Not every compliance officer is cut out to be an integrity officer, and I say that with deep respect for both roles. Compliance is essential. It protects organizations, ensures that legal obligations are met, and maintains everything with structure and accountability. But integrity requires something different. It’s not about following the framework—it’s about questioning what it’s built on, and whether it genuinely serves the people and principles we claim to protect.
When I talk about integrity, I’m not referring to codes of conduct or check-the-box ethics. I’m talking about the kind of leadership that challenges quietly accepted norms, even when they’re technically compliant. It means being willing to ask hard questions about how our decisions will land, not just in the moment, but well beyond it. It’s about having the presence to recognize when something doesn’t sit right, and the nerve to say it out loud. And it takes genuine empathy to understand the human impact of decisions made in boardrooms and committee meetings, fostering a culture of empathy and understanding.
I’ve seen compliance professionals who are brilliant with regulatory frameworks but struggle when asked to lead with values. It’s not a fault—it’s just a different calling. Integrity work is messy and uncomfortable. It doesn’t come with a manual. You need moral clarity to distinguish what’s merely acceptable from what’s truly right, instilling a sense of principled decision-making. You need composure, especially when pushing against inertia or entrenched interests. You need to be a trusted voice, someone who can frame conversations around values in a way that resonates with your employees. And above all, you must commit to independence while having the courage to challenge what has been normalized.
That distinction isn’t just anecdotal—it’s supported by experts in ethical governance. LRN, for example, has explored the evolving role of integrity officers, noting they are most effective when “seated at the table where business decisions are made.” Their work highlights that while compliance focuses on rules, integrity demands that we align decisions with values and purpose. Similarly, commentary published by Corporate Compliance Insights challenges organizations to avoid the trap of performative ethics and instead empower integrity leaders to shape culture, an emphasis echoed by governance consultants like Richard Bistrong, who believes integrity leadership is earned, not assigned.
Organizations that genuinely support this kind of leadership aren’t simply adding another checkpoint. They build cultures rooted in respect and openness, where people can raise concerns and know they’ll be heard. Governance structures offer absolute independence—not just on paper, but in practice. Leaders are driven by curiosity about the “why” behind decisions, not just the “what.” They embed transparency into how things are done, not just how they’re explained. And they treat reputation as something earned over time, rather than as a brand to be managed and maintained.
So yes, the distinction matters. While every leader should lead with integrity, not every compliance officer is positioned—or expected—to shape the organization’s ethical outlook. And while integrity officers must understand and respect compliance, their role goes beyond rule interpretation. These responsibilities are distinct, and when we treat them as interchangeable, we dilute their impact and confuse accountability.
Where integrity leads, progress follows.
Signed with purpose,
Desiree.