One of our readers sent us a few lines related to our discussions regarding bad management cases.

“I’m a University teacher in Turkey (Istanbul) and I studied in France, but never in Canada. I find your proposition very interesting (…). The case I’d like to submit to your attention could be the same in every country, but to be more specific, what can you say about Mr. Hosni Moubarak who keeps holding on to power? Isn’t it a perfect example of lack of abnegation? (…)

How do you do in a country such as Canada in order to be able to implement the abnegation principle when the managers are obsessed with power? (…)”[sic]

Arman

Horribilis causa

In an awkward way, the new executive director of a large public company has just uttered the word “abnegation.” As if a gun had been shot during a hunting session, the crowd stopped talking all of a sudden. Consternation! Somewhere at the table, among the members of the Board of directors, gathered for more than an hour to debate on the allegations of some doubtful business practices and conflicts of interest, an administrator seems not to have understood, “What did he say?” The person in his immediate vicinity tries to answer his question by spelling by syllables, “ab-ne-ga-tion.”

Another administrator answers quickly, “He is referring to his abnegation as a manager!”

Then the secretary adds,

“Of course, this doesn’t apply in the same way for leaders and for managers. We, the corporate directors, we have strategic preoccupations, we do the right things for our shareholders (or our people); as for the manager, he has to do things in the right way! Our actions need a different tolerance level. We have to stick only to the practices that can be defended by our lawyers!

The atmosphere gets warmer, the crowd starts whispering, and the executive director will never dare utter … oh …such a horrible word.

Political leader, business leader and Sound management

Initially, the Sound Management was created to define and supervise a profession, more precisely to identify and describe the role, the authority, and the tasks of the managers as part of an ethical relation between the mandator and the mandatory. This concept constitutes the common denominator between law and society, or, in other words, the everyday reality that managers are confronted to. Therefore, Sound Management isn’t limited only to the Canadian law.

It’s already hard to make our politicians and executives of large public and private companies in all democratic countries understand this concept of subordination of their own interests, if in conflict with the public interests. We can easily imagine the difficulty these omnipotent and self-sufficient managers of large companies, as well as their well-paid army of assistants may have in uttering the word abnegation since they are unable of making the difference between the public assets, those of their mandataries, and their own assets. How could we justify the unjustifiable other than by the divine law and the narcissistic omnipotence.

On the contrary, what’s really surprising is that the Sound Management values and the Abnegation values, in particular, have the same ethical implication for any type of relation between the mandatary and its mandator, no matter the companies, religions, economic systems, political orientations. The Sound Management is a discussion and implementation tool, and to be modest I’d say “almost a universal tool.”

I propose you a small excerpt from the chapter regarding the Sound Management fundamental principles (1):

May 12, 2010, the evening preceding the last hockey game facing the Montreal Canadiens and the Pittsburgh Penguins, the sports commentators used twice the term ABNEGATION. The first time to show to the Canadiens hockey players what people expected from them regarding the match. The second time, after the most unbelievable victory in the history, to express that their match had been a proof of discipline and ABNEGATION, meaning that they had been part of a collective effort and a victory that will make history. The team’s interest prevailed over the interest of only one. The ABNEGATION didn’t limit the strong personalities of the defence players or the goalkeeper’s charisma. The offensive players had their specific role and acted in agreement with the rest of the team at the right moment. Some opportunities occurred and the offensive players took them to finally score. The unlikely victory brought satisfaction to everybody. And, the ABNEGATION didn’t turn them into less-paid players!

The principle of abnegation

The principle of ABNEGATION is considered to be a behaviour principle guiding the administrator’s actions in fulfilling his tasks. This principle is related to several concepts having as an objective to remind the administrators that their role is to protect the resources and the heritage of the company or organization they have to manage:

- subordinating the administrator’s interests to those of the organization;

- the question of remuneration and benefits entrusted to the managers, and- the concept of conflict of interest.

a) Subordinating the administrator’s interests

This concept is explained in the article 2.7-2 of the GASMP:

2.7-2 To ensure sound management, in performing their functions, managers must subordinate their interests and devote themselves to safe-keeping the organization’s total assets.

b) Remuneration, benefits, and interests in a contractual framework

This concept is part of the definition of the ABNEGATION principle

2.7-1 [ABNEGATION] The quality of a person who foregoes, in favour of the organization, any personal advantage or interest other than that which bas been contractually or explicitly granted to them in the performance of their managerial functions.

For instance, an administrator takes advantage of his public image implied by his position to do some volunteer work and obtain financing sources from a third party. But what he does is that he negotiates or obtains dividends or gifts that are disproportionate in comparison to the services offered, apparently volunteer. This administrator hasn’t acted in conformity with the abnegation principle. On the one hand, because he expected to get some benefits not explicitly offered by his or its mandataries. On the other hand, because he used his position to indirectly get some advantage, the chances are that a public disclosure would upset everybody involved, including the donors, and undermine the credibility of their respective organizations.

c) Conflict of interest

The article 2.7-3 of the GASMP introduces the obligation of avoiding any situation of conflict of interest.

2.7-3 Managers may not place themselves in a situation of potential or real conflict between their own interests and those of the organization they have to manage.

The Sound Management sits oddly with the double allegiance and double interest. As we’ve mentioned it already, the personal interest must come after the organization’s interest. It happens quite often that a conflict among several interests arises without specifically been looked for or provoked.

This is how the Abnegation principle helps in subordinating the personal interests in case of conflict, which doesn’t mean that there should be no interest at all!

Comment on this article

Your name

Your email address

Your comments Please, fill in all the fields Envoyer

Notify me when a comment is posted about this article.


Or, subscribe to the comment follow-up for this article, without commenting it.

• Reduced price on training sessions

• Reduced price on publications

• Free access to tools, guides and references

• Presence on our list of consultants

• All members benefits

Tweets de @SaineGestion