What comes freely, costs very heavily. In “The Passionate State of Mind”, Eric Hoffer, comments, “There is a sublime thieving in all giving. Someone gives us all he has and we are his”. Albeit, undoubtedly giving is better than receiving. It is noble to give. However in giving there is need to be cautious and to be careful to make sure that it meets the requirements of propriety, grace and decency. As it is said, graceful countenance while presenting, is a double gift.
In the selection process for corporate gifts the value compatibility must be kept under serious focus. Vulgarly priced gifts remain vulgar, no matter how much justification is given, in accepting or giving expensive gifts. The Chinese philosophy explains beautifully on how to select a gift; it does so by highlighting in contradiction, for example, Chang Tse says, “A man whose leg has been cut off does not value a present of shoes”. Living overseas, one had to at the time of Christmas and New Year give and receive gifts ... a Chivas Regal, a Blue Label, a Remy Martin, etc meant nothing despite being very expensive. Such gifts weren’t outside the norms of societal acceptance.
While the value of the gift cannot be ignored, equally it is imperative to contextualise it in its appropriateness rather than just the price. The price/value and the occasion’s compatibility of the gift would also indicate the intent. If all staff members were to give ‘expensive gifts’ to their supervisors/managers or their family members, it would surely be a case of abject and abusive bribery. The distinction between a gift and a bribe must be very clear. Gifts are devoid of appendages of likely return favours in kind or otherwise; whilst bribery is permanently pregnant with ulterior motives of seeking favours, concessions, privileges, etc. If giving and receiving gifts is driven by the Latino idiom, Quid Pro Quo ... A serious disaster is in the making.
At an institution the staff during the holy month of Ramadan were prisoners to the generosity of the clients/ customers, for many years in succession --- those engaged in palm oil would gift cans of cooking oil, those into rice husking/exports would gift sacks of rice, those who owned sugar mills would give bags of sugar; the number of cans, sacks and bags was driven by the recipient’s rank and authority ... and this despicable practice did not stop at eatables only… those who made and exported garments, would give expensive jeans, custom made; those who stitched socks gave quantities to last for a lifetime. The CEO of the institution, who was new to the environment, confronted the senior management on this unethical practice. I was told by this CEO, that the plea taken by the senior management was, since it is their (client’s) stock in trade they are gifting, and not buying expensive stuff, so what’s wrong with the practice? The CEO said, it is bribery. They claimed it was a gift. Bribery always finds a dozen alibis for its evil intent and purpose. The CEO mentions that he sought the support of the chairman, with whose active assistance he prevailed. The practice has ceased.
However, this action resulted in a customer’s complaint … They argued what’s wrong if on festivals, we give gifts to our clients --- the ‘Conflict of Interest’ concept wasn’t entirely alien to them, but it was relegated to the backyard of conscientious behaviour. The CEO tried his best to impress upon his colleagues that they were made to thank for nothing. Those who have an itching palm are condemned.
An adage that says, in Rome everything is at a price, and that’s true in the world of business and economics. Gifts are inherently possessed of the quality, to be used as baits and hooks. Gifts are seductive for both the honourable and the one who has a malleable character, that readily convinces and justifies to own self and others, all wrongs are actually right. Many good professionals, besides the umpteenth from the universe of politics, bureaucracy, and almost all segments of the society have been dined out of their values, liberty, uprightness and independence. The vulnerability and surrender of character is the price that exact out of the most distinguished, respected and honourable men and women. An Arabic proverb is, gifts make a man a slave.
Buying commitments personal or professional through the medium of gifts is not a sound or good policy to pursue. Corporate managers normally offer gifts in anticipation that it would result in better, more or entirely new business opportunities, to their clients. If the element of reasonability is not lost in the dense forest of ignorance, then, such gifting does help, in a limited manner; but no sane person, unless he/she is loaded with the vice and virus of corruption, will begin to pass blatantly businesses on the basis of having taken a gift of reasonable value.
Gifts are burdensome in business, they deprive us of our liberties and independence. The obligations that accompany a gift can be encashed by the giver, anytime; making the receipt vulnerable towards making ill decisions.
The heads of state of the developed world never offer to counterparts audaciously expensive gifts, these are usually austere and graceful, lacking ostentatiousness or being gaudy. The rich Middle Eastern rulers, however, offer to visitors gifts that are outrageously incompatible to the concept of “business gifts”. They are vulgarly expensive. These are luxury cars, necklaces be jewelled with diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc … the poor leaders of the poor countries start to drool. And end up being compromised.
I was told by a colleague that a certain country manager had this streak in him, to offer at the expense of the entity, highly expensive gifts to clients; the motive in doing so, was the expectation that the client would make a counter offering of a gift at a later stage, which obviously was usually more in value than the one parted; and upon receipt he would take it home, as his personal gift. That entity did not have a ‘Toshakhana’, possibly.
All organisations must have a Toshakhana. What is Toshakhana? The word has origins in the Persian language and means a ‘treasure house’. The Mughal emperors and princesses would store ‘gifts and emblems of honour’ received by them for their posterity; the Mughals cannot be accused of coming up with the concept of selling these gifts to the recipient. The idea to sell the gifts to the receiver came much later devised by the minds that did not have resolve or steadfastness to resist greed.
Presents are gifts or bribes? This is dependent upon what the motive of the giver is and what the recipient is expected to do, as a consequence of accepting the gift. If it is Quid Pro Quo, then accepting gifts tantamount to acceptance of bribery.
A gift that influences decision making ceases to be a gift. A gift given on Eid, Diwali or Christmas is not the same as the one given a few days prior to the awarding of a major tendering contract. Gifts are never in the grey area, they are either in white or black. Only the giver and the takers know this best … and yes, the angels know too.
Since gifts are likely to render vulnerability, the best policy to adapt is to never accept any gifts. If acceptance has to be exercised in consonance with cultural nuances, it must be surrendered to the central treasury, and what is deposited must be given to the corporate or national museum … if it is an item of use, with inherent propensity to deteriorate, then it must be auctioned, where the condition should be that the original recipient or his family and friends must be put on the exclusion list to bid. The funds so obtained must be accounted for by way of deposit to the Federal Bureau of Revenue.
Three of the four organisations that I worked for had in place a very well designed and comprehensive ‘Gift Policy’; it set limits on what value of gifts could be accepted and retained and what had to be deposited with the institution. The items were restricted to neckties, cufflinks, designer dairies, notebooks, pens … of value no more than $100; anything in excess of that had to be surrendered.
Accepting a lunch or dinner invitation had to be reported. The receipt of an invitation to attend a conference or seminar can easily qualify to be a bribe, hence extreme care must be exercised prior to acceptance. The unlawful intent of the giver makes the gift corruptible. The compromise of honesty in a trade off with the gift received is a contemptible and dishonourable act on the part of any official, regardless of position on the hierarchy.
Gifting can be ethical only if it meets the litmus test of value. As an example, if an expensive diamond studded bracelet or an equally well branded wrist watch given to a banker by a borrower, cannot by any yardstick, however elastic and liberal conditions be attached to the test, it will cease to be a gift. It is simply a bribe. Is there any free lunch in any business? No.
Gifts are burdensome in business, they deprive us of our liberties and independence. The obligations that accompany a gift can be encashed by the giver, anytime; making the receipt vulnerable towards making ill decisions.
Sir Max Beerbohm, had said this more in reference to the giver, but taking liberty, I am inserting the ‘taker’ too; said, “To give or take) and then not feel that one has given (or taken) is the very best ways of giving (taking).” No trade off in other words.
The best policy to frame is no gifts. Say, no to gifts. Say no to corruption. Save yourself from being lured by temptation.
The writer is a senior banker and a freelance columnist