In my discussions on corporate governance and organizational behaviour, I have found myself leaning towards the thought that the corporate being inanimate, does not have human feelings but uses human beings to operate it towards attainment of its objectives.

Today, I would like to invite colleagues to join me as I engage in further interrogation of what the expectations of an organisation may be in relation to certain behaviors of actors in an organisation.

Principles such as trust, loyalty, integrity and so on are instinctively, human traits and depending on the context in which they are discussed, can evoke certain degrees of emotion.

In my view, it is important to consider that the corporate will have certain expectations regarding the behaviour of actors towards it, as the “license” for the relationship between itself and the actors in the organisation. It creates structures that are occupied by human beings and makes assumptions with regards to conduct. For example, in exercising one’s duty of loyalty to the organisation, the question as to whether the same should be towards the person occupying the office or to the office itself, especially that the office is inanimate?

I have decided to use the attribute of loyalty, purely for convenience and ease of discussion because it is a common human expectation between human beings in certain relationships.

Is sharing personal matters and being a trustworthy resource of such confidence reflective of the expectations of the corporate? What is it that defines loyalty in an organisation?

Professionalism in the discharge of your functions towards the corporate as you interface with colleagues in different offices, is key. If one is professional in their dealings and is ethical in conduct, they are bound to demonstrate that they are loyal to the corporate.

Being loyal to a person, in my view, has extended demands, which may stray outside the framework of the expectations of the corporate. I have, during my humble practice, come across statements such as someone being another’s blue eyed boy/girl or that so and so is the one providing information to his former leader in a bid to bring down the incumbent because of the close relations they developed when the said leader was in office.

The behaviors alluded to in the preceding paragraphs are retrogressive to the success of the organisation and sometimes exacerbated by the fact that some actors base their determinations as to whether someone is loyal to the organisation or not to unsubstantiated notions. Having a sense or having third party testimonies about loyalty levels of actors may be important inputs into an investigation in that regard, but there is an inherent danger in relying on them as the only inputs as it may introduce subjectivity which the corporate can make little or no use of.

The organisation expects loyalty to its structures and is designed in such a way that all the activities that are meant to protect it are embellished in the operations of the organisation. The conditions of service, company policies and other covenants of the company are generally crafted to preserve, among others, the aspect of loyalty to the organisation. A critical examination of the said structures and instruments will bring us to the obvious conclusion that the organisation has some expectations that entail that the actors exhibit human attributes not only to each other but also to the organisation.

Being loyal to the office or structures of an organisation, as the case may be, requires an unequivocal demonstration of clarity of mind and distinction by actors by reducing the risk of the line between the office and the person occupying it, being blurred by the haphazard or misguided applications.

Having said that, the question that begs to be answered is that having acknowledged that we are human beings, how do we reconcile the separation of loyalties between a person and the corporate with building healthy relationships and communication channels between human beings? Does this mantra advocate a cold relationship between actors? Does that not water down the principles of effective organizational behaviour?

It is of utmost importance for us to be practical and accept that life is happening at the same time as we are discharging our functions in the organisation. For me, it boils down to being able to distinguish the relationships. Sharing life situations and providing advice to each other is human and sometimes inevitable. For example, knowing that your colleague is nursing a patient at home requires you to ask after the health of the patient and offer sympathies, rather than totally ignoring it in the name of separation of personal issues from corporate matters. Chances are that you may be branded as insensitive.

What I have found is that having the courage to distinguish relationships from each other and standing by the distinction, no matter how uncomfortable, is a key consideration. I am sure that some of us might have experienced a situation where you have had to state that with all due respect, you are unable to comply with a request because it places you in a conflicted position. Further, having stated your position in these circumstances, you would have to stand ready for the possibility of a human and instinctive response that may be laced with apparent shock or disdain that you may have to fathom. Knowing that your behaviour in those circumstances is devoid of malice and loaded with ethical considerations should be your comfort. As they say, some things require thicker skin than others!

To those of us demanding and giving loyalty in an organisation, the call is for us, as actors, to fully appreciate our roles and the extent of expectations, whether human or otherwise, always with the organisation at the center.

Food for thought or settled propositions?