A recent conversation about Integrity
Policies of large corporations had me fuming!
Big companies love strict policies that prohibit their managers from
taking that sixty dollar pen from a client on Christmas. Unfortunately,
in many cases, that is about the biggest impact the policy makes on the company’s
societal behavior.
The policies one sees commonly often have
only one objective: to ensure the company keeps its hands clean when things go
wrong… "we told you not to do it!"
The problem is not with the idea of an
integrity policy. It is with the
Management that wants the policy, but not its full impact. They still want that business in that
"third world" country, and that contract from the company which
demands something more than the price.
It does not have to be procurement alone that is involved. In fact it may not be a purchase or sale at
all. It could be the rights to build an
office or dam, carry on business in a place the locals (or the local
government) do not want, or even access to a market protected by local mafia.
Most companies I know have difficulty
letting that business go away to competition (always on the presumption that
competition does not have any issue with such deals). They want the job. Most smart managers in these companies -- steeped
in its culture -- know exactly what to
do. They may, at best, bring it up while
having a drink with the boss. Most savvy
managers would not do even that. They
know the boss knows. They just 'fix' the
problem.
The best known solution is to outsource the
entire function to a local entity that knows its way around. The cost of the transaction and the demands
of all related parties are taken care of via a ‘transparent’ procurement policy. A clean invoice is produced for valid,
legitimate services and nobody could be wiser.
Lesser managers take undue risks. They arrange pay offs within their powers, disguising
them with legitimate descriptions, and take credit for "achieving the
impossible". These ‘practical’ managers
are often celebrated -- as long as things are going fine. A hall mark of such managers is that they
tend to be kept in the same position for a long time. Designations may change, but they are kept responsible
for that job, so the company gets to benefit from their excellent relations
with locals.
I hope these managers realize they are risking
their careers for the sake of some temporary gains, and, importantly, that they
subsidize the jobs of their bosses. The
bosses who protect these managers are real evil. They are the ones who enjoy the upside of the
transaction, while remaining the “guardians of integrity” in their company and put
the careers of naïve managers at risk, often knowingly.
For the company, these bosses are the
critical, “must have” people who make Integrity Policies work while
facilitating operations.
My problem with such integrity policies is
the mockery it makes of the concept and the way it is used to trap naïve lower
level management, whose loyalty to the company (or fear of losing the job) overshadows
both personal and corporate values.
Indeed, many of those responsible for making such policies are not
unaware of the ways in which it can be bent where required, and often
‘facilitate’ practical exceptions through appropriate use of language and
governance mechanisms.
This is in fact a different policy in the
guise of integrity. It’s called, "Don't
ask, don't tell".
The sad part is that it works – at least in
the short term. The seniors are
protected; the masses – both inside and outside the company -- are ’inspired’
by the policy; the naïve loyals, who are few and carefully chosen, are rewarded
for their loyalty. The company grows
without hindrance.
In fact, even when things go wrong, it can
be handled discreetly, by “letting go” the misguided employee and reiterating
the integrity policy to the press, as well as internally.
The only thing that does not work is
integrity.
-- Sri
