By Alexandros Sainidis
In the five or so total years of my work experience (I am almost 27), I have never once worked in an environment that was purely domestic – in Greek. In all of the positions I have handled the primary language was English and there was always a connection to foreign or international markets. Both my personal experience and my general observations suggest that workplaces are now commonly international, where you deal with more foreign workers, foreign clients, foreign suppliers and foreign competitors. Undoubtedly, this is a result of globalization and increased freedom of movement – or at least capitalization of movement. The commercial ties to foreigners, however, can also be easily broken. It seems as though we are not yet mature enough to deal with this reality properly. In fact, most employees don’t even consider the consequences. And naturally, when these consequences come, we don’t even know how to react or communicate our reactions properly. What do you do when you stop working with that Russian, that Chinese, that American?
When I was working as a coordinator for legal cases and projects I was responsible for Russian cases as well. Within the first two months of work, the war in Ukraine broke out. I can only confirm that legal operations are required even at a controversial location of business operations. This is because you need, first, to protect the legal interests of your own natives in the region.
Contrary to this law firm, many companies are not in such a position and cease any contact with company representatives of boycotted countries. This is a mistake. We are at a point where we are more accustomed to wars, such as Ukraine, Israel and potentially Taiwan compared to the naïve 2000s. We are also better placed to understand that these wars have more tangible effects on businesses rather than vague commercial activity and prices. Most notably, McDonald’s ceased its operations in Russia and now we TikTok may be banned from the United States. Both made world headlines that are far more memorable than Houthis attacking the shipping industry. A brand may represent an industry but shipping and logistics are an abstract, “divine” force of commerce.
With this setting in mind, many more firms are cutting their ties with such countries. One would say: where is the problem when it is the state’s responsibility to deal with matters of this magnitude? The problem is twofold:
- Humans remember. The “enemy employee” remembers that you answered passive-aggressively or – even worse – completely ghosted any conversations
- Today’s enemies can become tomorrow’s friends – which, as it’s own thing is, of course, good.
In other words, the states may choose to reconcile but humans remember, and that could be slowing down normalization of relations. Even if not significantly, perhaps a small improvement would bring more economic benefits than we imagine. This is an just assumption – that this small factor may have a big impact. At the end of the day, if positive sentiment is created a thousand times, peace could be long-lasting.
Why are people rude?
First of all, there is this bias that usually the event causing the disruption is so strong and shocking that it literally stuns the normal functioning of the company in the involved state. Therefore, employees often assume that work is not a priority for the belligerent state. At the same time, keeping in mind how overworked workers are, they are only looking forward to forget the existence of a responsibility and the people associated with it.
Secondly, we misunderstand how commerce works. We believe that the big picture of trade is only set by nation-states when in reality states are putting effort in guiding trade through businesses in their jurisdiction.
Thirdly, people tend to believe, as said above, that diplomacy is a matter best left to the state. What we fail to see is how diplomats are not responsible for the feelings of anyone beyond embassies, consulates, ministries and high societies. You, on the other hand, are actively responsible for the atmosphere you create towards the partners you immediately cooperate with.
Lastly, scholars and casuals confuse the kinds of diplomacies intertwined with the world of business. International relations people primarily think of states using enterprises for economic diplomacy. Business people, on the other hand, think of the “diplomat” as a role model within the company. To add to that, this internal focus intensifies with the movement of Diversity Inclusion and Equity, which seems to obsess over Human Resources but majorly ignore the development of intercultural competences for employees dealing with external relations.
Whether boycotting a country is a good idea is up to states and history – maybe even the author of that history. Two common purposes of a boycott is to decrease the economic strength of your opponent and have their domestic population demand internal change to alleviate the economic pain. However, it never harms to be kind to the person you stop working with due to a force majeure. A lieutenant once told me that kindness is a coin that costs nothing but can buy you anything. Be freely generous with this currency as it won’t increase your enemy’s GDP.
