Written by Prof. Mannixs E. Paul, PhD, FCFIP, FCIML, FCECFI, FFAR
An institution that truly aspires to be a beacon of hope in the fight against corruption and in promoting due diligence must recognize the power of public perception. The moment such an institution grants recognition or fellowship to individuals with a questionable past—whether marked by slander, abuse of office, or misuse of trust—it risks weakening its own credibility and betraying its mission. To whom much is given, much is always required.
From a social contract perspective (Rousseau, 1762), institutions exist to serve the collective good, not individual interests. When an organization validates questionable characters, it weakens the trust on which that social contract rests. Legitimacy theory further emphasizes that institutions derive their authority from public acceptance; once credibility is lost, their ability to lead reform collapses.
A genuine moral compass does not rush to celebrate or endorse when the public remains unconvinced, especially in a society where complacency toward corruption is deeply rooted. To shine in the midst of darkness, an institution must first hold the light within. Without that inner light, it becomes no different from the darkness it claims to challenge. As transformational leadership theory argues (Burns, 1978), true leaders and institutions inspire change by modeling integrity and vision—never by compromising with mediocrity.
A good name is worth far more than wealth, because money fades but integrity lasts. Even if people forget, systems of accountability—and the record of history—will not. Here, reputational capital theory (Fombrun, 1996) reminds us that reputation is an intangible asset that sustains institutions long after material resources fade. Awards given without discernment not only diminish reputational capital but also strengthen the culture of corruption they are supposed to resist.
Before honoring anyone, an institution must take time to read the season, understand the climate, and weigh the political and social context. This aligns with institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), which explains how organizations often mirror societal norms. By exercising caution and discernment, institutions resist negative patterns and instead reshape the environment toward integrity.
For an institution to remain a true beacon of hope, it must stand firm on the pillars of transparency, integrity, and honor. Accepting anything less does not constitute leadership; rather, it amounts to complicity. The path forward requires courage, wisdom, and fidelity to values that outlive individuals and political seasons. Only then will institutions light the way for generations yet to come.
References
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The social contract. Amsterdam: Marc-Michel Rey.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Courtesy of MEFoundation