Mass paranoia, real conflict of interest or sometimes just pure jealousy?!

Written by Institut de Saine Gestion on 25/11/2010

There is no motivation without interest! Inevitably, all our actions are in some kind of conflict. The question is if our interests interfere with the organization’s interests and if our decisions could be affected.

We are asking you this question. The fact that Ms Jane Doe is nominated for a position as senior manager within an organization of the Health department drives you mad because you would have liked that position too? If you find out that Ms Jane Doe withdrew from the Board of Directors, do you think that, in spite of everything, the Transparency principle implies full disclosure even if it comes against the managerial right?

We are suggesting a fictitious analysis of the present situation to better exemplify our ideas and explain the importance of the usual practice.

To analyse this kind of situation, we have to find an answer for each of the following four questions:

1) Who is the decision maker?

- Let’s say, in this case, the Board of Directors.

2) Is the act taken (decision) violating a rule imposed to the Regional Health and Social Services Council (CRSSS) or an internal policy adopted by the Board of Directors regarding the hiring of a senior manager?

-She might have had a certain influence since she sat on the Board of Directors. But apparently she left¹the Board to its management framework.

- Let’s say it doesn’t apply for a senior manager.

3) Conflict of interests. The person offering the position, did she have the power to influence the final decision? The OAAQ’s generally accepted Sound Management Principles help us to issue the following analysis:

Observation (1) Art.GASMP 4.4.13 (3.7) Managers mustn’t hold a position that could come up against the other ones they held for the organization.(28-04-1998).

- In fact, in order to be able to talk about conflict of interest, there must be a certain present, past or future counterparty²offered to the decision-maker within the Board of Directors.

Observation (2) GASMP 4.4.13 (3.6): The manager mustn’t seek, offer, or accept any kind of benefits, be it in exchange of their decision, opinion, recommendation, or any other exercise of authority or discretion.

- We conclude here that no element allows us to believe that the nomination may be injurious to the organization’s interests.

Observation (3) GASMP 2.7 (2.1) There is a potential or real conflict when the manager’s personal interests come up against those of the organization.(24-04-1998).

4) Transparency, disclosure and Fairness: The matters of fact seem to guide us towards some kind of cronyism or favouritism⁴as a result of hiring somebody.

Observation (4) GASMP 4.4.8 (1) The deciding manager must act accordingly in order for the management of his organization to be “transparent” in the eyes of the individuals who entrust in him the resources. In doing so, he must present an accurate assessment or the organization which he manages, without bias or omitting any information which, if known otherwise, would cause his principal to make an altogether different decision. (28-04-1998; 05-05-2002)

A manager has to be also a decision-maker without necessarily trying to content everybody. The Board of Directors would have to found their actions on an administrative structure. It’s only at this level that there might be some questions, if necessary. Nevertheless, regular disclosure could have avoided all controversy. The strategic elements remain a prerogative of the managerial right.

We’d like to conclude with a comment of one of our members and associates, Pierre Landry.

We quote:

“I always believed that there are two extreme attitudes to be avoid when faced to a conflict of interests: (Balance principle)

- Either we see it all around us;

- Or we’re in the middle of it without even recognizing it.

It is very important, even if this may sound like Lapalisse’s truth, to check both components:

1. What kind of interest are we talking about? Financial, political, personal, corporate, etc, and: Is there an interest?

2. What are the stakes? What makes them conflicting, wrong or predictable in relation to a reasonable prediction practice?

Philippe Bruno, B.Ing., Adm.A.

Bernard Brault, F. Adm.A., F.CMC

Share this article

2 comments

by Clément Teuris at 11/25/2010

L’institut prend son envol à ce que je vois… Des articles qui commencent à avoir de la gueule, des sujets chauds, tout ce qu’il faut quoi.

À l’inverse, y a-t-il des situations où nous ne sommes pas en conflit d’intérêt ? Il est peut-être finalement plus facile de répondre à cette question.

Clément
Ingénieur Technico-Commercial

by Conor Muller at 12/23/2010

In 1776, Adam Smith wrote in his book ‘The Weatlth of Nations’ that there were four canons of key principles of good tax–equity, certainty, convenience and efficiency. Am I right in seeing some ressemblance with your key principles of Sound Management?

Conor