Working With Africans

During the time I have been living and working in different African countries, I have always sought to understand how foreigners were adjusting to the local cultural context. I have therefore not missed an opportunity to ask questions especially to the foreigners who had a long and diversified career in different African countries.

While these informants usually admitted the existence of local mores and values in the field of communication, of interactions and of human resources management, they were often blind at many other aspects that I have covered in my past articles.

For example, instead of admitting that their African colleagues operated outside any Western definition of what productivity means, they only asserted that they were not productive. In other words, they could not envision productivity beyond their own definition of the term.

The same reasoning applies to Ethics.

People driven by different ethics are classified by others as not ethical. 

While debates rage among ethicists on the theme of ethical relativism, anthropologists have provided useful explanations on the roots of diverse moral and ethical fundamentals.

Geert Hofstede, the Dutch business anthropologist, defines values by reference to what is good, right, acceptable, respectful, logic, beautiful, clean, or not in a society. If comparative research has proved that across societies, people give different definitions to these adjectives, it comes as no surprise that their ethics feature major differences.  

While my intention is not to enter into the debate on ethical relativism, I wish to illustrate different beliefs linked to different definitions of what is right, ethical, acceptable or not.

In a number of Western societies, ideal workers are defined by reference to meritocracy or in terms of added value expressed in enhanced productivity. Technical expertise, appropriate interpersonal skills, experience are key criteria for sound and ethical recruitment decisions. Human resources techniques, tools and practices embody this belief in meritocracy.

However, are all societies operating on the basis of the same premise?

According to comparative anthropological research, the response is NO!

In some societies trust and loyalty are preferred to meritocracy. Lynne Dilligent explores these two contrasting approaches to recruiting people in

http://interculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/meritocracy-vs-in-group-loyalty-two-methods-of-team-building/

In some African societies, the priority granted to trust and loyalty paints nepotism as a positive work attitude.  

As Sigué put it “hiring relatives and people of your own ethnic group is regarded as a positive virtue. You are looking after your own; you are being your brothers’ keeper! You are helping him/her by providing him or her with a job, an opportunity. It is something to be applauded, not criticized. 

Educated Africans may be shy in stating this feature as their education embedded in the language and the values of their ex-colonial power has taught them that nepotism is unethical.

Furthermore, business education that imposes Western paradigms on work practices and interactions contribute to print in Africans’ mind a supposedly universal perception of nepotism.

As a result, many Africans maneuver between societal ethical standards that value nepotism and Western ones that do not.

It is very difficult to see a positive value to nepotism when one is embedded in the belief that nepotism is unethical. The first reaction is to emotionally reject nepotism without being able to withhold judgment and without being able to listen to the explanation on why nepotism may be ethical elsewhere.

Yet, once people develop their cross-cultural competences, they stop judging and can envision why nepotism makes sense and why it is an effective practice in some societies. This does not mean that people approve nepotism as a result of their training. It only means that they have overcome their emotional frustration and that they can start envisioning how to operate in a context that values nepotism.

Intercultural work interactions involving people who do not view nepotism in the same way feature huge challenges.

 It always leads to the strongest side to impose its own view of the concept on the weakest one.

However such approach does not necessarily triggers the expected outcomes.

A Western CEO hired a competent HR manager who happened to belong to a tribe distrusted by most of his line managers. He admitted that the competent HR was sabotaged and that reluctantly, he had to get rid of the inefficient Human Resource manager. In this case, rejecting nepotism was not an effective way to solve problems when the concept is socially valued.

Some Western organizations train their staff to value meritocracy and they develop communication channels enabling people to voice their concern when they witness nepotism. Yet comments I heard did not suggest that nepotism had disappeared.

Often Westerners themselves have to bow to nepotism as it is the only condition to get a contract, an authorization or even the renewal of their work permit!

When foreigners operate in societies where nepotism has a positive societal connotation, they need to get some cross-cultural preparation to effectively handle situations.

Ability to see how an unethical practice can lead to effective problem solving allows trainees to distinguishing whether, when and how it is effective to take nepotism into consideration.

It is usually easier to accept such huge cultural adjustment when the stakeholders are practically involved in problem solving as they can immediately witness the positive outcome of their cultural adjustment.

However, many foreign actors and organizations operating in Africa and elsewhere prefer to stand behind their own definition of nepotism and condemn these who do not share their view. They can do so because the ineffectiveness of their stance and actions are not impacting on their survival.