Showing posts with label HR Human Resource. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HR Human Resource. Show all posts

Monday, September 24, 2012

Hiring: Hunch Based versus Computer Modeling

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal ( Sept. 20th, 2012 article link is below), talks about how algorithms and computer modeling are now used to hire personnel. It does not mention interviews and validation of assessment (or test) results which are critical components to a final job offer and/or promotion, and implies that resumes, education and experience are not considered or not weighted very heavily.

Algorithms Run the Workplace - Companies Trade In Hunch-Based Hiring for Computer Modeling

The companies that we worked with, many of them large BPO/Call Center companies, as well as the training we conducted, emphasized the importance of assessments in better defining "job fit" through Benchmarking, which has been proven over many years to significantly increase employee retention and heightened job performance. However, equally important is observing the distortion value (a measure of how consistently a candidate answers the questions during the assessment/test) and validating the results by asking Behavior Event Interview (BEI) questions and conducting background checks!

The reason for using assessments is to consistently evaluate candidates in a time-sensitive manner, and in an unbiased way. This is critical as it has been proven that people decide on a candidate within the first 4.3 minutes of an interview, which means that the interviewer is strictly going by "gut" instinct unless he/she is well trained to overlook first impressions.

Most of the large BPO/Call Center companies generally desire to test, interview and make a job offer within 8-10 hours. The reason, especially at the height of mass hiring and new client ramp-ups, is to quickly identify good candidates, make an offer, and get an acceptance within one day, so that these candidates are not lost to other companies. These methods are employed by many industries, large and small and who may not be needing to meet such strict time requirements.

Good assessments should take into account: Learning Index (IQ), Behavioral Index (EQ) and Areas of Interest that the candidate has. If there is good alignment with the position and the company, this good "job fit" will greatly enhance success, both for the candidate and the hiring company.

ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) are used to manage large numbers of applicants, help identify those who do not meet the minimum requirements and filter them out, while keeping track of those who move on through the hiring process, and also help prevent the same candidate from applying multiple times within a given time frame to the same company for multiple positions.

In the above article there is mention about commuting time being a criteria. However, especially for overseas operations, many times candidates learn of this "select-out" criteria, and merely list a relative's address that is nearby the facility. An interview and especially a background check will quickly help to identify if the candidate does indeed live within the prescribed radius of work.

A couple of scenarios which are used are:




So, while assessments are excellent in evaluating candidates, they should only be weighted at 1/3 of the total value in the hiring process, as validation of the results through a BEI interviews and good background checks, are critical.

Are you following these key principles?


Monday, May 14, 2012

Improper vetting of Data on a Resume leads to Resignations at Yahoo!

As mentioned in a couple of earlier blog posts, making sure that the references check out and information on Resumes/c.v.'s is accurate before hiring someone, is critical and essential. This impacts the corporation on multiple levels:

1) Making sure that there is good "Job Fit" by contacting people who have worked with the individual before and how they have performed, and in "assessing" behavioral traits that fit with the position's benchmark, based on top performers.

2) Ensuring that the Ethics and Moral values of the person are consistent with the company's values, as this person's interaction with all levels of the company's personnel will have some effect, regardless of position within the company, from sanitary engineer on up.

3) Finding a replacement can take time and interrupts strategies or activities being handled by the individual in question and can set back the initiatives, by months to even years.

4) It affects the morale of of the company and personnel. The higher the position of the person or people in question, the broader the impact and negative affect on the company. In this most recent case at Yahoo!, which has been struggling to compete against Google, it casts ongoing credibility issues for the company, both internally and with shareholders. Morale and Credibility Issues follow Yahoo!

And:
5) In this case, it has affected not only the career of the individual who embellished his credentials, but also, regrettably another Board member.

Have all the shoes fallen yet? Only time will tell! There should be policy changes put into place to prevent a occurrence, that is clear.

Scott Thompson CEO of Yahoo! Resigns

Patti Hart of Yahoo! Resigns Over CEO's botched Academic Records

Monday, March 5, 2012

New Demographics about older populations in the US: Old-Age and Divorce

Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal address new information about demographics in the US, in particular, older populations and divorce. For those whose markets/products are affected, these may be of  particular interest.

This data DOES affect most companies, in one form or another. Anywhere from pools of employees, possible absences due to employees having to care for parents/grand parents, to employment benefits long term insurance, succession planning, visioning and social media, to just mention a few.

The link to each article is at the end of the two articles, if you desire to access the original ones.

Death Gets in the Way of Old-Age Gains

A new research paper, and a census surprise, are calling into question some long-held beliefs about a morbid bit of math: how much mortality rates increase with age.
It's no surprise that the older a group of people get, the higher the percentage of them who will die in any given time period. Benjamin Gompertz, a 19th-century British mathematician, charted the increase in mortality rates as very regular. His Gompertz law of mortality says that each additional period brings a constant percentage increase in mortality rates.
[NUMBGUY]
In the 20th century, though, as the world population aged and demographers' data improved, Gompertz started to look fallible. Researchers have found that, starting around age 80, mortality keeps increasing, but more slowly. More 100-year-olds die before turning 101 than 80-year-olds do before their 81st birthday, but the difference was less than Gompertz predicted.

But Gompertz may be right after all. In a study published last year and publicized last month, two longtime researchers of aging and believers in the late-life mortality slowdown reported that they and others were wrong. Death rates among Americans born between 1875 and 1895 kept on climbing steadily as they aged, they found, all the way through age 106, when their numbers got too sparse to follow.

This is bad news for anyone who wants to reach the century mark, but could provide an odd measure of relief for pensions, retirement programs and medical insurers, whose costs rise as people live longer.
The result came as a surprise to the study's authors, Leonid Gavrilov and Natalia Gavrilova, a husband-and-wife team at the Center on Aging, part of the research center NORC at the University of Chicago. They married in 1975 after he proposed—with a promise he would discover how to halt aging if she would accept.

In their jointly written papers and books over the past three-plus decades, they have advanced what they call a reliability theory of aging. This suggests that the body, like a machine, amasses more flaws as it ages. Redundancies in design meant to keep it from failing become more heavily loaded with time, increasing the probability of breakdown, or death. Past a certain point, these layers of defense have fallen away and mortality approaches a constant rate.

Their model therefore predicted a slowdown in mortality increases with age, which their new study calls into question. "We are confronted with inconvenient truth for our theory, and we have to accept what the data say," the authors wrote in a response to questions, that, like most of their writing, was a collaborative effort. "Now we are trying to reconcile the reliability theory of aging with our new observations."

Their findings have created a stir among demographers and others who study the very oldest people. Some hail the findings as offering important insight into how people age, and in explaining an unexpected slowdown in the rise in the ranks of American centenarians.

In 2004, the Census Bureau projected that there would be 114,000 people aged 100 or older by 2010 and 1.1 million centenarians by 2050. But the 2010 census counted just 53,364, a slender 5.8% increase from 2000. And now the Census Bureau is projecting there will be 592,000 Americans age 100 or older by 2050.

"Centenarian data have a long history of being affected by various data-quality issues," says Julie A. Meyer, an analyst in the Census Bureau's population division. She adds that the bureau's projections staff "is continuing to improve the accuracy of mortality estimates."

Robert Young, who administers the database of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks the world's oldest people, says the new study "helped to explain why this error was made." He adds, "It seems that predictions of future centenarian counts are often unnecessarily rosy."
However, other researchers question the findings. Underlying the controversy is that many other studies have documented the plateau in death rates the new study rebuts. "There is actually a very deep controversy underlying the results presented," says Laurence Mueller, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine.

One aspect of how the latest study was conducted may help explain some of the discrepancy. Dr. Gavrilov and Dr. Gavrilova used a data set of deaths from the Social Security Administration that allowed them to track all Americans born between 1875 and 1895 who died before 2011—presumably, all of them. This presents two advantages over other data sets. One is that birth and death dates are derived from the same source, rather than potentially inconsistent data. Another is they can track monthly rather than annual changes in mortality, which can help correct for understated death rates.
It remains to be seen, though, if this pattern will apply to other sets of aging populations. Dr. Gavrilov and Dr. Gavrilova say they will be watching. "For people born after the 1940s, there is only one way to get mortality data above age 80 years," they write. "That is to wait."

The Gray Divorcés

The divorce rate for people 50 and over has doubled in the past two decades. Why baby boomers are breaking up late in life like no generation before.


For years, 51-year-old Dawn and her husband of two decades, Tim, had buried their differences over finances, child-rearing and religion. But when the last of the Wisconsin couple's three daughters was finishing high school in 2009, those differences were all that Dawn could see. "I had gone back to school to advance my career as a paralegal, and his work had dwindled, so he was just basically hanging out with his buddies," she says. "We had nothing to talk about, and when we did, it was bickering."

They had stayed together all those years because of the kids, but now nothing was left. "He was so uncompassionate, and I had turned to my religion, and he would never go to church with me," she says. "I realized that I was alone in the marriage and would be better off with someone whose values and interests were more like mine." She seized the moment and left, filing for divorce.
While divorce is declining overall, the divorce rate among those 50-plus has doubled over the past two decades. Susan Gregory Thomas on Lunch Break discusses why gray divorce is on the rise.
For the new generation of empty-nesters, divorce is increasingly common. Among people ages 50 and older, the divorce rate has doubled over the past two decades, according to new research by sociologists Susan Brown and I-Fen Lin of Bowling Green State University, whose paper, "The Gray Divorce Revolution," Prof. Brown will present at Ohio State University this April. The paper draws on data from the 1990 U.S. Vital Statistics Report and the 2009 American Community Survey, administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, which asked all respondents if they'd divorced in the past 12 months.
Though overall national divorce rates have declined since spiking in the 1980s, "gray divorce" has risen to its highest level on record, according to Prof. Brown. In 1990, only one in 10 people who got divorced was 50 or older; by 2009, the number was roughly one in four. More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.

What's more, a 2004 national survey conducted by AARP found that women are the ones initiating most of these breakups. Among divorces by people ages 40-69, women reported seeking the split 66% of the time. And cheating doesn't appear to be the driving force in gray divorce. The same AARP survey found that 27% of divorcés cited infidelity as one of their top three reasons for seeking a divorce—which is not out of line with estimates of infidelity as a factor in divorce in the general population.
So what is going on with these baby boomers? Are they finally seeking adventure, now that their kids are out of the house? Are the women exacting their revenge, at last, against the feminine mystique?

In 1990, 1 in 10 of all divorces were by people ages 50+. In 2009, 1 in 4 of all divorces were by people ages 50+.
The trend defies any simple explanation, but it springs at least in part from boomers' status as the first generation to enter into marriage with goals largely focused on self-fulfillment. As they look around their empty nests and toward decades more of healthy life, they are increasingly deciding that they've done their parental duty and now want out. These decisions are changing not just the portrait of aging people in the U.S., as boomers swell the ranks of the elderly, but also the meaning of the traditional vow to stay together until "death do us part."

"Some of those marriages that in previous generations would have ended in death now end in divorce," says Betsey Stevenson, assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies marriage and divorce. In the past, many people simply didn't live long enough to reach the 40-year itch. "You can't divorce if you're dead," says Ms. Stevenson.

But that's not the whole story, given that the bulk of the increase in late-in-life divorce has come among people ages 50-64. As a generation, boomers have changed American notions of marriage—and in the process, they have sown the seeds of their own discontent.

Most sociologists argue that boomers entered marriage with expectations very different from those of previous generations. "In the 1970s, there was, for the first time, a focus on marriage needing to make individuals happy, rather than on how well each individual fulfilled their marital roles," says Prof. Brown, author of the gray marriage paper.

According to Prof. Brown, over the past century there have been three "phases" of American views of marriage. First, there was the "institutional" phase, in the decades before World War II, when marriage was seen largely as an economic union.

This was succeeded in the 1950s and '60s by the "companionate" phase, in which a successful marriage was defined by the degree to which each spouse could fulfill his or her role. Husbands were measured by their prowess as providers and wives by their skills in homemaking and motherhood.
In the 1970s, the boomers initiated what Prof. Brown calls the "individualized" phase, with an emphasis on the satisfaction of personal needs. "Individualized marriage is more egocentric... Before the 1970s, no one would have thought to separate out the self as being distinct from the roles of good wife and mother."

None of this is especially surprising for the "Me Generation," but today's gray divorces include a generational twist: For many boomers, it is not their first marital split. Fifty-three percent of the people over 50 now getting divorced have done so at least once before.
More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.
In fact, more "complex marital biographies," as Prof. Brown puts it, seem to be one of the driving forces behind gray divorce. Having been married previously doubles the risk of divorce for those ages 50 to 64. For those ages 65 and up, the risk factor quadruples.

For boomers who have had trouble maintaining commitments in the past, hitting the empty-nest phase seems to trigger thoughts of mortality—and of vanishing possibilities for self-fulfillment.
"With the children out of the house, boomers in unhappy marriages often look at each other and think, 'I may have another 25 to 35 years to live. Do I want to spend it with this person?' " says Deirdre Bair, author of the book, "Calling It Quits: Late-Life Divorce and Starting Over," a chronicle of nearly 400 interviews with people splitting in midlife. "There is an overwhelming, urgent feeling among them of, 'I have to strike out now, or I'll never have the chance again,' " says Ms. Bair.
Many of those now opting for gray divorces, however, fail to foresee its complications in today's bleak economic landscape. This is especially true of women.

[DIVORCE]

Though homes are often awarded to ex-wives, points out Pennsylvania divorce and family lawyer Elizabeth Bennett, this can be a burden instead of a blessing in a collapsed housing market. And when it comes to obligations to kids for things like continuing education, weddings and down payments on homes, according to Janice L. Green, a divorce and family law attorney in Texas, "it's always the mother who is willing to give up settlement money that should be on her side of the ledger."

Divorcing fathers have their own reasons to be concerned. According to a 2003 study from the University of North Florida, they are more likely to see a major decline in contact with at least one child, compared with stably married fathers, whereas divorced mothers tend to get closer to their children.
Still, many older divorcés say they're happy. According to the 2004 AARP survey, the vast majority of divorcés ages 40-79 (80%) consider themselves, on a scale from 1 to 10, to be on the top half of life's ladder. A majority of 56% even consider themselves to be on the uppermost rung (8-10). But "being alone" was nonetheless the top fear among both men and women, and those who had remarried reported significantly higher levels of life satisfaction.

So would some of these late-in-life divorcés have been better off trying to preserve their troubled marriages? According to John Mordecai Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute in Seattle and author of "What Predicts Divorce?," the behavioral precursors to late-life or empty nest divorce are no different from those for younger couples—criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. And, of course, the longer such behavior has persisted, the more deeply ingrained it becomes in a couple's personal dynamic.

In its work with older couples in crisis, Gottman Institute therapists recommend that spouses "turn toward" each other—that is, that they actively respond to bids for reconnection—rather than, say, snapping: "Excuse me, I'm trying to watch 'CSI' here!"
Those boomers who can't manage to hold on to their marriages, though, will hardly be alone. Prof. Brown's paper predicts that the number of over-50 divorces in 2030, based on current trends, could easily top 800,000 per year. And all those new divorcés shouldn't have too much trouble finding a date. Indeed, over the past year, the number of dating-site users 50 or older has grown twice as rapidly as any other age group, according to comScore Inc., an online data-analysis and marketing company.
Dawn, the 51-year-old who divorced her husband of 20 years, found her current boyfriend of nine months on the over-50 dating site OurTime.com. He's a divorcé with no children, and Dawn describes him as "very religious and compassionate, the things I was lacking in my former husband." Her kids—19, 20 and 26—are less sure, she says. "You can't expect kids to be excited about a new person who isn't their dad…But I'm very happy."

Death Gets in the Way of Old-Age Gains  

The Gray Divorcés

Friday, March 2, 2012

Recent article in the WSJ about Fixing Executive Compensation

There is nothing earth shattering in this article but is it good for identifying concise issues. The essentials of including debt in the calculations is an excellent concept, long term growth, and flexible compensation packages (adapting to market changes) are important for CEO and Senior Executive Packages.

However, even beyond these issues, it might have mentioned the need for a pro-active Board that demands financial transparency and accountability, and good external financial audits to highlight problem areas. Human capital growth is also needed for sustainability and should be included in some form. Last, it is essential to identify organic growth from acquisition growth, as acquisitions can hide a number of sins and problems, not to mention, many times adding debt to the corporation.

Here is the article with a hot link to the original article at the end:

How to Fix Executive Compensation

For starters, don't link pay packages just to stock. Tie them to debt as well.


The secret to reforming compensation isn't so much looking at how much bosses get paid—but how they get paid.
It's easy to understand why critics focus on the gaudy awards of cash and stock that executives take home. And, yes, it's hard to deny that some bosses get paid a lot more than they deserve. But the structure of compensation is ultimately a lot more important than its level, because it gets to the heart of how managers run companies and create value for shareholders.
Pay packages should give managers strong incentives to run companies correctly, to make them think in the long term and avoid taking excessive and potentially destructive risks. In many cases, they are well-designed and provide CEOs with the correct motivation. But in others, pay packages not only fail to achieve that goal but push executives in the other direction.
There are creative ways—yet simple and easy to implement—to tie executives' fortunes to the long-term health of their companies. Tying bosses' pay to the levels of debt at the business, for instance, will dissuade them from taking risks that might alienate creditors. Preventing executives from selling company stock until several years after it's granted will give them a powerful incentive to think long term. And updating the compensation package to reflect changing conditions in the market and the company will ensure that managers' interests are always aligned with those of the company and its shareholders.
Here's a closer look at those proposals.
Pay Them in Debt
An effective way to deter executives from taking excessive risk is to compensate them with debt-based pay as well as equity. However, many compensation packages feature only cash and equity.

Consider what happens when a boss who gets paid only in stock is facing a big choice that affects debtholders.
Let's say the company has $1 billion in debt but assets of just $900 million. If the CEO liquidates the business, debtholders get 90 cents on the dollar, but equity holders (like the CEO) are wiped out. Obviously, that's not an attractive prospect for the boss.
Now imagine that the CEO has before him a proposal that has an equal chance of gaining $200 million and losing $400 million. Clearly, the project is undesirable from a company-value perspective. However, since the manager holds only equity, he has little to lose by taking it. Stockholders are going to get wiped out anyway, so they're not going to lose more if the move fails. But if it succeeds, the company is worth $1.1 billion—and equity holders have $100 million to share, after the debtholders get paid off.
Looking at things from the debtholders' point of view, though, the move is clearly undesirable. If the boss doesn't take on the plan, they recover 90% of their money. If the boss goes through with it and succeeds, they get an additional 10% back. But if the strategy fails, they collect just 50% total.
Boards of directors, who design pay packages, are elected by shareholders. So, why should they care about debtholders at all? Because if potential lenders expect the CEO to take such gambles, they will demand a high interest rate and restrictive covenants, ultimately costing shareholders. A high interest rate cuts into profits, and restrictive covenants may prevent managers from undertaking desirable investment.
[DEBTFACTonline]
Qi Liu of Wharton and I have shown that the optimal pay package involves giving managers debt-based compensation as well as equity. Contrary to intuition, the CEO's optimal equity/debt ratio typically differs from the company's. If the business is financed with, say, 60% equity and 40% debt, it may be best to give the CEO 80% equity and 20% debt-based pay. The optimal debt ratio for the CEO is usually lower than the company's, because equity is typically more effective at inducing effort. However, the optimal debt ratio is still nonzero—the CEO should be given some debt compensation.
As for what kind of debt to give as compensation, it can take any number of forms. First, defined-benefit pensions and deferred compensation are already frequently used in practice. These instruments have equal priority with other unsecured creditors in bankruptcy, giving the CEO a strong incentive to look after their interests. And they seem to work: The research of Raghu Sundaram and David Yermack of New York University finds that CEOs with large defined-benefit pensions manage their companies more conservatively. Similarly, a paper by Divya Anantharaman and Vivian Fang of Rutgers University and Guojin Gong of Pennsylvania State University finds that debt compensation leads to fewer loan covenants and a lower cost of debt.
Second, compensation can be explicitly tied to debt values. American International Group Inc. used that kind of system in 2010, before its recapitalization, for certain elements of compensation for highly paid employees. In that plan, 80% of the pay was tied to the price of some of the company's bonds, and 20% was tied to the price of its stock. Third, the CEO can be granted actual debt securities such as corporate bonds, just as CEOs typically hold stock and options.
Make Them Wait to Cash In
Another critical change companies should implement is to lengthen the time that executives must wait before they can cash in their shares and options. All too often, stock and options have short vesting periods, sometimes as little as two to three years. This encourages managers to pump up the short-term stock price at the expense of long-run value, since they can sell their holdings before a decline occurs. A CEO can, for instance, write subprime loans to boost short-term revenue and leave before the loans become delinquent, or scrap investment in R&D. This is possible since, in many cases, stock and options immediately vest when the CEO leaves the company.
In a paper with Xavier Gabaix and Tomasz Sadzik of New York University and Yuliy Sannikov of Princeton, we show that optimal compensation packages involve long vesting periods. In particular, the pay packages don't vest more quickly when a CEO leaves a company—the executive must still wait several years before cashing in.
Just how long should a CEO wait? It depends on the kind of company. The waiting period should be longer in businesses where the CEO can take actions with very long-term consequences. It might be seven years or more at a drug company with a lengthy product pipeline. But the wait might be shorter at, say, a commodity chemical company, where CEO decisions usually don't have an impact more than a few years ahead.
Of course, there is a trade-off. If companies make CEOs wait too long to collect, the former bosses might be exposed to risks outside their control, such as regulatory changes that eat into profits. Companies need to find a balance that works best for their situation.
Change to Fit the Times
Even a compensation plan that's well-designed at the outset can fail to keep pace with the market and the company's fortunes. Take the case of a corporation that pays its boss in stock options. If the company hits a rough patch and its shares plummet, an executive's stock options become close to worthless and lose much of their incentive effect. This problem may still exist even if the executive has all stock and no options.
DEBTJUMP
Let's say the CEO is paid $4 million in deferred cash and $6 million in restricted stock. At the outset, boosting the value of the company by, say, 1% is worth $60,000 to him—a good inducement to put in more effort or drop a costly pet project. But if the share price halves, his restricted stock is now $3 million. So, this incentive is slashed to $30,000.
To maintain the power of the incentives, the CEO must be required to hold more stock after a stock-price decline. How much more? In the paper with Profs. Gabaix, Sadzik and Sannikov, we show that the CEO's stock should remain a roughly constant percentage of compensation.
In the example above, this target was 60%. At the start of the CEO's contract, that meant $6 million out of $10 million total compensation. We call this the CEO's "incentive account." Now that the stock has halved, the incentive account is worth only $7 million—$4 million in cash and $3 million in stock. To keep the equity level at 60%, the CEO must have $4.2 million of stock. This is achieved by rebalancing the CEO's incentive account: exchanging $1.2 million of cash for stock, so that the executive now has $2.8 million of deferred cash.
Since the additional stock is accompanied by a reduction in cash, it isn't given free. This addresses a major concern with the repricing of stock options after company value falls: Repricing rewards the CEO for failure by giving him a lower stock-price target to reach. Note that, even if the board is reluctant to amend the terms of previously awarded compensation by exchanging existing stock for cash, the desired rebalancing can still be easily implemented; next year, the board simply pays the CEO more equity and less cash.
If companies employ the three above principles—debt-based compensation to reduce risk, long vesting periods to dissuade short-termism and rebalancing to ensure incentives at all times—executives will be aligned with the long-term health of their companies. And that will not only help keep individual companies safe, it will reduce the risk of another financial crisis.
Dr. Edmans is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, a faculty research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a research associate of the European Corporate Governance Institute. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Fixing Executive Compensation 

Thursday, March 1, 2012

ETHICS, Drugs and Morality: How they affect Communication, Productivity and Everyday Life- Part IV

The recent study about Ethics (Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior-from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States) was mentioned in yesterday's posting, but it merits greater attention, as it is as recent as January 2012. Also, many times, higher social class people tend to be in higher positions, for a variety of reasons, some warranted and some not. This study was mentioned in a recent Canadian TV newscast also.

The importance of this study is of interest because it states that the higher the social class, the greater the increase in unethical behavior. So, this supports why both pre-hire assessments should be used to help screen and identify these behaviors before hiring certain individuals, or at the vary least, the need to validate the results. Establishing benchmarks can be easily done around these issues. For non-profits these behaviors may be even more critical.

Even if these people are hired, then the company should use this information as Training Needs Analysis and possibly implement more frequent reinforcement in the beginning years of employment for these individuals. Or during the onboarding process, highlighting sections in the employee manuals, and if ethics is part of core values, then highlighting this also.

The significance of the study is important as it may also be a partial explanation as to why recently there have been so many abuses of fraud, stealing and and deception in high profile news stories. Only through Board oversight can the C-Suite and senior level employees be supervised. The rest of the organization should be supervised by watch-dog employees and HR scrutiny.

Below is the abstract from the above mentioned study. The link is in the first sentence above.

Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior

1      Paul K. Piffa,1,
2      Daniel M. Stancatoa,
3      Stéphane Côtéb,
4      Rodolfo Mendoza-Dentona, and
5      Dacher Keltnera
+ Author Affiliations
1      aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and
2      bRotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3E6
3      Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved January 26, 2012 (received for review November 8, 2011)

Abstract

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

ETHICS, Drugs and Morality: How they affect Communication, Productivity and Everyday Life- Part III

When asked WHY, after conducting pre-hire assessments of candidates, and drug screening prior to hire,  the client still has issues with employees who have been long term employees in the areas of ethics, drugs and morality...

The reason is relatively simple…

These are issues that need to be re-enforced over the years regardless of how we have been raised, taught and/or shown. Our personal situations change over time, and there are temptations and challenges that we are confronted with that test our resolve in these areas. Personally, I have observed that mid-life crisis years (male and female) increase the pressures on individuals and a number of people have changed or relinquished their values to regain where they had envisioned themselves to be at this stage in their career or life. Many times, this is because they possibly have felt that they have not attained the success they had expected to achieve at this stage of their life, or financial challenges have arisen at a stressful period of time, and many other reasons.

This is why it is essential that companies have reinforcement programs to remind existing employees of policies and standards that need to be followed. In a fortune 100 where I worked, after a several hour session of re-enforcement each year, we had to sign anti-trust and ethics standards each year.

These kinds of programs need to be implemented yearly as they can then communicate changes in existing  programs, or address questions that employees might have encountered through the course of the year.

In January of this year, at the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, a paper was included with the title of:  Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior . Maybe this is ONE reason why so many recent instances of CEO and Senior Executives violating laws or absconding with money, in one way or another.

Ethics in particular is a major problem. Obviously, the well publicized cases in the past of Bendix’s
Agee, Enron, and what you can find in this article: The Corporate Scandal Sheet


Allan Stanford: Prosecutor Sums Up: Stanford Lied for Decades

AIJ Investment Advisors (Japan): Japan launches probe of all advisory firms in wake of AIJ case

Russell Wasendorf of Peregrine said in a statement that he forged documents and lied to regulators.

Hong Kong Billionaires Charged With Bribery


If you are not addressing these regularly, then do not be surprised when employees "fall off the wagon"….so to speak. These examples above, are the high profile ones, imagine the lower level employees and the numbers that exist there. The retail industry is well aware of the theft and losses involved. Does your Employee Manual address these issues? Are they not part of your core values? Is this not a key element to building human asset value and sustainability? So if you are not doing assessments during pre-hire, don't you think you should? Once people are on-board, re-enforcement programs are required. 

So the question is: What are you and your company doing to address these issues on a regular basis?