Foreign advisors and consultants as catalysts

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.