Compliancetraining, nomatter howprogressive, isill-equipped toconceive everypossible ethicaldilemma simplybecause it isdriven by humanbehavior and isto that extentunpredictableA recent newspaper article said that statetransport authorities were found to makefake emission certificates, either using othervehicles or without a vehicle at all. Whoshould be blamed for this? The...
Compliance
training, no
matter how
progressive, is
ill-equipped to
conceive every
possible ethical
dilemma simply
because it is
driven by human
behavior and is
to that extent
unpredictable
A recent newspaper article said that state
transport authorities were found to make
fake emission certificates, either using other
vehicles or without a vehicle at all. Who
should be blamed for this? The technician
responsible for filling up the columns and ticking the
boxes? The supervisor who agreed for the other vehicle or
no vehicle at all? Or the management which is interested
in getting the work done and not how it is done?
“…I did this because it was good for the business”
“…my boss asked me to do it, and if I said ‘NO’, it
would be insubordination”,
“…I believe, if it is coming from the management, it
would be right…”
“…I did not do it for any personal gain…”
not about a
philosophy,
theory or a
strategy. It is
about difficult
choices -
dilemmas”
The above are the most commonly used defenses when
confronted for doing things in an unethical way.
Ethical dilemmas are often the most difficult ones to define
and therefore hard to advocate or monitor. Compliance
training, no matter how progressive it is, is ill-equipped to
conceive every possible ethical dilemma simply because it is
driven by human behavior and is to that extent unpredictable.
What is considered to be dynamism as a business practice
or innovation in terms of ways of working, has the risk
of becoming an exception and therefore abrasion when it
comes under the scanner of compliance.
Abrasions are often found at an operational level and the
person responsible for the decision often goes scot-free.
For example, in a case where the failure to repay the loan
on time by borrowers was deliberately suppressed for
incentive in respect of successful loan applications, the
person who is penalized is the disbursing clerk, rather than
questioning the intent of the person who fixed something
that can be manipulated as a KPI to determine the rate of
incentive.
It’s here that the domain of ethics needs a co-ownership
from people who are responsible for designing the rewards
program. So an ethical dilemma not just needs correction to
avoid it, but it needs a positive reinforcement to be replaced
with responsible behavior, a responsibility of the senior
management.
So how does one decide an ethical dilemma vs. noncompliance?
Accordingly, will the investigation strategy be
different?
The culpability in the case of non-compliance depends on
whether:
(i) It was deliberate
(ii) There was a motive to cheat or withhold information
from the management
(iii) The management suffered a loss or disadvantage on
account of it
Investigation into an ethical dilemma would be wider in
scope by addressing the following too:
(i) Was there a concerted effort?
(ii) Did the employee circumvent or short circuit the
process?
(iii) Was there a misuse or abuse of authority?
be dynamism as a business
practice or innovation in terms
of ways of working, has the risk
of becoming an exception and
therefore abrasion when it comes
under the scanner of compliance
Here’s a small story to explain why investigation into
ethical dilemmas is complex, as it is always open to debate
- Doing the right thing vs. doing it the right way.
There was a snake which occupied a burrow in a tree and
a crow was a resident of the same tree with its nest on the
top. Whenever the crow would lay its eggs, the snake would
sneak into the crow’s nest and eat them as its supper. The
crow wanted to teach a lesson to the snake, but the snake
was too strong an enemy to confront. So, the crow thought
of an idea. As it was flying over a castle of a king, it spotted
a pearl necklace of a queen on a table and picked it up and
placed it in the burrow of the snake.
When the king’s security men set out on a search to locate
the lost necklace of the queen, finding it in the snake’s
burrow, without a second thought, they killed the snake.
Was the crow right in what it did? If it was right, did it
do it the right way? Ethical dilemmas always have more
than one answer. That’s the enigmatic part of a compliance
investigation.
Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and are purely informative in nature.