Download - Modeling the Message: Driving Compliance Results through Ethical Leadership, Culture and Trust

© 2008-2013 V. Scott Killingsworth All Rights Reserved.1

Modeling the Message:Driving Compliance Results through Ethical Leadership,

Culture and Trust

Scott KillingsworthACE Best Practices WorkshopOctober 24, 2013


If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

— Albert Einstein

Culture, more than rule books, determines how an organization behaves.

— Warren Buffett


Agenda

› Command and Control Compliance Model

› …and its limitations

› Values-Based Model

› Pioneering Studies on Comparative Effectiveness

› Legitimacy: What Gives Your Rules Moral Authority?

› Group Dynamics, Commitment and Framing

› How Culture Operates, and What it Can Do

› Leadership’s Roles in a Healthy Culture

› Compliance and Ethics Program Opportunities


Command and Control Compliance Model

› Aims to control or influence employee behavior mainly through negative and positive incentives

› Based on the “rational choice theory” of classical economics:

› We compare Reward for Misconduct to Risk

› Highest number wins – Risk or Reward

› Heavy reliance on specific rules, plus monitoring, detection, punishment and deterrence to increase perception of risk

Severity of PunishmentProbability of Detection = Estimated Risk


Command and Control Limitations

Even if we accept the rational-choice assumption, Command and Control has built-in limits:

›Only two levers for improving results:

› Very costly to increase perceived risk via better detection (“Cop on every corner” method)

› If punishment is too harsh, reporting of violations declines and enforcement gets spotty

›Self-interested rational choices for individuals aren’t always good for the organization

› A person’s situation can skew the equation

› Risk/Reward framing puts everything up for grabs – what’s your price? – but right and wrong should be non-negotiable



› Rationality is Overrated: In actual human beings, well-known cognitive biases distort risk/reward decision-making processes (See, e.g. Predictably Irrational, Nudge, Thinking Fast and Slow, The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty, Freakonomics)› We consistently over-value definite, near-term

events – such as the rewards of rule-breaking

› We under-value uncertain, future events, even if catastrophic – such as the risk of getting caught

Source: Messick and Bazerman, “Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decisionmaking”



› More cognitive biases that distort risk/reward and ethical judgments:› Self-Serving Bias and Conflicts of Interest

› Overconfidence, Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning

› Authority Bias and Conformity Pressures

› Remember the Milgram and Asch experiments?

Sources: Messick and Bazerman, “Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decisionmaking”;; Kim, The Banality of Fraud: Re-situating the Inside Counsel as Gatekeeper; Milgram, Behavioral Study of Obedience; Asch, S. E. Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment



› Hidden costs of strong Command-and-Control Focus:› Mistrust of employees signaled through multiple channels

› Reverse Pygmalion effect: projection of negative expectations may be self-fulfilling

› Adversarial relationship with employees – resentment and backlash misconduct (Reactivity effect)

› Risk/Reward framing can crowd out ethical thinking

› Deterrence message is one of pursuing self-interest (avoiding punishment) rather than doing the right thing

› Bottom Line: Command-and-Control alone is, at best, an inefficient (and therefore expensive) way to influence behavior

Sources: Treviño, Weaver, et. al; Stansbury and Barry, Ethics Programs and the Paradox of Control; Ayers and Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate


Values-Based Approach –The Paradigm Shift

› Traditional Command and Control Paradigm:

› Prevent “bad” employees (5%? 20%?) from breaking rules

› Forcibly impose Company standards and values upon recalcitrant employees

› Business and rules-based framing

› Values-based, Self-Regulatory Paradigm

› Harness the positive values of good people (80%? 95%?)

› Make sure Company is seen as measuring up to employee’s values

› Ethical and social framing

› To win loyalty – and voluntary adherence to rules – show that the company deserves it – Walk the talk


Values-Based Approach: Motivating Compliance via Ethical Culture

› Ethical Culture = Engaging Employee Values so that Employees Identify Positively with the Organization and Act Accordingly

› “Your values are what you do when no one is looking” › When employee aligns with Company values, motivation is

intrinsic, compliance is voluntary and doesn’t depend on monitoring, detection and fear of punishment

› Tyler’s Studies of Workplace Compliance:› Value-based factors (legitimacy and value congruence)

explained over 80% of variance in compliance behaviors

› Punishment and reward systems explained less than 20%

Source: Tyler, Deinhart, & Thomas, “The Ethical Commitment to Compliance: Building Value-Based Cultures”


Culture and Compliance

Cultural Markers › Ethical leadership (Executive

and Supervisory levels)

› Fair treatment of employees

› Rewarding ethical behavior

› Punishing misconduct

› Open discussion of ethical issues

› Ethical issues considered in decisionmaking

› Employee and Community Focus

Compliance Goals› Reducing unethical conduct

› Reporting misconduct

› Increasing awareness of ethical issues

› Increasing advice-seeking on ethical issues

› Comfort delivering bad news

› Better ethical decision-making

› Increasing employee commitment to employer

“What Works and What Hurts”: Very Large-Scale study of Effect of Cultural Factors on Compliance Outcomes

1. Values-Based Compliance Programs produce better results than those with a Command-and-Control, deterrence emphasis.

2.

Source: Treviño, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, “Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts, Cal. Mgmt. Rev., Vol. 41, NO. 2, 131 (1999)


Values-Based Approach --Legitimacy and Culture

› What Drives Voluntary Adherence to Rules? (Tyler)

› Company’s values and policies are perceived as measuring up to employee’s moral values

› Company is perceived as a legitimate source of authority: employee believes it deserves to have its rules followed

› These factors are more influential than likelihood of detection or fear of punishment (80/20)

› So, how can we promote these perceptions?

› Measuring up on values: “When managers say ‘ethics,’ employees hear ‘fairness.’”

Sources: Tyler, Deinhart, & Thomas; Treviño, Weaver, Gibson & Toffler

PSYCHO-

PATHSSAINTSTARGET POPULATION


Values-Based Approach –Fairness, Legitimacy and Culture

› Fairness Perceptions and Ethics Outcomes (Treviño and Weaver)

› Measured effects of company’s perceived fairness to employees

› Fairness strongly correlated with less observed unethical conduct and with more reporting of infractions

› What Works/What Hurts: Fair treatment had the strongest correlation with employee commitment to the company and with comfort delivering bad news

Source: Treviño and Weaver, “Employees’ Fairness Perceptions and Ethics-Related Outcomes in Organizations,” chapter in Managing Ethics in Business Organizations (2003)


Values-Based Approach --Legitimacy and Culture

› Leading criteria for legitimacy of authority› Procedural fairness in decision-making

› Quality of interpersonal treatment of employee

› These factors are more influential than:› Fairness of actual decision outcomes

› Whether outcomes are favorable to employee

› Risk of punishment

› Rewards of employment: salary and incentives

Source: Tyler, Deinhart, & Thomas


Values-Based Approach-- Legitimacy and Culture

› What is Procedural Fairness?› Opportunity for input from affected persons

› Understandable, articulated rules and processes

› Consistency over time and across similar cases

› Objectivity: Same rules for everybody

› Communicate reasons for decisions

› What Is Quality Interpersonal Treatment? › Respect employees’ rights: necessary but not sufficient

› Courtesy and dignity – respect the person

› Listen

› Communicate reasons for decisions

› Employee feels trustedSource: Tyler, Deinhart, & Thomas


Values-Based Approach – Trust is the Glue

› Managers at all levels must earn trust

› Values → consistent, coherent, predictable behavior → trust

› Actions speak louder than words (or Codes of Conduct)

› “Mood in the Middle” as well as Tone at the Top

› Treatment of employees is paramount

› Interactions with third parties matter too

› Social Media: untrustworthy to one → known by all

› Four leadership drivers of ethical culture (CEB):

› Honesty – truthfulness, promise-keeping

› Respecting and trusting employees

› Listening carefully to the opinions of others

› Taking action on verified misconduct

› All 4 relate to employee trust in managementSource: Tyler, Deinhart, & Thomas


Consistency is Crucial

“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it”

-Benjamin Franklin

“Bad is Stronger than Good”-Review of General Psychology, Vol 5 No. 4

(December 2001) by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs.

“Quotations found on the Internet are not always accurate.”

-Abraham Lincoln


Culture and Misconduct – The Role of Trust

Ethics Resource Center identified 5 “Negative Work Environment” factors:

› Success is rewarded regardless whether achieved through questionable means

› Mistrust of top management’s promises and commitments

› Mistrust of supervisors’ promises and commitments

› Dissatisfaction with information from top management

› Dissatisfaction with information from supervisors

› Strong correlation between these negative factors and workplace misconduct

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5

% of WorkersWitnessingMisconduct perYear

Number of Negative Workplace Factors Present

Source: Ethics Research Center, 2007 Business Ethics Survey


Group Dynamics, Commitment and Framing

› People use groups to support and nourish our identities and our positive self-concepts› Identification with the group promotes

commitment, engagement and cooperation

› Fair and respectful treatment

› Tells employees that they are important and valued

› Promotes trust

› Encourages identification, commitment, and cooperation with the group

› Pride in the group also encourages identification

Sources: Tyler and Blader, “The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Cooperative Behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 349 (2003); Ariely, “The Cost of Social Norms,” chapter in Predictably Irrational (2008).


Group Dynamics, Commitment and Framing

› Social/Group norms can govern behavior more effectively than market norms

› Social norms = Culture

› Market norms = Reward and Punishment

› Social vs. market framing: People will do things for free, for social reasons, that they won’t do for money; and social penalties can trump economic ones

› The power of social PLUS ethical framing: “Around here, we do what’s right.”

Sources: Tyler and Blader, “The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Cooperative Behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 349 (2003); Ariely, “The Cost of Social Norms,” chapter in Predictably Irrational (2008).

© 2008-2013 V. Scott Killingsworth All Rights Reserved.

Promoting Employee Commitment

› Employee commitment (engagement) strongly linked to:

› Management’s actions show character and integrity

› Management welcomes those seeking advice about reporting policy violations

› Clear guidelines for acceptable behavior

› All 9 Ethical Culture measures in the What Works/What Hurts study

Sources: McDowell, “The Hidden Bonus in ‘Doing the Right Thing; Treviño, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler


Committed Employees Boost Compliance and Peformance

› Benefits of Committed Workforce

› Voluntary rule adherence

› Less need for surveillance/monitoring

› More likely to report misconduct, which means:› Less accommodating environment for rule-breakers – more

“eyes on the street”

› Significant increase in voluntary actions to benefit the organization

› Oh, by the way, also: › Higher sales, profits, customer satisfaction and

loyalty

› Lower turnoverSources: Tyler, Dienhart, and Thomas; Ethics Resource Center, 2009 NBES, Supplemental Research Brief on Ethics and Employee Engagement; Harter et al, Well-Being in the Workplace and its Relationship to Business Outcomes


Do We Notice a Pattern?

DIMENSION

Trevino and WeaverCultural

Factors thatDrive

Compliance

TylerLegitimacy and

Voluntary Compliance

Ethics Resource Center

Favorable Perception of Management

Corporate Executive

Board – CELCLeadership

Attributes that Drive Integrity

Corporate Executive

Board – CELCLeading

indicators of Misconduct

Leadership and Modeling

Ethical leadership

Employee trust of supervisor and management

Modeling good behavior; keeping commitments

Honesty Co-workers compromise values for power and control

Interpersonal Treatment

Fair treatment of employees – courtesy, respect, dignity

Quality of interpersonal treatment – courtesy, respect, trust towards employee

Respect and trust employees

Lack of trust and respect from direct manager

Justice, Accountability, Follow-Up on Misconduct

Follow-up on reports of misconduct; rewarding ethical behavior; consistent treatment

Procedural fairness;same rules for everybody; consistency

Maintaining accountability among all employees across the business

Taking action on verified unethical conduct

Fear of retaliation; discomfort speaking up

Communication

Open discussion of ethical issues

Listen; opportunity for input from affected persons; communicate reasons for decisions

Good communications, including communications on ethics

Listening carefully to the opinions of others

Discomfort speaking up


Building Culture

MANAGEMENT’S WORDS (Code,

policies, procedures, training…)

Management’sActions

Co-Workers’ Actions

LIFE


Effect of Ethical Culture

25

Source: Ethics Resource Center, 2011 National Business Ethics Survey

Percentage of employees observing misconduct

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Weak Weak-Leaning Strong-Leaning Strong

Culture Strength and Observed Misconduct

Observed Misconduct


Effects of Ethical Culture

26

Source: Corporate Executive Board, “Ethical Leadership” 2010

16.2 percentage point swing


Leadership’s Role› Leaders at all levels must take ownership of

organizational culture

› Model the message through the broader company culture:

› Treat employees with respect and conspicuous fairness

› Keep your door and your mind open to employees

› Engage and communicate – consistently and in both directions (listen!)

› Transparency

› About responses to misconduct

› About reasons for decisions

› Be the change you want to see; live up to employee values and they’ll internalize yours

› Create a place where people are proud to work


Program Opportunities › Senior Executive/Board Education on Compliance

and Productivity Impact of Ethical Leadership, Values-Based Culture and Organizational Justice

› Coordination with HR/Engagement initiatives

› Cultural Assessment and targeted responses to areas of weakness

› Company-wide weaknesses

› “Pockets of Resistance” -- microcultures

› Integration of values and compliance measurements into employment functions:

› Hiring and onboarding

› Evaluation, compensation, recognition, promotion

› Managers especially

› Separation (bad apple disposal and exit interviews)


Program Opportunities

› Senior Executive/Board “Tone at the Top” training

› Evaluate employment decisionmaking processes (procedural fairness, consistency, transparency, etc.)

› Ethical Decisionmaking Training

› “Speaking up” Training

› Management soft-skills training

› Values communications through multiple channels

› Storytelling (See, e.g. KathleenEdmond.com)

› Real-life examples of good and bad decisions and their consequences


Leverage Other Voices to Get the Message Across


Bryan Cave LLP

One Atlantic Center

Fourteenth Floor

1201 West Peachtree Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30309

Tel. 404.572.6600

Fax. 404.572.6999

www.bryancave.com

Scott [email protected]

Questions and

Discussion