Dan Pink on the Surprising Science of Motivation

Dan Pink, at TED Global in July 2009, broke tasks, performance and rewards for performance into two groups. With complex problems, financial rewards do not impact performance and seem to dull creativity. Actually, they seem to deter performance. With a simple problem and a simple set of rules, then contingent motivations for performance (like financial rewards) are very effective.

He comes to three conclusions:

  1. The twentieth century rewards that we think are part of business do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances.
  2. “If, then” rewards often destroy creativity.
  3. The secret to high performance is not rewards and punishments, but that a drive to do things because they matter.

There are some great lessons for compliance and corporate governance in the presentation. He explains it much better than I can. Take the 19 minutes to watch the video.

I have his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us on my reading list. After watching this video, I have moved it higher up in the queue.

Thanks to Jack Vinson of Knowledge Jolt with Jack for pointing out this video: What is the right culture for your organization?

Global Ethics Summit Update

Global Ethics Summit

Dow Jones and Ethisphere Institute are teaming up to present the 2010 Global Ethics Summit on February 23-24, 2010 at the Grand Hyatt New York City.

I will be attending, thanks to an offer from the event’s organizers. If you are interested in attending I can offer you a 15% discount on regular conference fees, available by registering online (http://www.globalethicssummit.com/register) with the code “GES10P”.

They just added two new keynote speakers:

  • Mark Mendelsohn, Deputy Chief of Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
  • C. Turney Stevens, Dean, College of Business, Lipscomb University

They will be joining the other previously announced speakers:

  • Brackett Denniston, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, General Electric
  • Charles L. Harrington, Chairman & CEO, Parsons
  • Andy Hinton, Chief Compliance Officer & Associate General Counsel, Google
  • Georg Kell, Executive Director, United Nations Global Compact
  • Douglas M. Lankler, Senior Vice President & Chief Compliance Officer, Pfizer

I also need to disclose that they gave me a pass to attend as a media sponsor of the event. You can see Compliance Building listed as a media sponsor. In exchange, I’m writing a few blog posts leading up to the summit and will be live-blogging from it.

Global Ethics Summitt main banner

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I Have a Dream – Address at March on Washington August 28, 1963.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”

“Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Sources:

SUPERfreakonomics and Compliance

superfreakonomics

Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner are back putting the freak in economics. As they did in Freakonomics, SUPERfreakonomics uses economic analysis to give some insights into actual human behavior.

When the original Freakonomics came out it was very original. Since then other books have hit the mainstream trying to do the same thing, most notably Malcolm Gladwell. SuperFreakonomics is good but comes across as much less original than the original. There are many other reviews of the book by people more competent at book reviews than me. The authors’ take on global warming has stirred up lots of controversy.

SuperFreakonomics
has plenty of stories that compliance professionals should find interesting. It’s certainly worth your time to read the book.

One item in the book that caught my interest was some research by Melissa Bateson in her department’s break room. Faculty members paid for coffee and beverages by dropping money into an “honesty can.” Each week professor Bateson posted a new price list. She didn’t change the prices, but she did post a different photograph on the list each week. She alternated between using a picture of flowers and using a picture of human eyes.

i'm watching you

When the eyes were watching, nearly three times as much money ended up in the honesty can. Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting (.pdf) by Melissa Bateson, Daniel Nettle and Gilbert Roberts, published in Biology Letters 2006.

“We believe that images of eyes motivate cooperative behaviour because they induce a perception in participants of being watched. Although participants were not actually observed in either of our experimental conditions, the human perceptual system contains neurons that respond selectively to stimuli involving faces and eyes, and it is therefore possible that the images exerted an automatic and unconscious effect on the participants’ perception that they were being watched.”

Maybe I will scrap using my corporate signature in email and use that last set of eyes.

What are your thoughts?
eyes im watching you

Public Companies Fail to Disclose Ethics Waivers

usha rodrigues

According to Usha Rodrigues from University of Georgia Law School and Mike Stegemoller from Texas Tech University – Rawls College of Business, in their paper Placebo Ethics, public companies are failing to disclose ethics waivers.

They focused on Section 406 of Sarbanes-Oxley which requires public companies to disclose when they have granted an ethics waiver to top executives. Section 406(b) states:

“The Commission shall revise its regulations concerning matters requiring prompt disclosure on Form 8-K (or any successor thereto) to require the immediate disclosure, by means of the filing of such form, dissemination by the Internet or by other electronic means, by any issuer of any change in or waiver of the code of ethics for senior financial officers.”

The regulations for Section 406 provide:

§229.406 (Item 406) Code of ethics:
(a) Disclose whether the registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. If the registrant has not adopted such a code of ethics, explain why it has not done so.

(b) For purposes of this Item 406, the term code of ethics means written standards that are reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote:

(1) Honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships; …

Rodrigues and Stegemoller were able to take advantage of the overlap between the 406 disclosure requirements and the disclosures required by Item 404 of Regulation S-K for related party transactions with an amount in excess of $120,000. One of the challenges of determining compliance with disclosure requirements is you can’t tell if there was a need for a disclosure unless the information is disclosed. This overlap allowed them to find items in the 10-k proxy statement that should have been reported immediately under Section 406.

Their sample set was 200 public companies. From January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007 they found only one waiver filed under Section 406 for these 200 companies. They also looked beyond their sample set and found that of the 5,000± public companies there have only been 36 waivers filed using Form 8-K.

They took the next step and looked at the 10-K filings for their sample set of companies for related party transactions. Fifteen companies failed to disclose related party transactions that should have been reported immediately under Section 406. They found lots of other disclosures that were in a gray area. (This should be no surprise to Michelle Leder at Foototed.org who loves finding these things.)

One theory is that the public companies prefer to dump these related party transactions into the 10-K proxy statement where there is already a flood of information rather than specifically calling out the transaction in a separate Form 8-K. (Again, Michelle Leder loves digging up this stuff.) There is a difference between immediate disclosure and eventual disclosure.

Another surprise in the paper was that most of the companies in the sample set did not prohibit related party transactions in their code of ethics. Only 30 prohibited these transactions. These omissions also would appear to be a violation of Section 406 since the regulation requires a code to deal with conflicts of interest. Personally, I don’t see how you can call something a code of ethics if it does not prohibit related party transactions.

References:

Whales and Compliance

watching giants

I was surprised to be thinking about compliance while I was reading about whales. Sure, I eat, drink and sleep compliance. But there are some lessons that compliance professionals can learn from the study of whales.

This came up while I was reading Watching Giants: The Secret Lives of Whales by Elin Kelsey.

My original interest in the book was its intersection between parenthood and whales. During college I took a class at the New England Aquarium on marine mammals taught by world-renown experts. The class was fascinating on many levels. As a parent, well, I find parenting itself interesting.

Whales are incredible species, reliant on breathing air, but needing to dive the depths of the ocean for food. For example, as the book points out, a blue whale opening its mouth to take in a school of krill is the biggest biomechanical event to happen on the planet. The scale of a whale’s life is well beyond the scale of humans. If you read about the parenting life of whales, I think you will be hard-pressed to believe that we have hunted many of these species to the brink of extinction.

Getting back to the compliance side of things, whales are hard to study. Fraud, corruption and misdeeds are hard to study. Whales spend over 95% of their time outside the boundary of human observation. The deeds that compliance professionals are looking for are also, for the most part, outside of our perception.

The compliance lesson that resonated with me was that we should not assume that we can see is truly representative of what is actually happening beneath the surface. We need to understand our perspective. What we can see and what we cannot see. When you look beneath the surface, something unexpected may be happening.

If you are looking for a good book to read, try Watching Giants: The Secret Lives of Whales.

Perception, Dilbert and a Magical Management Necklace

Are your assumptions correct?

You get a new tool to help manage your processes and everything starts working better. Is everything actually working better? Or is the data just being manipulated to look better?

As is often the case, the pointy-haired boss can show us the problem.

Often the compliance officer is like the pointy-haired boss. Everyone is on their best behavior when you are around. But what’s happening when you aren’t looking?

Its a matter of perception.

Hulk Smash Compliance Program!!

incredible hulk

Hollywood has done it. Now it’s your turn.

Reboot your compliance program.

There is the “reboot” you hear from IT support when your computer is malfunctioning. It seems to always be the first response from the help desk. But once you start back up, its exactly the same computer with exactly the same programs.

Hollywood took “reboot” a step further when it started rebooting old shows, movies and franchises. They originally used the term re-image, where they did not closely follow the original. But now they have gotten much more aggressive and thrown much of the original out the window to go from ‘re-image’ to a “reboot.”

Unless you were living in a cave this summer, you know that they rebooted the Star Trek franchise. Its still the same character names and they are still on Enterprise. They shook off forty years of legacy storylines for a fresh new start.

Ronald D. Moore and David Eick rebooted Battlestar Galactica in 2003 and it finished airing last spring. The original Battlestar Galactica aired in 1978. (We won’t talk about the dreadful Galactica 1980.)  They changed many things in the new version, but kept the character names. Other than the names, they paid little respect to the original characters and even changed the genders of Starbuck and Boomer.

Like Star Trek they kept some clues to the past by keeping an actor from the original. Leonard Nimoy came back as Spock for Star Trek. Richard Hatch, Apollo in the original Battlestar Galactica, was recast as the political leader Tom Zarek in the reboot.

The reboot that inspired this post was the Incredible Hulk. The 2005 movie was a reboot of the terrible 2003 Incredible Hulk. They just ignored the 2003 version and started over. They switched out the director and switched all of the actors. Of course the movies were a reboot of the Lou Ferrigno Incredible Hulk TV Series, which in turn was a reboot from the original comic book. All these Hulk reboots seem to embody Hulk’s catchphrase: “Hulk Smash!!”

Do something new, pretend the old never happened.

Your aim is to end up with something better by shaking off the legacy storylines. You get a fresh creative start.

You still have the same goals and the same basic framework for compliance. Just like Star Trek was still about Kirk and Spock on the Star Ship Enterprise.

It’s not that your original compliance programs didn’t work. Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica and the Incredible Hulk were successful prior to the reboot.

But it could be better, fresher and more appealing.

Smash it and start over.

Thanks to Jeffrey Brandt for inspiring this post, with his post: “Reboot” Your Knowledge Management Program. (Okay. I flat out stole his post, changed a few words and replaced Thunderbirds with Star Trek.)

Happy Thanksgiving

That means an extra long weekend for me.

Truman at the White House thanksgiving

The White House traditionally pardons their turkey. The tradition is credited to President Truman who received a White House turkey for Thanksgiving. But there is no evidence that he spared the life of the turkey. According to an in-depth investigative report by the Washington Post, it was George H.W. Bush (41) who first officially pardoned a Thanksgiving turkey:Turkey Pardons, The Stuffing of Historic Legend.

Enjoy the long weekend if you can. I have some stuff in the oven for when I’m back on Monday.

Thanksgiving_oven

Oven image by Joseph Zollo on Wikimedia Commons:Thanksgiving oven.jpg