HR News Articles

There is nothing sacrosanct about corporate culture; we can and must regulate it

File 20180926 149961 ijkhc.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Board-level risk indicators include one person dominating meetings or a culture of blaming and withholding information. Shutterstock


David Wishart, La Trobe University and Dr Ann Wardrop, La Trobe University

Almost every inquiry into financial institutions, no matter the country, finds evidence of systemic misconduct. Customers overcharged, deceived and defrauded. At the root of the problem is organisational culture.


It’s a safe bet Australia’s Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry will find the same. So what to do about it?


Banks say good culture cannot be regulated into existence. As the G30 Banking Conduct and Culture Report states boldly: “Culture cannot be regulated.” Governments tend to agree. Regulators insist they won’t “prescribe risk culture”.


But this is a furphy. We can and should regulate for good corporate culture.


De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), the Netherlands’ central bank which also acts as prudential regulator of financial services, has for seven years explicitly regulated the internal cultures of Dutch financial institutions.


Identifying high-risk behaviour


DNB has a specialist unit of trained organisational psychologists who work within institutions to identify patterns of individual and group behaviour that increase the risk of misbehaviour.


The unit operates independently of the DNB’s ordinary supervisory functions such as checking financial performance and compliance. It is especially interested in observing how those in leadership roles behave. Rules and policies might look good on paper but when bosses tolerate misconduct or reward excessive risk-taking there is a greater chance rules will be broken.




Read more: Five steps business can take to ensure aggressive performance targets don't drive bad behaviour




Rather than just checking a bank’s board is expert (compliance checking), the DNB psychologists will observe the group dynamics of a board meeting. They assess things like its “communication climate”. Do the financial experts on the board get annoyed when non-experts ask fundamental but important questions? Can board members challenge the leader or the opinion of others?


The psychologists scrutinise body language such as facial expressions, posture and listening behaviour. This enables them to “zoom in” on underlying behavioural patterns that pose risks. For example, investigators might find one or two people dominate meetings, or that there is a culture of blaming, withholding information or competition between coalitions within organisational groups.


Having identified problems in an organisational culture, DNB investigators propose actions to reduce the risk of misconduct. They recommend changes to the financial institution’s supervisory board. If the culture is deemed high risk, the DNB will intervene directly.


Actions speak volumes


Paradoxically while the prevailing view in Australia is that corporate culture cannot be regulated, the corporate and prudential regulators are following the Dutch example.


The Australian Securities and Investment Commission is embedding agents in the five biggest financial institutions. The commission’s new head, James Shipton, has cited what the Dutch central bank does to support the idea of these agents sitting in on board meetings.




Read more: Embedding regulators in banks can help change cultures of wrongdoing, despite the risks




The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has copied the DNB process even more explicitly. In 2017 it began a pilot program to assess risk culture. The assessment included interviewing staff and observing board interactions. Behavioural psychologists were employed to assist in these “cultural reviews”.


The program was openly based on the DNB model, though with important differences. There was no separate review unit, for example.


APRA has also ventured into cultural regulation through its inquiry into bad behaviour at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The inquiry’s final report excoriated the bank’s culture. In an enforceable undertaking the bank agreed to develop a remedial plan, approved and monitored by APRA, to fix its culture.


Given this, it might be considered odd APRA’s report still denies culture can be regulated. “The onus falls squarely on CBA itself,” it states, before approvingly quoting the G30 report: “Supervisors and regulators cannot determine culture.”


But in our view, no matter what ASIC and APRA say, these processes are clearly exercises in regulating for good corporate culture.


The core feature is that outside agents have the authority to assess behaviour within an organisation, and the power to make that organisation change the way it does things.


Resistance is ideological


The reluctance to admit this can and is being done, we think, is because it impinges on a “sacrosanct” idea about the sovereignty of how corporations run their internal affairs. We have argued this claim is more about ideology than logic.


APRA is now “re-scoping” its cultural-review program because it thinks it too costly. Meanwhile the royal commission continues to show the high cost of not intervening in corporate culture.


The evidence from the royal commission shows regulators must do more. Without doing something to regulate the cultures that lead to corporations behaving badly, any other new regulation will achieve little.


A step away from full DNB-style cultural reviews would be a step in the wrong direction. APRA needs the resources to follow the Dutch lead. An autonomous supervisory unit, separate from APRA’s other supervisory teams, working a similar way to the DNB specialist unit, is the way forward.The Conversation


David Wishart, , La Trobe University and Dr Ann Wardrop, , La Trobe University


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jobs Just For You, The HR Professional

Our weekly or daily email bulletins are guaranteed to contain only fresh employment opportunities


More info

Latest Jobs

Coordinator Learning & Organisational Development (senior position)
Victoria

APS5 Training Officer - Contract
Australian Capital Territory

E-learning Specialist - Contract
Australian Capital Territory

Talent Acquisition Lead
Victoria

Human Resources Manager
South Australia

Senior Manager Workforce Strategy and Planning - Contract
New South Wales

HR Advisor - Contract
Queensland

HR Consultant
Victoria

Talent Acquisition Specialist - Retail
New South Wales

OHS Advisor - 12 mth Contract PT
Victoria

Head of Health and Safety
New South Wales

HR Business Partner
New South Wales

Work Health & Safety Advisor - 12 mth Contract
Victoria

HR Business Partner
Victoria

HR Business Partner - 6 wk contract
Western Australia

WHS Advisor - Contract
Western Australia

Senior HR Manager
New South Wales

Band 8 SENIOR DATA ANALYST HR - Contract
Queensland

HR Officer - Contract
Western Australia

HR Consultant - 6 mth Contract
Western Australia

Safety and Wellbeing Advisor - 12 mth Contract
New South Wales

Senior HR Advisor
Northern Territory

HR Business Partner - Contract
Northern Territory

Senior Employee Relations Advisor
Western Australia

OHS Manager
Victoria

Senior HR Advisor - 2 year Contract
Western Australia

Safety Manager - Contract
New South Wales

HR Manager
New South Wales

Learning & Development Consultant - Contract
Western Australia

HR Business Partner
Victoria

A07 Principle Adviser Ethics and Integrity - Contract
Queensland

HR Business Partner
New South Wales

Business Partner - ER
New South Wales

HR Advisor - 12 mth Contract
Tasmania

Talent Acquisition Advisor
New South Wales

WHSE Advisor
New South Wales

Safety Data Analyst - Contract
New South Wales

HR Systems Data Analytics Manager - Contract
Victoria

Health, Safety & Wellbeing Advisor - 10 mth Contract
Victoria

ER Specialist - Contract
New South Wales

Organisational Development Specialist - Contract
Victoria

Browse All Jobs