colleagues. Most people would expect the rater who evaluates honesty and integrity the toughest would be the subject's manager. But in reality, managers tend to give their direct reports higher marks for honesty and integrity than those individuals get from their peers -- and than they give themselves. In other words, managers consistently overrate their direct reports' honesty and integrity. And (as you can see from the graph) the more effective an individual is as a leader, the worse this gets. So just as being honest matters more and more, individuals are given more and more of the benefit of the doubt. In a working culture that is increasingly dependent on honesty and integrity (and where organizations face increasingly high consequences when integrity fails), managers should take several important messages away from this research. Knowing that managers tend to assume greater levels of integrity in their direct reports than the workers do themselves, they should not take honesty as a given. Nor should they assume that effectiveness and honesty go hand-in-glove. They should instead take deliberate care to communicate expectations of honesty. They should put stronger structures in place to require and enforce the level of integrity they want to protect and assume is in place. They should take a good look at their own integrity and honesty standards and consider how well those standards are communicated and made evident to their teams. As leaders move up, the dangers, and their consequences multiply. Many of the checks and balances that