Haïti – Rebuild with Abnegation? It sums up all dangers!
46
like it- 10 comments
- ‹ Back to all posts
The Haitian people haven’t buried yet their dead dear ones; the rest of the world hasn’t had yet the time to realize the extent of this disaster that the interest in rebuilding has already been expressed. It would be an understatement to say that rebuilding almost entirely their capital, the buildings, the governmental infrastructures, not to forget all the small suburbs, it is something huge, more like a megaproject of the modern era. And if it were only about rebuilding! At the same time, civil life has to be restored quickly. The democratic institution has to set off again; the Haitian people had already paid a high price for it!
The predators are watchful and mingle with the Good Samaritans. In this case as in many others, “man is a wolf to man.” Americans, Canadians, French, they are all the same, and Haitians make no exception. Why should there be fewer black sheep than in Montreal? What foreign investors could really claim that they could do more there than in their own countries since the projects to be developed are a hundred times more important than the water meters or even CHUM cases?
Rebuilding and maintaining the sovereignty in Haiti sums up the most pertinent question in management of modern times. How to Plan, Organise, Direct, Control, and Coordinate amounts of money, loans, and donations coming from the whole world while being supervised by important controlling powers and UNO, not taking into account the risk of ending up in anarchy, destroying political and ideological interests, and facing the financial lobby. A bunch of vultures flying over a cuckoo’s nest.
Although this may never happen, I’d like to believe in an international will for Sound Management, practiced in agreement with a supranational institution and Haiti’s sovereign authorities. Let’s imagine various governing bodies sharing the same Sound Management principles on which their joint management would be based. All participants would take advantage out of it but not to the detriment of others. It would all result in the rebirth of a town and of a country, making the whole world proud because they finally would have succeeded in helping the poorest people on earth lead a better life.
What is the Sound Management model?
We can dream about it. The Sound Management approach is however impossible without goodwill people, a quality easy to verify, which makes this practice unavoidable, and even almost incorruptible. Incorruptible and difficult to handle! That’s the first reason why people will stay away from the Sound Management concept.
The purpose of the Sound Management concept is to ensure the organizations’ viability and their mission. In this case, the mission would be rebuilding Haiti. The viability is the objective that doesn’t come in contradiction with the profit; however, in Sound Management viability prevails. There is the second reason why the Sound Management concept can’t help Haiti!
Once the worn-out Good Samaritans lose their energy as volunteers and get some well-deserved rest, who will make the real business? Serious business people sitting on serious boards of directors who will have to account for their actions to shareholders and bankers, such as Wall Street, and whose expectancies will be a short-term profitability proportional to their gigantic needs. There will also be contractors, not only Haitians, who will do everything in their power to get a piece of the action. There is also the risk that democracy be disrupted by the earth tremors.
And the foreign politicians will be torn between their need of having a good reputation and that of making a political capital (if it weren’t for the Abnegation principle to hold us back!), without forgetting to cope with their own management issues. It would be undoubtedly much easier to implement a Sound Management approach in a new international organization dedicated to Haiti, but taking into account the mess within their own management, they will surely find a way to invalidate the Sound Management in order to avoid facing the feeling of guiltiness.
And there are also all the other reasons.
Bernard Brault, F. Adm.A, F. CMC, is an expert consultant in Governance, in Managerial Ethics®, and in Sound Management. He is also the author of the following books: Exercer la saine gestion, Fondements, pratique et audit, and Le cadre de Saine Gestion, un modèle de gouvernance intégré, published by CCH.
10 comments
Cet article m’a beaucoup touchée. C’est dommage de penser qu’il existe une solution toute simple à la corruption mais qu’elle n’est pas retenue par les ONG internationales. Il faudrait que les Nations Unis s’intéressent à la Saine Gestion. D’ailleurs, l’ACDI a développé un cadre de gestion de projet utilisé partout dans le monde et qui me rappelle votre grille de saine gestion:
“Selon l’ACDI, la méthode du cadre logique nécessite la préparation d’une matrice à douze cellules comportant trois rangées et quatre colonnes — le « cadre logique ». Un cadre logique orienté vers les résultats décrit le rapport logique qui existe entre les composantes stratégiques d’un projet, les résultats prévus, les indicateurs de rendement, les hypothèses et les risques au niveau conceptuel (soit les quatre colonnes) en alignant les extrants, les effets et les impacts (les trois lignes).”
Jacqueline
Isn’t UN people bound under some sort of governance?
Anyways, I just can’t understand why you are so negative. Isn’t it better to have some form of governance rather than nothing at all? I mean, without governance, there is no guideline. People can do almost what they want. At least, governance sets some sort of limits or boundaries. Maybe you system is superior, but although it would be nice to be in a Cadillac (Sound Mgmt), would you rather not be in a small Ford Focus (governance) than walking (no control in place)?
George D. Jackson
Cher Mr. Bernard,
Est-ce qu’on peut commander le Pack Saine Gestion pour une société dans un pays en développement? En quoi le pack diffère’t'il du pack Canadien?
Bien à vous,
Rachida
Bonjour
En fait, simplement dans la façon de l’appliquer. La notion d’importance relative et d’incidence sur la mission de l’organisation est la clé du modèle. Il est impossible d’avoir 100 % de conformité. Par contre, la conformité du cadre de Saine Gestion de l’Institut permet de s’assurer qu’aucune dérogation mettra en péril la mission de l’organisation ni sa capacité de faire face aux enjeux.
Excellent post. En effet, M. Ménard avait raison d’agir de la sorte. La compétence n’a rien à voir avec l’éthique!
Jean Latour
Many thanks for the information. As a UN volunteer, I am always interested in reading about ways to improve 3rd world countries. I believe your proposed Sound Management Framework has some nice potential. Any real-world implementation in a third world country?
Panerai
Is there some hope for the Haitian people through Sound management? Could a framework like your Sound Management Framework really help them? I mean, it might not help fight sickness, but could it fight corruption and bribing?
Rudy the ethernal perplex
Pauvre Haïti… Si seulement votre système pouvait éliminer toute la corruption instantanément, peut-être y aurait-il espoir qu’un jour ce peuple vivre heureux. Qui aurait le pouvoir de forcer les dirigeants haïtiens à employer le cadre de saine gestion? L’ONU? Le Canada? Les USA? Le peuple?
Lussier
Abnegation? Ça veut dire quoi exactement? Comment appliquer un principe si on ne connaît pas sa définition?
Robert
Bonjour Robert. L’abnégation, ce n’est que le principe qui justifie la résolution des conflits d’intérêt ! Ne pas se placer en position de conflit réel ou potentiel. Et en cas de conflit réel, subordonner ses intérêts en faveur de l’organisaiton que l’on gère. C’est tout. Je sortirai bientôt un article résumant la section de mon ouvrage qui en traite. Voici ce qu’en dit un petit extrait des PSGGR de l’OAAQ.
2.7 ABNÉGATION
Principes
2.7 (1) «Abnégation» : Qualité de celui qui renonce à tout avantage ou intérêt personnel autre que ce qui lui est contractuellement ou explicitement accordé dans l’exercice de ses fonctions d’administrateur, en faveur de ceux de l’organisation.
2.7 (2) Pour assurer la saine gestion, l’administrateur doit, dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, subordonner ses intérêts et se dévouer à la sauvegarde du patrimoine de l’organisation.
2.7 (2.1) Il y a conflit potentiel ou réel lorsque les intérêts privés de l’administrateur se heurtent aux intérêts de l’organisation. (28-04-1998)
Le cadre de Saine Gestion par la suite explique le QUOI FAIRE et le COMMENT FAIRE pour chaque combinaison avec la planification, l’organisation, la direction, le contrôle, et la coordination. Il est difficile de résumer davantage plusieurs centaines de pages.
Merci de votre intérêt
