To preside over an opinion or judgement on an issue that is likely to have either beneficial positive or negative impact upon one’s interest is a classic case of conflict of interest. In the formulation of an independent and judicious opinion, all possibilities of influence to get a favourable result smack of total disregard to principles of conflict of interest. An office holder, either in the public sector or the private sector, if his “interests” clash with his/her official status, there is a clear case of conflict of interest. If decision-making gets clouded by domineering self-interest, it is, undoubtedly, conflict of interest.

Any decision-making that is done while holding office that goes to profit the decision-maker will lack a standard of acceptability. Any individual’s personal interest involving the family, friends and associates, be it in relation to financial arrangements or otherwise too, involving social standards that is likely to benefit through a compromise of a judgement, decision, or action is a serious demeaning of the concept of conflict of interest and principles of righteousness.

An office holder, particularly a public office servant, has to take special care to see that his/her duty towards the society, alongside the best governance practices is not impaired by his/ her relationships. Any “interest”, however far-fetched it may be, shouldn’t cloud decision-making by the manager/leader.

The areas or the domain of conflict of interest can be very far and wide — its range can extend from immediate family and friend links to financial interests; from favouritism to nepotism and from blatant disregard to principles of good governance to abject abandonment of generally accepted best practices.

A leader has to maintain a very close relationship with the teammates, but this effort to bond mustn’t result in the creation of a preferred class within the........

© Business Recorder