I recently cracked open my Harvard Business Review to the article on “Why Compliance Programs Fail.” I read with great interest the authors’ theory on how weak, milque-toast metrics can result in check-the-box, paper-only compliance programs. I don’t disagree at all, but I have a few practical suggestions to add.
The authors cite, as have many, the shocking statistic from EY’s 2016 Global Fraud Survey that out of nearly 3,000 executives surveyed, 42 percent said they could justify unethical behavior to meet financial targets. Clearly, something is misaligned. The HBR authors postulate a case for better metrics aligned to strategy. It is a well-reasoned argument with which I do not quibble. But the sentence that captured my interest is this one:
“While many firms continue to see ensuring compliance as a legal exercise, it is really much more a behavioral science.” Continue Reading