Dr Ju­dith M S Mark

As T&T fo­cuss­es on di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion, in­no­va­tion and the cre­ation of glob­al­ly-com­pet­i­tive firms, en­tre­pre­neurs and lead­ers across T&T of­ten con­front the ques­tion: Does eth­i­cal lead­er­ship hin­der en­tre­pre­neur­ial ori­en­ta­tion and growth, or is it the foun­da­tion for long-term com­pet­i­tive­ness and sus­tain­abil­i­ty?

This ques­tion is par­tic­u­lar­ly rel­e­vant, giv­en the in­ter­con­nect­ed­ness of the T&T so­ci­ety. Be­yond mar­ket forces and reg­u­la­to­ry re­quire­ments, the busi­ness cul­ture in T&T is shaped by so­ci­etal ex­pec­ta­tions, rep­u­ta­tion­al con­sid­er­a­tions, and gov­er­nance chal­lenges. Every leader is well-con­nect­ed to a wider cir­cle, a sit­u­a­tion that can cre­ate a lead­er­ship chal­lenge. It is against this back­drop, that eth­i­cal lead­er­ship as a strate­gic de­ter­mi­nant of long-term vi­a­bil­i­ty is dis­cussed.

The per­ceived bur­den of eth­i­cal lead­er­ship

En­tre­pre­neurs and ex­ec­u­tives pri­vate­ly ad­mit that eth­i­cal lead­er­ship can feel like an al­ba­tross. The de­mand for trans­paren­cy, com­pli­ance, ac­count­abil­i­ty, and fair prac­tice ap­pears to stand in con­flict with time­ly de­ci­sion-mak­ing and risk-tak­ing re­quired for en­tre­pre­neur­ial ori­en­ta­tion.

En­tre­pre­neur­ial ori­en­ta­tion (EO), rests on three main pil­lars: in­no­v­a­tive­ness, proac­tive­ness, and risk-tak­ing. Each re­quires bold and fast moves, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion, the abil­i­ty to seize op­por­tu­ni­ties, and get to mar­ket time­ly in ways su­pe­ri­or to the com­pe­ti­tion. On the con­trary, eth­i­cal lead­er­ship in­sists on due dili­gence, con­sul­ta­tion, doc­u­men­ta­tion, ad­her­ence to rules and eq­ui­table treat­ment—process­es that are more me­thod­i­cal and of­ten­times slow­er.

Lo­cal en­tre­pre­neurs have at times lament­ed the re­al­i­ties of op­er­at­ing in T&T’s reg­u­la­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment. Com­pli­ance with pro­cure­ment guide­lines, cus­toms and ex­cise pro­ce­dures, re­port­ing re­quire­ments, an­ti-mon­ey laun­der­ing con­trols, in­ter alia, can ex­tend de­ci­sion time­lines and in­crease op­er­a­tional costs. Ad­her­ence to stan­dards can de­lay mar­ket en­try, the abil­i­ty to piv­ot, scale, or in­no­vate.

In­for­mal net­works that his­tor­i­cal­ly shaped busi­ness re­la­tion­ships in T&T present their own eth­i­cal dilem­mas. Lead­ers of­ten nav­i­gate ex­pec­ta­tions aris­ing from long-stand­ing al­liances, be­long­ing to the club or fra­ter­ni­ty or com­mu­ni­ty. Re­sist­ing the ex­pec­ta­tions of the tribe in favour of strict eth­i­cal prac­tice can re­sult in alien­ation. Eth­i­cal lead­er­ship, ac­cord­ing­ly, be­comes a chal­lenge against a leader’s con­science and a risk to com­mer­cial suc­cess.

The strate­gic case for eth­i­cal lead­er­ship

De­spite its chal­lenges, eth­i­cal lead­er­ship should be seen as a strate­gic ne­ces­si­ty for en­tre­pre­neur­ial firms and or­gan­i­sa­tions seek­ing to grow sus­tain­ably in T&T’s evolv­ing busi­ness en­vi­ron­ment.

First, trust, a key com­po­nent of eth­i­cal lead­er­ship is pre­mi­um in busi­ness. Con­sumers, in­vestors, and em­ploy­ees in­creas­ing­ly scru­ti­nise the be­hav­iour of lead­ers. Firms per­ceived as eth­i­cal are bet­ter placed to at­tract fi­nan­cial cap­i­tal and tal­ent, se­cure com­mu­ni­ty co­op­er­a­tion, and de­vel­op stronger cus­tomer loy­al­ty. In an econ­o­my where re­la­tion­ships are piv­otal, trust be­comes a com­pet­i­tive edge.

Sec­ond, the glob­al busi­ness land­scape is shift­ing sharply to­ward firm eval­u­a­tion based on prin­ci­ples of gov­er­nance and sound eth­i­cal stan­dards. In­ter­na­tion­al fi­nanc­ing in­sti­tu­tions, de­vel­op­ment agen­cies, in­vestors, and strate­gic part­ners now as­sess per­for­mance and po­ten­tial be­yond prof­it fo­cus­ing on trans­paren­cy, ad­her­ence to ESG prin­ci­ples and busi­ness mod­els root­ed in eth­i­cal be­hav­iour in all as­pect of op­er­a­tions. Com­pa­nies in T&T there­fore must adopt glob­al stan­dards and eth­i­cal lead­er­ship prac­tices in their ef­forts to suc­cess­ful­ly nav­i­gate the glob­al space to tap in­to in­ter­na­tion­al mar­kets.

Third, eth­i­cal lead­er­ship re­duces long-term risks. En­tre­pre­neurs and cor­po­rate lead­ers may reap short-term gains from cir­cum­vent­ing rules and cut­ting cor­ners, how­ev­er the long-term con­se­quences aris­ing from le­gal penal­ties, rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age, loss of in­vestor con­fi­dence can be cat­a­stroph­ic. Firms that em­bed eth­i­cal prac­tices in their com­pa­ny’s DNA tend to ex­pe­ri­ence few­er com­pli­ance breach­es, low­er turnover, and stronger loy­al­ty by cus­tomers, em­ploy­ees, and strate­gic part­ners.

Fourth, eth­i­cal lead­er­ship strength­ens or­gan­i­sa­tion­al cul­ture. When lead­ers em­body in­tegri­ty, fair­ness, and re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, they fos­ter en­vi­ron­ments where cre­ativ­i­ty can flour­ish, and where teams are mo­ti­vat­ed to pur­sue in­no­va­tion with con­fi­dence. Where eth­i­cal lead­er­ship is ab­sent team mem­bers and em­ploy­ees are like­ly to fol­low suit and en­gage in ac­tiv­i­ties and be­hav­iours that do not sup­port the long-term well-be­ing of the or­gan­i­sa­tion.

Eth­i­cal dilem­mas with­in T&T’s busi­ness land­scape

1. Nav­i­gat­ing in­for­mal in­flu­ence struc­tures

The coun­try’s close-knit so­cial net­works mean that busi­ness, pol­i­tics, and com­mu­ni­ty life of­ten over­lap. Lead­ers must bal­ance re­la­tion­ship man­age­ment with trans­par­ent de­ci­sion-mak­ing, avoid­ing the pit­falls of nepo­tism, con­flict of in­ter­est, and un­due in­flu­ence.

2. En­sur­ing sup­ply chain in­tegri­ty

Pro­cure­ment, sub­con­tract­ing, and project se­lec­tion are ar­eas where eth­i­cal vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties of­ten ex­ist. Sit­u­a­tions have emerged where top ex­ec­u­tives and di­rec­tors are pres­sured to se­lect sup­pli­ers based on fa­mil­iar­i­ty or re­la­tion­ships rather than mer­it, a prac­tice that un­der­mines fair­ness and ef­fi­cien­cy. The process for sole se­lect ten­der­ing in state en­ter­pris­es has been a source of con­cern.

3. Man­ag­ing da­ta in a dig­i­tal age

Giv­en the rise in da­ta-dri­ven busi­ness mod­els, lead­ers are con­tin­u­ous­ly tasked with the is­sue of con­fi­den­tial­i­ty and da­ta pri­va­cy. Per­sons in lead­er­ship are ex­pect­ed to pro­vide a mea­sure of com­fort to stake­hold­ers that the da­ta with­in their purview will be safe­guard­ed.

4. Pro­mot­ing fair­ness and eq­ui­ty with­in or­gan­i­sa­tions

Em­ploy­ees ex­pect that their work­ing en­vi­ron­ment would be eq­ui­table and just. Fair treat­ment of all, re­gard­less of gen­der, race or so­cial back­ground re­flects good eth­i­cal be­hav­iour. Trans­paren­cy in per­for­mance eval­u­a­tions, fair pay and equal op­por­tu­ni­ties for ca­reer de­vel­op­ment can lead to a sense of be­long­ing and mo­ti­vate em­ploy­ees to cre­ate val­ue.

In­te­grat­ing ethics in­to en­tre­pre­neur­ial ori­en­ta­tion

The suc­cess­ful firms to­day do not choose be­tween ad­her­ence to ethics and en­tre­pre­neur­ial be­hav­iour. They de­sign busi­ness mod­els that re­in­force ethics in­to op­er­a­tions so that en­tre­pre­neur­ial ac­tions through­out the or­ga­ni­za­tion are un­der­tak­en eth­i­cal­ly.

1. Eth­i­cal gov­er­nance frame­works

By es­tab­lish­ing clear stan­dards, re­port­ing cri­te­ria and ac­count­abil­i­ty mech­a­nisms, firms re­duce am­bi­gu­i­ty and ac­cel­er­ate eth­i­cal de­ci­sion-mak­ing. Gov­er­nance stream­lines en­tre­pre­neur­ial ac­tion when struc­tured cor­rect­ly.

2. Risk-aware in­no­va­tion

Eth­i­cal lead­er­ship does not elim­i­nate risk-tak­ing; it en­sures that risks are cal­cu­lat­ed, trans­par­ent, and aligned with or­gan­i­sa­tion­al val­ues. This leads to more re­silient in­no­va­tion prac­tices.

3. Eth­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion cul­tures

Lead­ers who com­mu­ni­cate open­ly about chal­lenges, de­ci­sions, and ex­pec­ta­tions cre­ate psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly safe work­places. Such en­vi­ron­ments en­able teams to in­no­vate, ques­tion as­sump­tions, and raise con­cerns with­out fear.

4. Val­ues-dri­ven lead­er­ship mod­els

When lead­ers em­body the val­ues they cham­pi­on, ethics be­comes em­bed­ded, not im­posed. Team mem­bers and em­ploy­ees in­ter­nalise eth­i­cal stan­dards as part of the or­gan­i­sa­tion­al iden­ti­ty, sim­pli­fy­ing com­pli­ance, en­hanc­ing rep­u­ta­tion and per­for­mance.

Con­clu­sion: Ethics as a com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage

Eth­i­cal lead­er­ship is not an al­ba­tross. It does not weigh down on en­tre­pre­neur­ial am­bi­tion and the en­tre­pre­neur­ial ori­en­ta­tion of firms. In­stead, it stead­ies the foun­da­tion up­on which core val­ues are built. For T&T to suc­ceed in its de­sire to be­come a more re­silient na­tion with­in the glob­al econ­o­my, in­sti­tu­tions at all lev­els must be led by per­sons who can nav­i­gate com­plex­i­ty with in­tegri­ty. As glob­al stan­dards rise, eth­i­cal lead­er­ship will in­creas­ing­ly de­fine cred­i­bil­i­ty and sus­tain­abil­i­ty of firms and in­sti­tu­tions.

Dr Ju­dith M S Mark, busi­ness strat­e­gy con­sul­tant, ed­u­ca­tor, aca­d­e­m­ic coach & ad­vo­cate for in­no­va­tion-dri­ven lead­er­ship