Sirajuddin Aziz
The debate remains whether character is followed by manners or conduct. Psychologists of repute maintain that manners precede conduct, and there is ample substance to support this view. A child’s first exposure to the world is interaction with parents, closely observing their behavioural patterns with keen interest.
By nature’s design, the child evaluates traits with acceptance or rejection. Some traits appear desirable, while others fail the young mind’s litmus test, driven by an innate nobility breathed into every human soul. No child likes witnessing shouting matches between parents. This early dislike forms a foundation of manners that later shapes conduct. Loud conversations are also repugnant to the standards of behaviour mentioned in divine teachings.
Character, it is said, is known to God and the individual; reputation is what the world sees. The latter is manageable and often at odds with reality. Character is foundational — the bedrock of personality. Families with strong, unwavering traits pass those on, yet good character can still be acquired. Abraham Lincoln, despite a conflicted home, developed outstanding honesty and integrity in both law and leadership.
When children see parents expressing gratitude, greeting others, or apologising, they naturally adopt similar manners — manifestations of respect and sensitivity. At workplaces, however, we often witness insensitivity. What is bred in the bone emerges in behaviour; offspring generally remain aligned with family values.
After parents, close family such as uncles, aunts, and grandparents become early teachers, their influence deeply shapes manners and conduct. In the broader Orient, stretching from the Bosphorus to the Levant, society emphasises that manners precede knowledge. Confucian ideals and Rumi’s teachings elevate the role of teachers in fortifying conduct established by family upbringing.
The philosophy of etiquette is enduring. Manners may change — politeness can grow or decline when society normalises impoliteness, as we increasingly see today. Manners and etiquette, though related, are distinct. Etiquette is a defined system of rules, customs, and protocols considered good in specific contexts. For example, rising to greet a senior entering an office is customary here.
Etiquette is historical, traced to the 17th century court of Versailles, where standards were posted to enforce decorum.
Office-holders must exhibit moral character and sound conduct. Morality and integrity must remain indivisible and non-negotiable. In corporate hiring, good character is assumed — a risk, as it cannot be fully judged in a short interview. HR must probe any doubts before shortlisting.
Once hired, employers reinforce etiquette and workplace manners — presuming noble family values already exist. There was a time in Pakistan when reputable multinationals like ICI, ANZ Grindlays, BCCI, and PIA invested heavily in grooming management trainees — not only professionally but as ladies and gentlemen. They trained young executives in dining etiquette, social engagement, and conversational conduct — including correct table settings and behaviour as hosts.
Even exchanging business cards globally was taught with cultural nuances.
To uphold governance and best practices, organisations must continuously evaluate behaviour. Parliament may sometimes abandon decorum for comic relief, yet recently, a committee discussed dress codes for women in Islamic banks — as though nothing more pressing existed.
HR ensures all inductees sign a Code of Conduct, committing legally to morality and integrity. Companies dominated by autocratic owners often disregard respect and dignity, harming productivity and self-esteem.
Workplace performance flourishes only within an environment of peace, equality and collective respect.
The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.
