EV-0004
Behavioral integrity — the academic construct behind "words matching deeds"
Simons, T. (2002). Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35 · Source
What this entitles us to say
There is an established organizational-behavior construct — behavioral integrity, the perceived alignment between a manager's words and deeds — which gives an academic vocabulary for exactly what the book calls the Honesty/Integrity dyad.
What it found
Defines and develops behavioral integrity as a distinct construct: not moral goodness, not honesty in the abstract, but the perceived alignment between what a manager says and what they do — and argues it belongs at the center of research on trust and leadership.
Why it matters here
It gives the book's most distinctive move an academic footing. The first four traits are dyads by design — two words for one two-sided idea — and Honesty/Integrity is the clearest case: honesty is the word, integrity is the match between word and act. Simons named and studied precisely that pairing, independently. Useful when someone assumes the dyads are a stylistic quirk rather than a considered distinction.
The limits
A theoretical and agenda-setting paper rather than an outcome study; cite it for the definition and the framing, not for effects. The construct is explicitly about perception by others, which is a meaningful difference from self-assessment.
What we do not say
anything implying this paper validates our framework. It validates the distinction, not the program.