an environment where people have a shared vision and feel safe to share their concerns.
Generally speaking, five leadership skills (technical, conceptual, interpersonal, emotional intelligence and social intelligence) can enhance individual and organisational integrity standards (Haq, 2011[69]). When developing the integrity training modules, the ENAP and the CGU could use these skills as a guidance to ensure that relevant skills are included and effectively developed (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5. Leadership skills leading to enhanced ethics in the public service
Source: (Haq, 2011[69]).
More specifically, in Brazil, integrity leadership training could cover the following dimensions:
Dimension 1: presentation of Brazilian public administration’s seven core integrity values (Valores do Serviço Público Federal) and the role leaders play in fostering their day-to-day application by public officials. The core values are engagement (engajamento), integrity (integridade), impartiality (imparcialidade), kindness (gentileza), justice (justiça), professionalism (profissionalismo) and public vocation (vocação pública). Leaders will familiarise themselves with the Public Service Values, learn how to use these values as a moral compass in their daily activities and how to foster their use by their employees.
Dimension 2: presentation of leaders’ own potential cognitive biases and ethical blind spots. For example, the training could address the most common justifications to unethical practices (such as, linguistic euphemisms, ledger metaphor, "Everyone does it", among others) or how to avoid confirmation or proximity biases, for example. Participants could be offered a roadmap provided by senior leader’s experience on how to identify and prevent these and other relevant biases.
Dimension 3: identification of ethical dilemmas and conflict of interest (at the individual and collective level) that can trigger situations of cognitive dissonance and lead to dishonest behaviour. Leaders will learn how to manage these situations and raise awareness within their teams thought ethical dilemma case studies and discussions. A good practice for trainings on ethical dilemmas are the dilemma training to public officials offered by the Agency for Government Employees in the Flemish Government: trainees are given practical situations in which they face an ethical dilemma with no clear path to resolution with integrity.
Dimension 4: presentation of the importance of an open communication culture to discuss integrity inside a team (“Openness”). Leaders would be able to learn how to build and maintain a “safe space” to discuss integrity openly and sincerely in professional spheres.
In addition to this training, the CGU could complement such efforts by developing general guidance material (such as leaflets, toolboxes or websites) for senior civil servants on how to promote an open organisational culture and encourage employees to engage and voice their ideas and concerns. For example, leaders and managers could acknowledge errors, turning negatives into lessons learned, and publicly discussing what went wrong, and what can be done differently (OECD, 2020[18]). Other options include moving beyond the “open door” policy, and speaking to employees in less formal settings, such as over a coffee or lunch. Evidence has found that an open door policy rarely achieves the desired effect of creating more openness, as it still enforces a power dynamic that is difficult to overcome (Detert and Burris, 2007[70]; Detert and Treviño, 2010[71]). Other approaches include making leaders more accessible to employees at all levels. For example, in Victoria, Australia a “reverse mentoring” programme was piloted by the Public Sector Innovation Team: senior executives were matched with more junior staff, with the objective of learning from them and taking in different perspectives (OECD, 2020[18]).The practice from New South Wales (Australia) to strengthen openness at the workplace could be used as a further inspiration (Box 3.5).
Box 3.5. Guidance for managers to strengthen an open working environment: Positive and Productive Workplace Guidelines in New South Wales, Australia
Recognising the impact that managers’ behaviour can have on organisational culture and employee attitudes and behaviours, the Public Service Commission of New South Wales, Australia emphasises the behaviour of managers in their Positive and Productive Workplaces Guideline. Specifically, the guidelines propose some concrete actions at the management level, including:
Ensure leaders understand the importance of values and organisational culture in achieving outcomes.
Require leaders to behave in an exemplary fashion.
Ensure leaders implement the organisation’s values in their areas of responsibility.
Discuss behaviour and acceptable standards of ethics and conduct at regular team meetings.
Expect leaders and managers to be alert for any signs or reports of unreasonable behaviour and to take quick, informal and discreet action to draw it to the person’s attention.
Expect leaders and managers to treat complaints as potential symptoms of systemic issues rather than seeing them as a burden or evidence of a lack of loyalty in the workplace.
Provide development for managers in holding respectful conversations, managing workplace conflict, providing constructive feedback on work performance, and speaking candidly to employees about unreasonable behaviour.
Use scenario-based exercises to foster discussions among employees and managers about the expected standard of behaviour and organisational culture.
Promote an understanding of diversity and inclusion based on helping all people to participate in the workplace and make a valued contribution to the group.
Expect managers who observe or hear about unreasonable behaviour to act quickly and fairly. They need to have a confidential, clear and direct conversation with the person(s) about the behaviour, its impact on others, the expected standards of behaviour, the need for the behaviour to stop, and how the organisation can assist the person in changing their behaviour.
For the identified integrity leaders, the CGU could develop and implement, with support from the ENAP and the UGIs, a more specific and intensive integrity training and a mentoring programme
The more general integrity leadership training and guidance for senior civil servants recommended in the previous section would complement and reinforce the human resources policy on integrity competences and performance assessments for leaders mentioned above. However, the integrity leaders identified in step 1 should receive more targeted and intensive support, training and guidance.
In this sense, the CGU and the ENAP, with the support of the respective UGI, could develop and implement a specific training programme for integrity leaders. Such more specific training could include workshops, coaching and a mentoring programme tailored to each specific entity covering the topics listed in the previous section. Additionally, specific modules could also be developed to address some of the gender specific challenges, including sexual harassment. Research indicates for example that the social responses of co-workers or supervisors to sexual harassment can influence significantly the mislabelling, misreporting, or inappropriately punishing sexual harassment in some organisations (Goodmon et al., 2020[73]). Leaders, independent of their gender, should be aware of such social dynamics and learn how they can contribute to changing social responses within their teams and organisations. Leader should also learn how to address discomfort and insecurity to discuss misbehaviour and report cases of corruption and how to ensure a safe space that allow everybody to bring forward their concerns and feel empowered. Senior leaders from other entities, recognised for their trajectory and who have proven their skills both as models and managers of integrity could be invited along experts from the CGU, the ENAP and universities, to participate in specific sessions and share their experiences. For integrity leaders, such training sessions could be an opportunity to get in touch with other leaders who have been “exposed” to the climate of their organisation for several years and have learned to deal with the most common challenges.
In addition, senior leaders invited to participate as speakers could also be selected as mentors in a mentorship programme designed as part of the specific integrity leadership training programme. Such a mentoring programme has the potential to develop the “next generation” of integrity leaders (Brown, 2007[74]). Indeed, research has confirmed that such ethical mentoring can positively impact the behaviour of the future integrity leader (Crawshaw et al., 2020[75]). In Brazil, the mentorship programme could partner civil servants in junior position who show the potential to advance to leadership positions with integrity leaders and senior leaders. This not only aims to motivate ethical behaviour and develop ethical awareness in junior civil servants, but it can also strengthen senior public officials’ own ethical convictions and commitment to openness within public institutions. Indeed, evidence suggests that those who teach, also learn (the “protégé effect”) (Cohen, Kulik and Kulik, 1982[76]; Fiorella and Mayer, 2013[77]). Ideally, mentors should not be in direct hierarchical relation with the junior civil servants to ensure that mentees feel comfortable seeking advice, speaking freely and sharing their concerns. Moreover, considering the results of the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch and that women have been historically underrepresented in senior management and middle management positions in the Brazilian federal administration (OECD, 2023[50]; Leando Rezende, 2020[78]), the UGIs could pay attention to select both female and male civil servants in junior positions to participate from the mentorship programme, allowing for equal opportunities to become integrity leaders. In fact, also to follow Decree 11.443/2023, Brazil could consider broadening this concept of inclusion to ensure the participation of afro descendant and indigenous populations.
3.3.3. Step 3: Maintain engagement, promote peer learning and alliances: The CGU could initiate and promote a network amongst identified integrity leaders to facilitate the exchange of experiences and enable alliances beyond the boundaries of a public entity
Public service leadership is increasingly challenging and complex. Senior civil servants face several dynamic and complex policy issues whose causes and effects are blurred and interrelated – for instance, climate change, pandemics or income inequality and poverty. In this context, senior civil servants are expected to work across organisational boundaries, sectors and jurisdictions to tackle ongoing and emergent policy challenges, as well as to be able to learn as they go and quickly adapt to a rapidly changing environment (Gerson, 2020[21]). In this sense, being able to look beyond their own organisation and collaborate through networks with other government actors and beyond, has become a relevant skill to face common challenges, adapt to changing environments and promote learning. Senior civil servants across several countries have established such networks aimed at learning from their peers and finding solutions to common problems in different fields (Box 3.6).
Box 3.6. Networks and peer support for senior civil servants in select counties
In Estonia, the Top Civil Service Excellence Centre was developed to support leadership across the top two tiers of the civil service bureaucracy. It begun with a narrow focus on competency development but has progressively expanded to include a wider set of lifecycle interventions, including developing competency models, relationship management for potential candidates, recruitment, delivering competency assessments, being on interview panels, delivering coaching and leadership programmes, and the follow-up assessment activities. By bringing together top civil servants to participate in the different activities, the Centre has allowed the development of a trusted network. The ability to improve relationships across ministries was commonly cited as one of the most important outcomes of the Centre’s activities. This is particularly important in Estonia where no hierarchical relationship exists among secretaries general and few formal structures to direct co-ordination and collaboration.
In Finland, secretaries general meet weekly on Monday mornings and organise special days with the Prime Minister and other high-level speakers for the broader senior civil service, providing different opportunities to network. For example, the Ministry of Finance organises an annual Public Management Day with high quality speakers. During this day, discussions take place between the different participants, including with invited mayors and municipal leaders, promoting networking and co-operation among the whole public sector. Finland has also developed more formalised small peer support groups, made up of approximately 10 leaders per each group, which meet approximately 4 times per year. Participants are stable for at least 2 years in the same group, allowing senior civil servants to talk openly about their experience in a comfortable and trusted environment. These groups also enable the sharing of innovations and collective problem solving.
In the Netherlands, the Senior Civil Service Bureau has set up “Intercollegiate Groups” to help senior civil servants learn from the insights of their peers. Senior civil servants can use these intercollegiate groups to access additional perspectives and experiences when in the thick of particularly complex leadership challenges. Groups of 6 senior civil servants commit to meet 12 times over a period of 2 years. These groups are each supervised by a professional coach, with 1-2 being present at each meeting to facilitate discussions. At each meeting, the group focuses on a particular senior civil servant and the challenge they face and use different tools to generate insights from the group, challenge assumptions and look at the problems from different perspectives.
Source: (Gerson, 2020[21]).
Based on this approach, the CGU could initiate and promote a network amongst the integrity leaders across the federal administration to facilitate the exchange of experiences and enable alliances beyond the boundaries of a public entity. Participants could be encouraged to meet virtually (for instance, every two months) and in person (once or twice a year). Moreover, to promote discussion and ensure participants’ involvement in the network, a subject of their interest could be selected in advance. Considering the limited time senior civil servants may have available, it is important to schedule the meetings in advance, ensure topics are interesting and relevant to senior civil servants, and make sure participants understand and appreciate the value the network adds to their personal and professional development.
Creating such a network amongst integrity leaders could have several benefits: It could allow leaders to share information, exchange experiences and learn from their peers, it could provide visibility to common challenges and support from outside one’s own organisation, and it could ensure protection and peer support in finding and implementing solutions that promote public integrity. This is particularly important for female leaders, who may feel particularly supported and protected by this network to overcome their fear and insecurity to discuss misbehaviour and report cases of corruption.
Together with a mentoring programme, having access to tailored experiential learning opportunities such as networking and peer support enriches theoretical learning approaches such as workshops and online modules. Indeed, the hands-on experience of senior civil servants in their day-to-day practice is a valuable source of information. Therefore, an integrity leadership network would complement the conceptual insights provided to the selected leaders by offering them more operational and concrete information emerging from the field and the possibility to directly exchange with their peers. Moreover, as the network would also engage leaders participating in trainings and workshops as well as senior leaders acting as mentors in the mentorship programme, it could be used as a dedicated space for exchanging practices and knowledge acquired during the leadership trainings and workshops.
The CGU could also consider establishing a password protected online space for the network, where integrity leaders can search and contact their peers, post information and materials or questions. This space could also be appropriate to identify the main integrity challenges leaders face and collect suggestions on how to overcome integrity barriers (normative, behavioural, organisational, etc.). As such, the network could become a key ally for the CGU, as the central organ of the SIPEF.
Key recommendations
To set the basic foundations to enable an environment for integrity leadership in the federal administration:
The Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services, in co-ordination with the CGU and the ENAP, could more explicitly include integrity in the competence for leaders and provide for periodical performance evaluations of senior civil servants.
The CGU could measure dimensions of integrity leadership through a regular staff survey to get a sense of where different federal public institutions stand with respect to integrity leadership and to monitor progress and impact of specific targeted interventions.
To further strengthen integrity leadership in Brazil, the following three-steps strategy could be implemented across public institutions of the federal administration:
Step 1: The UGIs could identify a set of leaders as internal allies for promoting integrity values and integrity risk management within their public entity.
Step 2: The CGU could partner with the ENAP to develop general guidance material on how to promote an open organisational culture and provide integrity leadership trainings for senior civil servants. Moreover, the CGU could partner with the ENAP and the UGIs to develop a specific and more intense mentoring and training programme for the identified leaders, tailored to each specific entity.
Step 3: The CGU could initiate and promote a network amongst the identified leaders to facilitate exchange of experiences, promote peer learning and enable alliance beyond the boundaries of a public entity.
Note
← 1. By Decree No 11.529 of 16 May 2023, the SIPEF was replaced by the System of Integrity, Transparency and Access to Information of the Federal Public Administration of Brazil (Sistema de Integridade, Transparência e Acesso à Informação da Administração Pública Federal – SITAI). This new system is expected to maintain the strengths of the SIPEF while also further strengthening integrity, broadening its scope and bringing it closer to themes such as transparency and access to information.