The word integrity has many meanings depending on how it is used. Integrity most commonly is used in a context of ethics and standards and some sort of benchmark for quality behaviour or social standing. Yet more to its true meaning, integrity should be pared back from this modern popular useage to its barebones foundations.

A rose is a rose is a rose.
If it flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck and eats and swims with the ducks then chances are it is a duck. But is it?

Integrity should accurately be used in the context of how much the subject being described is true to its form.

A hammer is a hammer until its not a hammer. If it is never used as a hammer is it still a hammer?
Is a musician still a musician if he stops playing a musical instrument?

Topically, if a politician never does what they say then are they a politician? Well its tempting to say 'yes' in Australia.

If a jay walker never ever ever crosses the road at a zebra crossing then it would be hard to mount a case the jay walker has no integrity.

Creating an Integrity Organisation must start with this primary foundation, nothing less and nothing more.

Our understanding of the word and its meaning needs to be addressed for its own integrity before we can really begin building any serious organisation with any integrity of its own.