In every organisation, there are employees who are die-hard loyalists; who never entertain the thought of venturing into greener pastures. Such individuals are also extremely passionate and hence lack the tolerance to hear and accept that there could be things and issues within the entity that are either wrong or totally misplaced. The lens through which they view the organisation gathers no mist of doubt or suspicion. For all the wrong practices prevalent, they have a convincing argument arising out of misplaced conviction, however incorrect it may be.
Timidity is also a trait that helps create more loyalists. The Seth culture in our country thrives on this premise: have an army of mediocrity, so that through intimidation they can get them to “see no evil, hear no evil,” etc. Those working in family-owned businesses know best that loyalists are rewarded out of turn; some of them enjoy more power than the CEO, simply because they are loyalists, not necessarily the best performers.
Having laid out the above scenario, it is now important to let reality dawn upon us regarding what ultimately happens to loyalists! Since their survival is based on the loyalty factor, as enunciated above, over a long period of stay in the organisation, they begin to be seen as parasites by the very same people who may have earlier lauded them for their loyalty. Once this perception develops, these individuals are sidelined. They are given no work, and their compensation packages are revised downwards. Loyalty is out of the window. Those who are weak-hearted do not survive the insult. I know of at least one case where the poor loyalist met the Maker in less than a month’s time, following the departure of insult. Martyrdom achieved.
Martyrdom in the business world is not a lifestyle to live by. The display of any pain or suffering attracts very short-lived attention; in quick time, these feelings are consigned to the backyard of management’s memory, which itself is housed in the cold storage of history.
As against martyrs, the Ghazi is one who returns, preferably victorious, from a battlefield; and should he also be wounded, it adds to the many feathers crowning his head. The victor has some chance of rehabilitation. But not all survive the test. Corporate Ghazis are also quickly dumped into the dustbin of forgotten memories.
Where do these corporate martyrs and Ghazis normally emerge from, besides the pool of loyalists? Principally, they appear on the radar in two situations: firstly, when there is a change in management at the senior-most level, or a change in ownership of the institution; and, secondly, from the implications of the implementation of the organisation’s whistle-blowing policies.
In the first instance of a change in management, the incoming president, CEO, or MD encourages colleagues to indulge in wholesale backbiting of each other. Full attention is paid to those willing to identify the “loyalists” of the previous management or ownership. Anyone found to be close to the predecessor is swiftly identified and eventually taken to the guillotine, or alternatively, they are taken to the launderers, especially if the newcomer is told that such staff are still in touch with the predecessor. This activity is done both openly and surreptitiously. The newcomers, for lack of will and resolve, refuse to take the bull by the horns; instead, they adopt subterranean techniques to push people towards corporate martyrdom.
It is my strongly held view that only those who are not committed to basic “values,” or even “corporate values,” indulge in witch-hunts. Those who pose potential threats are pulverised through erratic behaviour, to the extent that the counterparty is rendered inconsequential within the workforce. Fear, doubt, and suspicion are but a few tactics deployed; however, it is these elements that limit the perpetrators of such vindictiveness from emerging as true leaders.
The other source of martyrdom is a policy. Almost all organisations have a Board-approved “Whistle-Blowing Policy.” For financial institutions, it is a regulatory requirement. The central premise of such a policy is to preempt and stop anything that smells of financial, moral, or social impropriety, or in extreme situations, corruption and nepotism. It is generally believed that under the watchful eyes of colleagues, anyone attempting to do anything inconsistent with acceptable norms and standards will get reported by another colleague; following which, after due process, the individual is shown the door.
The term “witch-hunt” originated from the Salem Witch Trials, conducted between the 15th and 19th centuries. The premise of such trials was based on suspicion. When used in an organisational parlance, witch-hunts refer to a situation where individuals, either singly or collectively, are unfairly accused and charged without corroborative evidence. These individuals become victims of the insecurities suffered by others. They are harassed in a subtle manner.
A complete witch-hunt begins in the organisation. A fully charged campaign is let loose against one or a group of individuals who may have shown resistance to fresh inductions. The term witch-hunt, when mentioned in the corporate world, doesn’t indicate “casting spells” and “counter spells,” nor does it indicate a battle involving armoury. Today, the meaning it acquires is used to identify those who were loyalists.
Blatant and obvious financial corruption is easy to identify and control. However, subtle corruption is much harder to discover. Unnoticeable corruption can include making purchases at prices not reflective of the market price, hiring relatives and friends without proper disclosures, making exorbitant gifts, or offering services at lavish discounts.
In the treasury function of a financial institution, a close watch must be kept on the “pricing” of transactions. If it is out of the market, it must be investigated. There has to be a documented reason for quoting outside of the market price. If the back office or middle office notices any aberration in rate quotations, they must pull the plug on the trader. The one who does so takes upon themselves a great risk. The trader may be in cahoots with the treasurer, and if that is the case, the whistle-blower may face reprisals later in life.
It is easy to report your supervisor, but to carry on from there requires steel-like character, tenacity, and conviction. Even if what is discovered and reported is true, other members of the team may become apprehensive of such a colleague. The whistle-blowers can be isolated; some colleagues may subtly, while others quite loudly, decide not to interact with them.
Recently, I received a call from a colleague who wanted to blow the whistle on at least three levels of hierarchy above her for anti-social activities. I advised her that only with irrefutable evidence should the whistle be blown; otherwise, it is better to remain silent. In business and reputation matters, I have seen organisations refuse to take action against culprits, and ultimately it is the whistle-blower who suffers. If they survive retaliatory action, they are likely to be christened as Corporate Ghazis, and if they succumb, they end up as “corporate martyrs.”
Whistle-blowing is the act of an employee or outsider, such as a vendor, revealing information about the activities of colleagues that fall within the scope of being illegal, immoral, unsafe, illicit, or fraudulent. It is believed that the presence of a whistle-blowing policy acts as a deterrent and diminishes the likelihood of fraud and forgery, as well as enhancing efficient and effective governance. In some organisations, whistle-blowers, in addition to being assured of non-retaliation, are offered rewards and gifts. In my experience, what is stated as policy is not necessarily an article of unquestionable faith—it is open to misrepresentation and can be used against the whistle-blower. The negative consequences can include legal and financial costs.
In some jurisdictions, corporate Ghazis and martyrs can file claims for automatic and unfair dismissal. However, this is no guarantee that whistle-blowers will be protected throughout the remaining years of their work life.
Perform, but without ambitions to become a corporate martyr or Ghazi should be the aspiration. Loyalty must be understood with clarity.
Sirajuddin Aziz
The writer is a senior banker and freelance contributor.
