Foreign advisors and consultants as catalysts

By Donna K. Woodward

MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): Indonesian government ministries, non government organizations, and private corporations are awash with expatriate advisors, consultants, and technical experts engaged to supplement local expertise in problem-solving and national development.

Expatriates might no longer dominate the consulting field in numbers, but they likely still do so in terms of remuneration given and the status accorded them. Why, then, is there sometimes an ambivalence, not to say hypocrisy, about the role of foreign advisors in Indonesian organizations? Is there any connection between this ambivalence and the failure of reform?

Fundamental to the hiring of foreigners is the postulate that there are too few Indonesians with required expertise in certain areas. Expatriates are permitted to work here because of certain needed skills; we should not be here otherwise. Yet once the foreigners are at work, see what can happen.

Particularly in areas such as corruption and reform, where accusations of cultural insensitivity or foreign domination are feared, expatriates become reticent.

Becoming veritable Uriah Heeps (some), they disclaim the prerogative -- and likewise the responsibility -- to use the faculties of intellect and competence that are an integral part of the reason they were hired.

Recently this writer inquired of the expatriate head of one international organization about their plans in the area of corruption control.

The respondent answered (in part), "... we can't have a case of the foreigners telling Indonesians how to [do things] ... For this to work it must come from Indonesian society and businesses ..." This writer has no argument with the statement that foreigners do not have a de facto right to dictate to Indonesians how to do things.

Nor with the fact that for a solution to work, those it will affect must internalize it. However, to say unambiguously "To accomplish the goal you've set, here is the action I recommend," or "Corrupt practices are inconsistent with the stated goals," is not at all the same as saying, "We'll do it my way."

An Indonesian organization that employs a consultant remains in control of the use made of the consultant's work. If for some reason the organization rejects the consultant's advice, so be it.

But if the expatriate expert declines to give his/her best advice out of fear that it will be misconstrued as domineering, isn't this an abdication of one's job responsibility? When foreign experts hesitate to "push the envelope" out of a belief that Indonesian hosts won't like tough advice, the result is that Indonesia pays high-octane prices for low-octane solutions.

Should expatriate advisors be reluctant to express views on sensitive issues like corruption, or to propose new and unfamiliar solutions?

Suppose ASPAC hired Michael Jordan at a salary of hundreds of millions of rupiah more than the local players were paid and then on arrival he said, "I don't think Indonesians actually want me to tell them how to play to win; they have their own ways. I'll only go in for every third lay-up and let someone else take the rebounds. I don't want to dominate the team."

If Jordan did this, would the ASPAC owners be happy? Do foreigners think Indonesian colleagues want us to refrain from tendering our best performance because of a worry that the Indonesians will be intimidated or offended? The supposition is insulting.

The impetus to mute the voices of foreign professionals often comes more from the foreign side than from the Indonesian side. (There are, however, some Indonesians who know that the fastest way to kill an expatriate's unwelcome recommendation -- one that might upset the comfortable status quo -- is to hint that the expatriate is culturally insensitive or that national pride is threatened, even when these are not at issue at all.)

We western expatriates in particular have such an ugly reputation for imperiousness that guilt and the legitimate wish not to usurp the role of Indonesian colleagues sometimes produce a counterproductive, false tractability.

Some expatriates hesitate to advance reformist ideas zealously, to avoid the appearance of imposing foreign solutions. But anti-corruption views are not un-Indonesian.

In fact Indonesian reformers might welcome more outspoken support from Indonesia's international experts. Wasn't it the reluctance of international experts to speak truthfully to Soeharto about his regime's oppressiveness and corruption that facilitated the crisis in the first place? Are today's experts similarly reluctant to proffer the necessary truths?

To propose a more openly activist role for foreign consultants is not to advocate expatriates' domination of host organizations. It is not to excuse arrogance or cultural insensitivity or minimize the repercussions of ignorance and incivility. It is not to deny that at times a consultant's proposal is the wrong solution for a problem.

It is to ask for an end to the hypocrisy that prevails when expatriate advisors come here as "experts," accept expert-level salaries and perks, then assume a demeanor of unworthiness to advise. It is to appeal to consultants not to demur from advocating new or even extremely new ideas and programs, particularly relating to anticorruption efforts.

It is to affirm that as consultants we are not mindless, amoral technical experts. Michael Jordan wouldn't forego his opportunity to be a catalyst for progress out of a misguided obsequiousness. Why should a consultant?

The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the U.S. Consulate General in Medan, is a consultant.