• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Managing the ethical dimension offshore

by Kerrie Henderson

You're in a foreign environment. It's exciting and challenging, but at times it also seems as if you've moved into Dodge City on a bad day. Deadlines are more made of rubber than set in cement; everyone tells you there's nothing wrong even though nothing gets done; there seems to be unofficial fees attached to everything and there are a number of people in your office who seem to get paid to do very little.

It seems like there are no rules at all, and the advice you often get is of the “When in Rome ...” variety. Especially if you have been set some ambitious targets for growing the business and generating returns, it appears easy to take the advice and adopt “local ethics”.

But do you really know what's happening?

The first step in a process of ethical reflection is to identify and weigh up the relevant facts. Do you have a conflict of ethics or a communication problem?

We all interpret the world through the prism of cultural values and assumptions. As children we learn that certain words represent particular ideas, and that certain types of behaviour indicate certain things about people. This knowledge underpins the way we deal with others and how we read their behaviour: as honest, trustworthy or otherwise.

Most people readily accept that learning another language means discounting what the same sounds and words mean in English: for example, we easily understand that while you can use the word 'air' in English to mean the gas that you breathe each day, if you write the same word in Indonesian you will be talking instead about water. What we often forget is that similar rules apply to non-verbal communication too.

If you do not bear this in mind, it is easy to interpret as unprincipled or unethical, behaviour which is actually differently principled. It may be that the ethical dilemma you perceive is not a clash of ethical principles, but a failure of real communication.

A common example is the case of the site manager who regularly asks his foreman, publicly, whether there are any problems with the project and is regularly told that everything is fine. When he finds out that there are in fact major problems, and that deadlines cannot be met, he angrily concludes that the foreman and the workforce can't be trusted because they have 'obviously' been lying to him.

They are seen as trying to protect themselves and their mates and have no commitment to the project. The foreman on the other hand is angry and frustrated too. The site manager keeps asking formal questions in public, when the foreman 'obviously' has no option but to give the necessary formal answer that everything is fine. The site manager 'obviously' can't be trusted to look after the interests of his workforce, and does not want or deserve their loyalty.

Cultural training and sensitivity are important tools for the ethical expat. Once you realise what is driving the behaviour that is causing you the problem, it can often be addressed through changes in communication or management style without the need to compromise your ethics. You can develop a shared ethic.

However, sometimes you can't. Sometimes the proposition under consideration is beyond the realm of compromise, and more sophisticated processes are called for.

What do you do now?

You are the expatriate manager of a joint venture enterprise, and you work together on an equal footing with a co-manager from your partner company. The joint venture needs to employ a middle manager. Your co-manager is pushing for the employment of someone who happens to be his cousin. The person has the technical qualifications but you know that there are many more suitable candidates. You also suspect that your co-manager is being offered a substantial inducement to accommodate his cousin.

Your parent company's code of conduct says that jobs at this level should be advertised or handled independently by a recruiting agency, and that the best qualified candidate should be appointed after interview. Anyone with a personal connection to an applicant would be expected to exclude themselves from the selection process.

You have a true ethical conflict.

Before you decide on a course of action, you need to consider the possibilities available to you:

You can insist. This is the most aggressive response, possible only where you have the strength to force the issue and get your way. It can leave lingering resentments and bitterness, and therefore involves a real risk. Given this, it is really only appropriate where the issue is important and urgent.

You can avoid the issue. Surprisingly perhaps, avoiding is a very aggressive thing to do. It involves ignoring the other side of the argument and either proceeding as if your view were the only available one or simply taking no action at all. It forces the other side to choose between confronting you (which can be culturally offensive in many communities) or doing what you want. Clearly it is risky too. The risk of protracted confrontation means that it is not available in situations of extreme urgency, and the risk of resentment makes it unsuitable for minor issues.

You can try to educate the other party. This is a longer-term strategy, and presumes that the problem does not need to be resolved quickly. It is a strategy adopted by a party in a position of comparative strength, since it involves the imposition of one party's values system, albeit with the co-operation of the other. It involves considerable time and effort, and is therefore unsuited to minor issues.

You can try to 'infiltrate', gradually but informally changing procedures to your way of doing things, trying to convince others as you go. This is a long-term strategy, which is suited to both important and minor issues. It is most often used when the parties are in positions of comparable strength.

You can negotiate. Negotiation presumes a fairly equal bargaining position and involves agreement on a compromise solution. It is suited to urgent situations, but may not be appropriate to important issues because it will necessarily involve the sacrifice of some aspects of your position.

You can collaborate, in a joint problem solving exercise. This involves the parties in discussing and analysing the problem and devising a mutually acceptable solution. Since it requires time, it is unlikely to work in urgent situations without a long established relationship. It is particularly suited to important issues since it is a creative process that is more likely to produce a lasting result which both parties can live with.

You can accommodate the other party. This is the most passive option, the direct opposite of forcing. Where the issue is urgent, important to the other party and your bargaining position is weak, you may have no option but to cave in or walk away.

However, merely understanding the range of available strategies is not enough for an ethical response. The selection of the appropriate strategy is an ethical decision in itself, calling for a balancing of values and principles. When coupled with an open mind and clearly communicated aims, the potential for successful resolution of the simplest or most complex ethical issues is greatest.

discuss this article

---