Construct Validity
Construct validity relates to whether a particular psychometric assessment...
section one
5 Effective Interview Questions to Measure Integrity
Integrity reflects a person’s adherence to ethical principles, honesty, and a consistent alignment between their values, words, and actions. In the workplace, it manifests through transparency, accountability, fairness, and a commitment to doing the right thing—even when it is inconvenient or when no one is watching.
Employees with high integrity are trusted by colleagues and clients alike, help foster ethical cultures, and are less likely to engage in counterproductive or harmful behaviors.
While specific ethical standards may vary between roles or industries, integrity remains a foundational quality for responsible decision-making, especially in roles involving discretion, compliance, or leadership.
Tell me about a time when you were asked to do something that conflicted with your personal values. How did you handle it?
A strong response will describe a specific situation where the candidate identified an ethical concern and took thoughtful, principled action. They should demonstrate moral reasoning, a willingness to speak up or push back respectfully, and a commitment to integrity even if it came with personal or professional risk. Ideally, they also reflect on what they learned from the experience.
A weak response might show a reluctance to challenge unethical behavior, rationalise it away, or avoid taking responsibility. If the candidate focuses only on external pressures or blames others, without showing self-awareness or values-based decision-making, it may signal lower integrity.
- 1. What values were in conflict in that situation?
- 2. Did you consult anyone before deciding what to do?
- 3. Looking back, would you approach it differently?
Describe a time when you made a mistake at work. How did you deal with it?
Strong responses show the candidate taking full responsibility, being honest about the mistake, and taking proactive steps to correct it. Integrity is reflected in how they communicated the error, owned the consequences, and worked to prevent future issues.
A weak answer might involve denial, minimising the issue, shifting blame, or failing to take corrective action. Evasion or defensiveness suggests a lack of accountability, which undermines integrity.
- 1. How did you notify others about the mistake?
- 2. What did you learn from the experience?
- 3. How did you make sure it didn’t happen again?
Can you give an example of when you saw someone else acting inappropriately at work? What did you do?
A strong response demonstrates ethical awareness and courage in addressing the situation. Whether the candidate intervened directly, escalated the issue through the appropriate channels, or supported others who were affected, the key is showing a clear moral compass and a willingness to act constructively.
Weak responses often involve ignoring the issue, enabling the behavior, or being overly passive. If the candidate shows indifference or fear of “getting involved,” it may indicate a lower level of integrity, especially if the issue had consequences for others.
- 1. Why did you choose to respond (or not) the way you did?
- 2. What was the impact of your actions?
- 3. Would you respond differently today?
Have you ever been in a situation where honesty came at a personal cost? What did you do?
A candidate with high integrity will describe choosing honesty despite potential drawbacks (e.g., upsetting a client, missing out on a reward, or admitting a difficult truth). They should show an internal commitment to transparency and fairness that guided their actions, even under pressure.
A weak response may involve avoiding difficult truths, withholding information, or focusing solely on protecting their own interests. Justifying dishonesty or omitting important details can reflect ethical flexibility, which is a red flag in roles that require trust.
- 1. What were the risks of being honest in that situation?
- 2. How did others react?
- 3. What made you choose to tell the truth anyway?
Tell me about a time when you had to make a decision where there wasn’t a clear right or wrong answer. How did you approach it?
A strong answer includes thoughtful deliberation, weighing competing values, and applying a consistent ethical framework. The candidate may describe seeking advice, consulting policies, or asking, “What’s the fair or responsible thing to do?” The emphasis should be on principled reasoning, not just outcomes.
A weak response might show impulsiveness, indifference to ethical considerations, or prioritising convenience or self-interest over doing what’s right. If the decision is framed purely in terms of personal gain or avoiding difficulty, it may suggest lower integrity.
- 1. How did you evaluate the consequences of different options?
- 2. Did you talk to anyone before making your decision?
- 3. How do you feel about your decision in hindsight?
section two
Limitations of interview questions for Integrity
Assessing integrity through interviews poses several challenges. First, integrity is inherently difficult to measure through self-report: candidates are unlikely to admit to unethical behavior, and most will frame themselves as principled and trustworthy regardless of their actual track record. This creates a high risk of impression management and rehearsed responses, particularly in high-stakes interviews. Additionally, ethical dilemmas in the workplace are often complex and context-dependent, making it difficult to judge a candidate’s actions without full knowledge of the situation.
Moreover, some candidates may lack opportunities to have encountered clear-cut ethical challenges, especially early in their careers. In such cases, answers may be hypothetical or generic, offering little diagnostic value. Finally, strong verbal communication or storytelling skills can create the illusion of integrity, even when underlying behavior is inconsistent. For these reasons, interview questions should be used alongside other evidence—such as reference checks, integrity tests, and observations of behavior over time—when making judgments about a candidate’s trustworthiness and ethical judgment.
