'We have standard operating procedures for everything. They train us on the SOP...' (A1b) Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are set rules and detailed guidelines on every aspect of firm activities. As stated on the website of both American firms, SOPs exist in the form of manuals referred to as ‘Compliance Guidance documents’. They cover employee conduct within and outside the organisation and could be quite detailed such as in several instances offering prepared scripted responses to questions and scenarios faced whilst executing job activities. For instance, ‘selling models’ are a type of SOPs that detail all the processes that must be followed in engaging doctors and other potential clients in the field. They cover crucial aspects such as ways of approaching clients, how sales calls must be made including specific elements that must be involved, answering objections, selling approach, and so on. Included in some of these are also prepared scripts on how employees are meant to approach any ethical challenges faced on site.
More importantly however to report amid key data themes is the measure of compliance employees are expected to accord to these set rules. The salience of
SOPs in this case group is such that they provide the yardstick by which the ‘accuracy’ of job execution are measured and are considered as the reality check for any job related activity. That strict adherence is required of all employees and violating them could attract disciplinary consequences is a theme that appeared not just in interviews but even more so on the website of one of the firms:
“Our Compliance Guidance documents educate colleagues about our company's commitment to compliance. The Guidance documents put all colleagues, including management, on notice that failure to adhere to our compliance standards may have disciplinary consequences, up to and including termination of employment. If an investigation suggests that discipline may be warranted, appropriate action is taken…” (Firm A1 Company Website)
This theme was evident in both A1 and A2, where, employees understand the different compliance guidance documents and other SOPs to be the ‘holy grail’ of working effectively within the American firms. Employees appear to justify the need to accept the strict compliance culture as a way by which the firms’ respond to the Nigerian context as explained below:
'Well, today Nigeria is the seventh or ninth most corrupt country of the world and they tell us that the country is already in the red light…and they really want us to be different from what is perceived…so, things you are not clear about that are still not spelt out you still want to ask… Have I been compliant? Am I doing the right things?' (A2a)
“…It's also a place where compliance is very very important. We value compliance ahead of business, rather forfeit the business if it is filled with weaknesses of compliance....” (A1c)
Therefore, strict adherence to the SOPs commands an environment characterised by rule / impersonal compliance. Employees also rely solely on the rules as their standards in measuring not only their performance but also what is and what is not right in the moral sense, since following the rules is expected to result in doing the ‘right things’ at work. With this, a rule-compliance driven morality is created by which both performance and morality are measured using checklists generated from the
Rules are communicated to employees through very frequent training whilst top executives are also meant to help enforce all rules. Firm A1’s website stated:
“ Firm A1 is committed to providing effective training to employees, managers, officers, and directors on the Compliance Program. Training resources include online compliance education, as well as online access to policies…” (Firm A1 Company Website)
A respondent categorised the training as thus: “Product trainings, scientific trainings, sales training, marketing trainings, capability trainings etc…” (A2a). Obviously training is a more direct way of imparting firm rules and ideologies into the employees, and as such training is meant to act as a compliance-socialisation mechanism. Therefore what is right within the context of the American firms is what the rules say. This kind of system creates different mechanisms that ultimately affect the morality of employees in this case group. I start with the following perceptions employees have about the rule-based system as follows:
“Yes, the beauty of it is that you are always confident you are working in a company that will not ask you to do things that are not compliant…It is a company where your conscience is clear especially that the drugs you give to the patient, they are the best quality, you are not doing anything unethical even with government officials...”(A1c, Marketing Manager)
“…I guess for me I think being straightforward, getting things right, and organised and a straightforward system, those are the kind of things that I appreciate and admire and expect to see in any place. I guess that was what drew me to Firm A1, like I said the fact that they have this compliance thing, they have standards, which they work by and it's the kind of person that I am...” (A1g Medical Representative)
From the quotes above, it seems clear that functioning effectively within a rule-based rational bureaucracy creates a general sense of both professional and moral self- esteem in employees. Competence in this context is the feeling of proficiency arising from the belief employees have that they are working for organisations with high
professional standards and a commitment to ethics. However, when it comes to morality, it is noteworthy that quotes such as the above do not seem to say something about what specific values are the source of being ethical and why people would wish to aspire to these. Yet the rule based system could easily create a perception within employees that the bureaucratic rules align with their own personally held beliefs thereby reinforcing the feeling of competence. This could easily distract them from any personal moral inquiry since employees trust the rules as indeed sufficient in safeguarding their morality.
Also, the strict compliance and rule-based environment tends to create a sense of generalised fear to act in compliance in order to maintain one’s job in employees who do not want to violate set rules because of associated punishments. An employee simply explained the implications of not following the rules as, “For us it is as bad as you can lose your job” (A1g). Examples of such violations and subsequent punishments were described below:
“You also have when consistently things don’t happen the right way, people get fired...We had the case of a lady who fights everybody practically, yeah, fights her boss, fights her direct report, fights her peers, fights her customers, that is even the biggest, that's suicide...” (A1a)
“…I think we've had one and the guy lost his job. It had to do with…something about receipts… You know there are some filling stations you go to especially in Lagos and they don’t have receipts, if you ask for a receipt they just look at you ‘weirdly’ so he went to print receipts for a filling station so he was using it for his expense. Whenever he buys fuel he just uses it to get his reimbursement. And he's a pharmacist. (How was he caught?). It was very obvious, all your receipts are the same, the numbers are probably the same and they were following each other and you know those things are not usually obvious…” (A1g)
Also as earlier quoted, the implications of violating set rules especially in relation to financial transactions with externals is explicitly written on the websites of these firms, ranging from suspensions to outright termination of appointments. Employees
typically want to avoid such embarrassments and ascribe professionalism to doing things right according to the rules. Within this also comes a sense of safety, whereby employees feel secure as they comply with set rules. As an employee said, “I like the covering the rules provide for me…” (A2d). This sense of safety comes with a feeling of being covered and protected as long as rules are upheld. In summary therefore, it would follow that employees are expected to derive legitimacy within the system by strictly following set rules. Through mechanisms of competence, fear, and safety, the rule-based system encourages strict compliance to set rules in order to do things right.