{"id":2657,"date":"2017-11-07T08:41:17","date_gmt":"2017-11-07T07:41:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.organisator.ch\/?p=2657"},"modified":"2017-11-07T08:41:17","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T07:41:17","slug":"wenn-die-unternehmenskultur-die-compliance-entlarvt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.organisator.ch\/en\/management\/2017-11-07\/wenn-die-unternehmenskultur-die-compliance-entlarvt\/","title":{"rendered":"When corporate culture exposes compliance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
What good are mission statements and compliance management if the corporate culture does not match them? (Image: BillionPhotos.com \/ Fotolia.com)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If compliance is exposed by the corporate culture, \"whistleblowers\" have already been at work, employee commitment has noticeably diminished and the credibility of the company has been called into question. Such processes are set in motion because the opinion exists that written rules of conduct replace management responsibility, that monetary incentives have a self-regulating effect and that controls are therefore unimportant. As a result, the attitude of a self-satisfied and self-centered understanding of responsibility emerges. This responsibility is ultimately painfully exposed by corporate culture. It is a result of fuzzy compliance policies that allow loopholes, do not demand liabilities, and thus do not allow for accountability. It reveals a culture, a behavior that executives and especially \"stakeholders\" should quickly notice.<\/p>\n

What corporate culture and compliance mean<\/h2>\n

A corporate culture is reflected in the way in which business goals are pursued and how people interact with one another. Corporate culture includes the entire evolved structure of opinions, norms and values, as well as the unwritten rules that shape the behavior of managers and employees. Compliance, or adherence to rules, is the business term for adherence to laws and guidelines, but also to voluntary codes, in companies.<\/p>\n

The origin of the term \"whistleblower\" in the context mentioned at the beginning is not clearly established. There may be a semantic relationship to the German term \"verpfeifen\". It is assumed that both English policemen, who used a whistle to draw the attention of other policemen to a criminal, and referees in soccer, who interrupt the game after rule violations by blowing the whistle, were semantically related. Accordingly, there is no need for whistleblowers in a company, because in the hierarchy of such organizations the superiors should perform these tasks - or should they?<\/p>\n

Outsourcing\" whistleblowing<\/h2>\n

Would it be better to delegate this leadership?<\/p>\n

For example, to companies such as:\u00a0\u201e<\/strong>SAFE CHANNEL\u00a0- <\/strong>the digital and efficient whistleblowing system\u201e? <\/strong>Give your stakeholders the assurance that compliance is taken seriously in your company. With a closed whistleblower system, employees, customers and business partners can anonymously, securely and unbureaucratically report violations of legal regulations within the company.<\/em><\/p>\n

Or to an INTEGRITY LINE GMBH - we solve your problems of integrity?<\/em><\/p>\n

Or should an anonymous \"integrityplatform.org\" be set up within a group of companies, which would ask employees to report, even anonymously, if someone does not behave with integrity and promise that the employees themselves will not suffer any disadvantages and that they will receive an answer to the report they have already made using their incident number and password?<\/p>\n

Companies write in their mission statements: \"We maintain open, transparent and trusting communication.\" \"We take our employees seriously - they are our \"know-how carriers\" of the future, our human capital is important to us.\" These are signs that lawyers want to claim trust too strongly via interpretations and long-winded formulations, security via distance and noncommittality. Large companies and corporations in particular, which have grown through acquisitions and mergers, have forgotten how to shape their corporate culture through relationships rather than regulations. According to the saying: \"What the law does not forbid, decency forbids\".<\/em> (Lucius Annaeus Seneca).<\/p>\n

Points that prevent a corporate culture<\/h2>\n

How can such developments be detected at an early stage? Basically, it is important to remember that systems do not work simply because there is freedom of the market or freedom of speech et cetera; they work because there are checks and balances.<\/strong> It is above all the way people treat each other that sows trust or mistrust. As a boss, respect and recognition are not simply laid at your feet. With appreciation, trust, understanding and the ability to motivate, they must first be earned. The opposite of this are forms of behavior that are not found in any compliance, but can be easily observed and measured.<\/p>\n