The Meaning of Integrity among Public Officers: a Phenomenology Study

Good governance can be realized if public officials have integrity. The integrity of public officials is a source of public trust in the government's performance in providing public services. This research aims to describe the meaning of integrity and internal factors that strengthen integrity from the perspective of public officials. Our study used a qualitative method based on phenomenological philosophy. Participants were selected based on three criteria: (1) echelon II officials as Heads of Regional Government Work Units, (2) have excellent work performance, and (3) have never violated the code of ethics, regulations, and laws. We conducted face-to-face, in-depth interviews to collect the data and analyzed the data using. Our findings reveal eight meanings of integrity by public officials and internal factors that strengthen integrity. Eight meanings of integrity include carrying out duties and obligations seriously; being honest in carrying out tasks; discipline, complying with procedures and regulations; consistency between values/principles and behavior; being fair; having moral courage; being a role model for subordinates; not abusing position for personal gain or specific parties. Meanwhile, internal factors that strengthen integrity include: social-oriented terminal value, moral-oriented instrument value; competency-oriented instrument value, self-awareness as a public servant, simple lifestyle, change motivation, learning motivation, and achievement motivation


Introduction
Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia aims to create good governance. Good governance requires human resources of the state apparatus to have integrity, neutrality, competence, capability, professionalism, excellent work performance, and prosperity. Good governance can be realized if the human resources of the state apparatus, especially public officials, have integrity. As stated in Government Regulation No. 46 of 2011, integrity is the ability to act according to the organization's values, norms, and ethics. Wiranta (2015) explains that bureaucracy is an executive administration with considerable authority to manage public assets, provide public services, and determine public policies. Laws Of The Republic Indonesia Number 14 of 2008 about Public Information Disclosure defines a Public Official as a person appointed and assigned to occupy a specific position in a public institution.
Public officials have discretionary power. Discretion is an authority given to public officials to act on their own initiative in taking actions that are not regulated by laws and regulations. As a result, that position is prone to be falsely used to gain personal or group benefits while implementing public policies. Based on Government regulation No. 13 of 2003, public officials at the echelon II level are considered top managers of work units (agencies). They are responsible for the effectiveness of the institutions they lead through their expertise in designing and implementing strategies to realize policy points. Echelon II is directly accountable to the Regional Head through the Regional The Corruption Eradication Commission Handbook: Integrity Assessment Survey (2017) explained that the word integrity comes from the English language, namely integrity, which means: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty; morally undamaged or perfect condition. Furthermore, it is explained that integrity is defined as the determination of the bureaucratic apparatus and public officials not to ask for or accept anything that is improper/authority to create good governance. Mastracci (2019) defines integrity as making decisions consistently according to one's values and doing so transparently and responsibly.
Meanwhile, Armstrong (2005) establishes the integrity of public officials as "honesty" or "trust" in carrying out official duties, functioning as the antithesis of "corruption" or "abuse of office." Molina (2018) defines the integrity of public officials as the extent to which the actions of public officials are consistent with what stakeholders consider to be morally right or wrong in certain circumstances. Graaf et al. (2018) wrote that in the context of government, several experts had defined integrity as being consistent and coherent in principles, values, and actions (Montefiore, 1999), following the regime's values and rules (Rohr, 1989) and acting by relevant moral values, norms, and regulations (Huberts et al., 2006).
Based on these definitions, it can be concluded that the integrity of public officials is seen through the quality of their action, namely whether it follows moral values, norms, and rules. These values and norms decide what behaviors are considered right or wrong and whether a public official did a good job at exercising power for justified/legal reasons to create good governance.
The importance of the integrity of public officials for the community is evidenced by Aryani et al. (2013), who discovered that a leader deserves to be trusted if he has high integrity and competence in his capacity as a leader. The results also show that a leader's integrity has the highest score compared to other factors. As novice voters, 67.8% of student trust a leader based on his integrity, 23.4% by competence, and 8.8% categorized as meaningless. Males (75% of 36 people) and females (65.6% of 103 people) trust a leader for their integrity. Research by Huberts et al. (2007) shows the importance of role models in limiting unethical behavior in interpersonal relationships. He also found that leaders' assertiveness effectively controls fraud, corruption, and resource abuse.

858
The research results of Gentry et al. (2013) show: a) the integrity of middle managers is positively related to their performance; b) integrity is relatively less critical to middle managers' performance than other character strengths (e.g., social intelligence); c) integrity is relatively more important to top managers' performance and; d) the difference between middle and top managers is found in the aspects of courage and integrity as the two most important predictors of performance. In line with the results of this study, Mruk (2017) explained that there are four essential qualities of an effective leader: integrity (actions that are consistent with stated values), strategic perspective, inspiring self and colleagues, and improving self and team abilities. Huberts et al. (2007) highlighted the importance of role models in limiting unethical behavior in the context of interpersonal relationships and effectivity of leaders' assertiveness in controlling fraud, corruption, and resource abuse. One of the findings by Jonesa & Lasthuizenb (2018) shows that ethical leadership decreases the frequency of all types of integrity violations. The strongest impact on bribery (β=-.14), favoritism by superiors (β =.15), and gratification (β=.15). The better examples of leader behavior, the less the occurrence of bribery, favoritism, and gratification. Both studies prove the importance of the role of leaders in setting an example of ethical conduct that has an impact on reducing integrity violations.
Based on the five research results, it can be concluded that it is essential for public officials to have integrity in carrying out their roles and duties. A person with integrity will gain the community's trust and become a role model to their subordinates, thereby limiting integrity violations. Integrity also becomes a predictor of one's performance. Considering the critical role of public officials, strong integrity is needed in carrying out their duties to serve the community's needs. Thus, understanding how public officials perceive the meaning of integrity becomes essential. Therefore, this study aims to describe the meaning of integrity and the internal factors that strengthen integrity from public officials' perspectives.

Study Design
This is a qualitative study using a phenomenological approach. Langdridge (2007) explained that qualitative methods are concerned with the naturalistic description or interpretation of phenomena in terms of the meanings that people have of them. We used a phenomenological approach for this study. Moustakas (1994) explained that phenomenology focus on people's perceptions of the world in which they live and what it means to them. In other words, it focuses on a person's life experiences. Moustakas (1994) focuses on one of Husserl's concepts, namely epoch (bracketing), in which the researchers put aside their own experience as much as they can and uses a new perspective when looking at the studied phenomena.

Participants
The participant inclusion criteria consists of: (1) echelon II public officials with good performance (i.e., being able to meet or exceed the work target), (2) assessed by superiors, peers, and subordinates as having good integrity, worthy of being an example for others in the workplace and community, and (3) never having a record of violating the code of ethics, regulations, and laws. This list of inclusion criteria were given to the Head of the Regional Civil Service Agency. Based on these criteria, the Head of the Regional Civil Service Agency recommended ten names of echelon II public officials. Furthermore, the researchers followed up on these recommendations by giving informed consent. Out of 10 recommended individuals, six people provided informed consent in writing and provided time for interviews.

Data collection and Ethics
Before data collection, the researchers were granted a research permit by the institution to collect the data. All six public officials have signed informed consent. Once we obtained the informed consent, we arranged the time and place of the interview according to the participants' request. At the start of the interview, we openly introduced ourselves, explained the research's themes and objectives, and sought approval to record the interview process. We also stated that participants are allowed to refuse to answer if there are questions they consider private or sensitive. Several questions were asked to research participants: a) As a public official, how do you define integrity?; b) What dilemmatic events/situations have you experienced in carrying out your duties? and c) What are some of the internal factors that strengthen integrity? After the interview, we thanked the participants and asked for their willingness to be involved in the next stage of the interview if needed for the completeness and depth of the data.

Data Analysis
Moustakas (1994) describes the stages of analyzing data in using a phenomenological approach as follows: a) analyzed the data by reducing the information into significant statements or utterances from the participants: and then b) the researchers combined these statements into themes. Next, the researcher compiled a textural description of the participants' experiences (what the participants experienced) and a structural characterization of the experience (how the participants shared the experiences, the conditions, the situation, and the context). Furthermore, the combination of textural and structural descriptions is combined in a narrative that describes the entire essence of the experience studied.

Results
In total, there are six participants, all male, aged between 52-59 years, working as a civil servant for 22-36 years, with a master's degree as their highest level of education-demographic description are shown in Table 1. During the interview, the researcher felt that the participants were open and enthusiastic to share their career experiences while serving as Civil Servants, including their family background, formal education, and career journey as civil servants. The average interview time was two to three hours.

Journal of Educational, Health and Community
The interview results found two main themes, namely the meaning of integrity and internal factors that strengthen integrity from the perspective of public officials, as shown in Table 2.

Meaning of Integrity
Public officials consider integrity to be reflected through carrying out duties and obligations seriously, being honest when carrying out tasks, having discipline by complying with procedures and regulations, having consistency between values and behavior, being fair, having moral courage, being a role model for subordinates, and not abusing position for personal gain or specific parties.

Carry out duties and obligations seriously
All participants felt that acting with integrity as a public official means carrying out their obligations seriously. It is a form of responsibility to carry out tasks by mobilizing resources.
"...those who work seriously will be the ones to get the benefit, so in working we must be serious, the results are not only now, but we will get in the future..." (S2-S061020 "I assign officials not based on likes or dislikes but on their competence and integrity"(S1-051020).
"We have to be willing to serve regardless of who, regardless of how much that person gives. What is clear is that when the requirements are complete, we process them according to the procedure..."(S3-K171120).

Have Moral Courage
Moral courage is defined as the values, beliefs, and principles displayed and voiced appropriately with an assertive attitude.
"...we have often said in meeting forums that there are still violations, so I explicitly say that for civil servants, we will not give jobs, we will not give jobs, so there is plenty of time to learn to evaluate themselves. For contract workers, we fire them. In my opinion, these rewards and punishments are more effective. By the rules, they already know everything." (S3-KM171120). "...the education office has a big budget, related to the procurement of uniforms and books, ...indeed it goes back to our integrity. Some people don't understand that, so they sometimes misuse or take some part of that budget for their personal gain. I've tried to warn them. If I've already warned them once or twice with no success, I will transfer them to a different unit with less budget." (S1-MU051020).

Being a Role Model for Subordinates
The results of the interview show that the participant provided direction regarding work values and behavior as well as examples of work behavior to subordinates, as quoted below: "...As an official, I have to give color. At least I must set an example for my subordinates: work hard, stop thinking about stuff, work overtime every day..."(S4-C171120).
"… It is said to have integrity when the public official has started to set an example. Integrity means that I do my job properly,….and that task must be completed." (S5-C191120).
"... as in the Civil Service Police Unit, we need a figure who truly serves as an example, before we give orders to patrol a certain location, we must be at that location and know in advance the situation that occurs in that place so that when we give orders, members will be ready and can immediately go to the location" (S2-C051020).

Not Abusing Position or Authority
The participants convey that integrity also means not abusing their position or authority for personal or other parties' gain, as in the sentence below: "Since the benchmark of our professional performance is integrity, (through

Internal Factors That Strengthen Integrity
Internal factors that strengthen integrity are social-oriented terminal value; moral-oriented instrument value; competency-oriented instrument value; self-awareness as a public servant; simple lifestyle; change motivation; learning motivation, and achievement motivation.

Social-Oriented Terminal Value
Terminal values refer to the goals that a person wants to achieve in his life.

Moral-Oriented Instrument Value
To achieve the goal of realizing the benefit and welfare of the community, participants carried out a pattern of behavior based on moral values originating from the teachings of Islam. Islam teaches about good morals / commendable morals, including honesty, sincerity, establishing friendship and cooperation, and giving to others. As quoted from the interview below: "We are the Ummah of the Prophet Muhammad. It has been explained that the critical thing is morality. It is this morality that must be changed. It's useless that people are smart, but their morals are not good because if someone has good character, good attitude, good behavior then the community will also judge them as a good person "(S1-NM051020) "...I have to involve many people, the concept is that we work together, I am the boss with my subordinates, or I am with other cations, and so on, when done together, the output we produced will be much greater" (S4-NM171120)

Competency-Oriented Instrument Value
Based on the excerpts from the interviews below, the participant assesses the importance of studying to increase insight and logical and intellectual thinking skills so that they have competence in carrying out their duties. "My father is a farm laborer, but my father never asked me to help with his work. My father always told me to study and go to school" (S2-061020).

Self-Awareness as a Public Servant
Self-awareness as a public servant is an internal factor that strengthens integrity, as quoted from the following interview: "The factor from within that strengthens integrity is awareness, awareness of ourselves that we are public servants, that is the underlying factor, what we must realize is that we are servants, not the one being served" (S3-KD171120).

Simple Lifestyle
This simple lifestyle is based on the belief in Islam that Allah SWT is the giver of fortune and has arranged the fortune of each of His servants. As an implication, we try to achieve fortune in a way that can be justified according to religious and legal norms, as quoted from the interview below:

Change Motivation
Participants are motivated to change the work environment because unfavorable systems and work behavior exist. The motivation to make changes in the work environment was seen across participants. The purpose of the change was to create a better situation than before, both related to changes in mindset, attitude, and work behavior, as quoted below: "Before this, I worked nine years at BUMN on projects around Indonesia. While working as a civil servant, I saw my work colleagues' performance at the office. I noticed their work style was not good, and I wanted to change that… I start by changing myself first…." (S4-MP171120).
"...firstly, changing our mindset is not easy. For example, people used to work without many rules like now, before, it was just normal, it doesn't have to be driven by very high performance,...secondly, back then, we were still allowed to ask for something like fees for transportation and food from the community we serve, but now this is not allowed, this habit needs to be changed." (S3-MP171120).

Learning Motivation
Motivation to learn is not only manifested in continuing studies to the postgraduate level. It is also shown from independently trying to gain knowledge from parties who are competent in their fields to solve problems that arise at work and to improve the quality of work, as quoted below: "... from that challenge, I finally bought college books and books from my work experience. I continued to study them... finally, I learned the basics of the field. I then have a principle; people usually say experience in the field is more important than the theory... that's a misnomer. In reality, we face problems in the field that require us to return to the theory." (S5-MB191120).

"...we invite resource persons from the inspectorate (and) from the prosecutor's office to provide information so that it is clear what is allowed and what is not.
That way, we can work without hesitation, so our products and services can be accounted for."(S3-MB171120).

Achievement Motivation.
Achievement motivation means one is motivated to achieve goals, persevere, overcome obstacles, fulfill commitments, and maintain or exceed expectations and performance standards. The following interview excerpts show the performance achievements: "....that the supporting data for housing must be correct, then the implementation related to planning, data collection, monitoring, supervision and control, I compiled in a concept. This concept has received an award in Gresik Regency, so this is the first time …"(S4-MP171120).
"This includes how we empower the community to maintain order and security in the context of regional head elections, which previously had successful legislative, the village head, and presidential elections. Welcoming this regional head election is also our responsibility" (S2-MP061020).

Meaning of Integrity
Findings from this study reveal eight meanings of integrity based on the perspective of public officials. Five of the eight meanings of integrity include carrying out duties and obligations by truly showing commitment and hard work in carrying out tasks, being honest, having consistency between values and behavior, having self-discipline by complying with procedures and rules, having moral courage, and being fair. This finding is in line with the research by Barnard et al. (2008).
Integrity is also defined as the consistency of words and actions (Simons, 2002(Simons, , 1999Huse,1998;Palanski, 2007;Martin, 2013). The consistency between words and actions is also reflected in the participants' statements that they always provide direction regarding positive work values and attitudes to subordinates. More than that, participants provide examples of work behavior in accordance with the directions given to subordinates. Six et al. (2007Six et al. ( , 2008 explain that there are three criteria to assess the integrity of leaders in organizations: law, code of ethics, and informal moral norms and values. All participants stated they were concerned about carrying out their duties as public officials and used the government's code of ethics and regulations as a guideline. Participants viewed integrity as being expressed through not abusing their authority for personal or specific group benefit. Public officials' integrity is tied to how their behavior and decisions must be made for legally valid reasons (Cooper et al., 2005). Weinreb (2003) also explained that there are at least three indicators of the integrity of public officials: not being involved in corruption, not accepting bribery to conduct specific action, and not obtaining personal benefit from conflicts of interest which are generally criminal acts or actions that can be sanctioned.

Integrity Strengthening Internal Factors
As explained by Rokeach (1979)  Participants also realized that it is necessary to have proper skills and intellectual knowledge to benefit society. Rokeach (1973) mentions the value of a competency-oriented value. In addition to the value of a moral-oriented value, we also found that competency-oriented value strengthens integrity. This is one of the novel findings from this research.
Another new finding is that public officials' self-awareness contributes to reinforcing integrity. Spears (2002) explains that a servant leader is a leader who prioritizes service, starting with the natural feeling of someone who wants to serve and to put service first. Furthermore, this choice brings aspirations and encouragement to lead others. Kaloh (2014) explains that public officials must focus on developing government organizations to be more efficient in serving the public interest, responsive and sensitive to everything society expects.
The participants stated that having a simple lifestyle can be a factor that strengthens integrity. This means that they are satisfied with their salary as civil servants and try to regulate their lifestyle according to their salary. This simple lifestyle is based on the belief in Islam that Allah is the giver of fortune and has arranged the fortune of each of His servants. As an implication, Individuals try to This study found that the participant has a solid motivation to make changes, learning motivation, and achievement motivation. Individuals with change and learning motivation support each other to achieve work performance within the scope of the work unit they lead. The purpose of the change is intended to create better conditions than before, related to changes in mindset, attitude, and work behavior, as well as in technical terms of work implementation. This finding corroborates the research results by Barnar et al. (2008), who found that a person's inner drive affects their integrity.
Inner drive conceptualizes one's needs, aspirations, desires, and goals. Motivation for achievement, progress, and hard work is an inner drive that underlies one's integrity.
The integrity of public officials is a topic that has relatively not been studied much, so the novelty is an advantage of this research. The research participants seemed enthusiastic, open, and appreciative based on all the explanations they conveyed. Their statements are a reflection of themselves. There are several limitations in this study. First, only six out of 10 recommended people were involved in this study. Second, our research has not explored in depth the types of dilemmatic situations that could test public officials' integrity. Lastly, we have not explored the external factors from organizations and society.

Conclusion
There are several lessons learned from our findings. First, the meaning of integrity from the perspective of public officials is more comprehensive when compared with the integrity indicators apparatus position competence standards. Second, based on the perspective of public officials, integrity is manifested in various ethical behaviors: carrying out duties and responsibilities seriously, being honest while carrying out tasks, having self-discipline by complying with procedures and regulations, having consistency between principles and behavior, being fair, having moral courage, being a role model for subordinates, and not abusing position for personal gain. Third, several internal characteristics of public officials strengthen integrity, including social-oriented terminal value, moral-oriented instrument value, competency-oriented instrument value, self-awareness as a public servant, simple lifestyle, change motivation, learning motivation, and achievement motivation.
In the context of assessing the personal performance of public officials, there is something to note.
First, the integrity of public officials is the main determinant of the performance of public officials in providing services to the community. Second, it is not enough to assess the integrity of public officials based solely on indications of not committing corruption, not abusing power and not committing any form of violation of the law, but it is important to assess indicators of integrity such as carrying out duties and responsibilities seriously, being honest while carrying out tasks, having consistency between principles and behavior, being fair, having moral courage, being a role model for subordinates.Third, socially oriented personal values, morals and competence, style simple living, motivation for change, motivation for learning and achievement motivation can be used as predictors of the integrity of candidates for public office.
This study found that there are multiple meanings of integrity, which are manifested in carrying out their duties as public officials, so that this research contributes to the field of psychometrics, namely as knowledge for developing instruments to measure the integrity of public officials. Meanwhile in the field of public administration, this study contribute to the importance of understanding and awareness of public officials as public servants as integrity strengthening factors.Therefore, to strengthen the integrity of public officials, efforts are needed to increase understanding and awareness as well as implementation as public servants for public officials.