Tag: MIT Sloan Management Review

Categories
Blog

Ethical Conduct Through Psychological Safety: Part 1 – Introduction

What is perhaps one of the most recognizable movie themes of all-time? One that certainly falls into that category is the James Bond theme, written by Monty Norman, who recently passed away. According to his New York Times obituary, Norman took the job only because the producer, Chubby Broccoli, offered him a trip to Jamaica to watch some of the filming, in addition to more traditional monetary compensation. Norman was “struggling to come up with the theme, he said, until he remembered a song called “Bad Sign, Good Sign,” from an unproduced musical version of the 1961 V.S. Naipaul novel, “A House for Mr. Biswas,” on which he and a frequent collaborator, Julian More, had worked.” However, the opening line had an “Asian inflection and relied heavily on a sitar, but Mr. Norman “split the notes,” as he put it, to provide a more staccato feel for what became the theme song’s famous guitar riff. Norman said, “And the moment I did ‘dum diddy dum dum dum,’ I thought, ‘My God, that’s it. His sexiness, his mystery, his ruthlessness — it’s all there in a few notes.” (Listen to the James Bond theme here.)
I was reminded of the psychological nature of this great movie theme when reading a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer edition, entitled “Fostering Ethical Conduct Through Psychological Safety” by Antoine Ferrère, Chris Rider, Baiba Renerte, and Amy Edmondson. In this article, the authors asked such questions as “How do organizations encourage people to speak up about ethical breaches, whether inadvertent or deliberate?” and “Why do some employees choose to remain silent when others report misconduct?” Additionally, they “analyzed the perceptions of those who report misconduct against those of “silent bystanders” to help “better understand both the drivers and derailers of speaking up — and revealed insights into how leaders and compliance officers can encourage employees to make such reports.’”
The authors believe today, “it is more essential than ever that when misconduct happens or difficult problems arise, there is a strong ethical climate for surfacing information so that leaders can respond quickly and appropriately. An environment in which employees feel comfortable reporting such issues is also vital to preventing future misconduct.” Over the next couple of posts I will be exploring this article and some of the issues it raises. In Part 1, we look at what questions you should consider to determine the amount of psychological safety in your organization.
The starting point for any analysis for psychological safety is with one of the authors, Amy Edmondson herself and her seminal work The Fearless Organization. The authors began by modifying her original 1999psychological safety scale to emphasize a specific focus on employees speaking up. Interestingly, they added “the idea of thinking before speaking up in the hope of measuring hesitation.” They did so to “capture comfort levels in speaking up, based on the intuition that in a psychologically safe climate, people tend to say something right away, and when they don’t feel psychologically safe, they are more likely to keep incidents to themselves.”
By looking at how psychologically safe an organization is, the authors posited they could then  measure variance in psychological safety across teams and regions by surveying employees. They believed that this approach would allow them to then “focus efforts on teams who need the most help and to identify teams whose psychologically safe cultures may offer examples from which other teams can learn.” To do so the authors’ developed a survey which asked the following, “on a scale from 0 (completely disagree) to 10 (completely agree), their level of agreement with the following statements:”

  • On my team, if you make a mistake, it is often held against you.
  • Members of my team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
  • People on my team sometimes reject others for having different views.
  • It is safe to take a risk on my team.
  • It is difficult to ask other members of my team for help.
  • I tend to think about how raising a concern will reflect on me before speaking up.

Interestingly, the authors acknowledged relationship to whistleblowing, in the context of both psychological safety and an ethical business, they strove to make clear “an important distinction between external whistleblowing and those who speak up about perceived misconduct at work.” Moreover, recognizing the vital role external whistleblowers play in the detection prong of any best practices compliance program, if a whistleblower goes to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or other external actors, it is almost always because “they felt their concerns could not be expressed, heard, and addressed internally.” The authors believe that a “healthy organizational culture is one in which speaking up and listening go hand in hand and thereby reinforce ethical standards. If concerns are expressed, changes can be made in a timely way.” This is important because it moves from the detect prong to the prevent prong, which is by far the more important and effective prong in any compliance regime. Further ideas or innovations, rather than simply reporting of untoward actions, can make a company more efficient and more profitable. All of this means that if there truly is psychological safety a company can receive far more benefits than simply monetary fine or penalty avoidance.
Join us tomorrow in Part 2 where we consider the role of psychological safety and moving it through an organization.

Categories
Blog

Innovation in Compliance: Getting Culture Right

This week, we are exploring the topic of Innovation in Compliance by considering some of the newest business strategies which can be applied by the compliance profession to corporate compliance programs. My inspiration comes from MIT Sloan Management Review Winter Edition. Today, I want to head in a different direction and provide some guidance on getting your organization’s culture right.
As most readers will recall, a very large part of Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco’s October 2021 speech dealt with corporate culture. Regarding culture, Vin DiCianni, founder of Affiliated Monitors, Inc. (AMI), said of Monaco’s remarks, the “announcement by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and the Justice Department reignited the agency’s concentration of corporate and individual liability for white collar crimes. In doing so, she emphasized to businesses, their leadership and the attorneys who represent them on the importance of implementing and maintaining strong effective compliance programs and how DOJ will continue to look at these programs going forward.” In other words, the criticalness of culture is now paramount. Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) need to focus on growing corporate culture to build the ethical foundation for a successful compliance program.
In the most recent MIT Sloan Management Review issue, Donald Sull and Charles Sull penned an article entitled “10 Things Your Corporate Culture Needs to Get Right”, in which they posited that “knowing what elements of culture matter most to employees can help leaders foster engagement as they transition to a new reality that will include more remote and hybrid work.” It is an excellent review of some of the key elements around corporate culture and how CCOs can move forward to lay the foundation of one.
In the piece the authors explored “What distinguishes a good corporate culture from a bad one in the eyes of employees?” Of course, culture always starts at the top but unfortunately, the authors noted that “an organization’s official core values signal top executives’ cultural aspirations, rather than reflecting the elements of corporate culture that matter most to employees.” It is only by listening to what employees want that you can begin to understand how to improve culture. The authors found 10 key elements of culture that mattered most to employees.

  1. Employees feel respected. Employees are treated with consideration, courtesy, and dignity, and their perspectives are taken seriously. This is by far and away the most important factor and “the single best predictor of a company’s culture score is whether employees feel respected at work. Respect is not only the most important factor, it stands head and shoulders above other cultural elements in terms of its importance. Respect is nearly 18 times as important as the typical feature in our model in predicting a company’s overall culture rating, and almost twice as important as the second most predictive factor.” The implications of this finding go to communications and a speak up culture and how they might be used by a compliance function.
  2. Supportive leaders. Leaders help employees do their work, respond to requests, accommodate employees’ individual needs, offer encouragement, and have their backs. Here the authors found “Employees describe supportive leaders as helping them do their work, being responsive to requests, accommodating employees’ individual needs, offering encouragement, and having their backs. Leaders, of course, influence all aspects of culture, but being a source of support for employees is especially critical and is the leadership trait most closely associated with a highly rated culture.” This ties back into the respect finding and also ties into a speak up culture and trust at an organization.
  3. Leaders live core values. Leaders’ actions are consistent with the organization’s values. While the regulators focus on this issue, employees need to see leaders not simply espousing words but actually doing deeds. Perhaps most interestingly, “Employees don’t expect leaders to live the core values, but they appreciate it when they do.”
  4. Toxic managers. Leaders create a poisonous work environment and are described in extremely negative terms. Nothing will kill culture faster than a toxic manager. From the compliance perspective, this can be a disaster for not only does a toxic manager poison the atmosphere of those around them, but also those who train under him or her will garner their toxic approach as a role model.
  5. Unethical behavior. Managers and employees lack integrity and act in an unethical manner. Once again this can portend a disaster for an organization. Integrity is the cornerstone of most organizations’ official culture and “Identifying toxic leaders, digging deeper to understand the context of their behavior, coaching them, or removing them from leadership positions are tangible actions organizations can take to root out people who are undermining corporate culture and potentially exposing the company to reputational or legal risk.”
  6. Benefits. Employees’ assessment of all employer-provided benefits. While initially this might not seem like a compliance issue, when you look at the DOJ mandate for corporate compliance to be the bearer of institutional justice and institutional fairness you begin to see the connection. Perhaps most interesting is that “benefits are more than twice as important as compensation. Benefits are important for all employees, but which benefits matter most depend on an employee’s job. Health insurance and benefits are a better predictor of culture rating for front-line workers, while retirement benefits such as 401(k) plans and pensions matter more for white-collar employees.”
  7. Perks. Employees’ assessment of workplace amenities and perks. This finding once again calls the CCO around institutional fairness and ties into the importance of talent attraction, acquisition and retention. Here the most interesting item I found for compliance was that “Among perks, company-organized social events are a particularly strong predictor of a high culture score. Even when you control for how employees talk about perks in general, social events like team-building exercises, happy hours, and picnics emerge as a reliable predictor of a high culture score. Organizing social events is a promising and relatively low-cost way executives can reinforce corporate culture as employees return to the office.” This provides insights on ongoing communications about compliance in the post-pandemic world.
  8. Learning and development. Employees’ assessment of opportunities for formal and informal learning. This finding also portends well for compliance in terms of both formal and information compliance training and messaging.
  9. Job security. Perceived job security, including fear of layoffs, offshoring, and automation. Most compliance functions do not consider job security as part of corporate culture. However, the authors note, “Job insecurity, however, weighs heavily on employees’ minds when they assess corporate culture. The larger the percentage of employees who talked about layoffs, outsourcing, or the possibility of getting fired, the lower the company ranked on culture.”
  10. Reorganizations. How employees view reorganizations, including frequency and quality. I found this not too surprising, but the authors did note, “Virtually no one has any good things to say about reorganizations.” Further, “the fewer people who mention reorganizations, the higher a company’s culture score. While you might associate the mention of reorganizations with layoffs and job instability, the data reveals that employee concerns on this issue speak to wider strategic issues for companies.”

CCOs and compliance functions face a series of challenges while navigating the post-COVID-19 return to work. Through corporate culture, companies must maintain a healthy culture as mandated by the DOJ. The authors conclude, “Understanding the elements of culture that matter most to employees can help leaders maintain employee engagement and a vibrant culture as they transition to the new normal.”
Please join us tomorrow where we will look at why you need a career coach in compliance.