View
222
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Ethics Program
Final Report
A collaboration between the
MPA 600 – Fall 2007,
MPA 504 – Winter 2008,
and the Los Angeles World Airport-
Ontario International Picture Source: Google images
1
Introduction
Letter of UnderstandingBetween Cal Poly Pomona’s MPA Program
&
The Los Angeles World Airport/
Ontario International
Scope of Work: Assess the Ethics Training Provided by the Airport
Picture Source: Google images
2
Introduction: Key Participants
Cal Poly Pomona;• Dr. Sandra M. Emerson – Faculty, MPA 600, MPA 504
• The MPA 600 and MPA 504 Classes
LAWA/Ontario;• Jess Romo, Airport Manager
• Dr. Bennett Monye’, Airport Administrator
• Stan Rogers, Airport Administrator
3
Methodology
• Develop an instrument for measuring ethics
• Train students in ethics and on administering survey
• Questions in six core ethic areas
• Survey LAWA/ONT Employees
• Collect and Input data from Questionnaires
• Analyze Data
• Final Report & Presentation
4
Methodology
5
Sample Size
Return rate = 71%
Return rate per area
Completed Spanish surveys.
Survey Response %
Area of Responsibility
% of Return Rate
Administration 100%
Maintenance/ Operations
69%-84%
Public Safety 56%
Community/Business
77%-89%
Totals 71%
Who Are the Respondents?
6
311 Surveys returned from a total population of 439
• Male, 40-49 Years Old
• Hispanic/ Latino
• Some College/ Technical Training
• Responded in English
Typical Demographic:
• 10 Years or More at LAWA,
• Does Not Supervise, and
• Works in the Operations area
Typical Organizational
Literature Review
Deontology
7
Four Frameworks: Ethical Relativism, Teleology, Virtue Theory, and Deontology
Deontology: Looks at the principal of actions and why they are carried out as opposed to what is the outcome of actions. It considers the consequences of consistently applying a standard over time
Literature Review
High Road & Low Road
8
Low Road: Primitive, reactive, negative, punitive
High Road: Pro-active system, focused on human development and problem solving strategies.
Literature Review
Can We Train Adults to be Ethical?
9
Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Reasoning & Stages of Development
John Locke: Blank Slate Theory Experience and the Development of Ethics
Literature Review
Changing Demographics in Workforce
10
Heterogeneous workforce in American / Perception of ethical issues
Supervisor leads by example Train leaders in diversity issues in the workforce
Ethical Behavior Consequences
11
• Ethical frameworks / individual perceptions / reactions to an organization’s actions.
• Ethical frameworks & Information (attends to, encodes, and evaluates.
• Having a voice in the decision making process.
Literature Review
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Honesty:
Definition: employee awareness and understanding of ethical conduct both within and outside of the organization.
12
Modest influence: gender / phone bill
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Honesty:
13
Significant:
gender / the sum of all honesty
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Honesty:
14
Modest Influence:
area /there is a gap between what we say and do
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Integrity:
Definition: Employees ability to uphold the truth and fulfill their duties.
15
Ethnicity / reward ethical behavior
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Integrity:
16
Area / disagree with ethics rewarded
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Integrity:
Area / supervisor / reward ethical behavior
17
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Responsibility:
Definition: Value opinions / Deadlines / Inconsistencies
Evaluating Responsibility
• Inconsistency – Feedback and Policy
• Perceived Tolerance of Misconduct
• Problems with Deadlines
• Sum of Responsibility
18
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Modest influence:
Ethnicity / willingness to talk to supervisor
19
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Ethnicity / supervise / willingness to talk to supervisor
20
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Perceived Tolerance of Misconduct
Modest Influence
Agree -Little tolerance for misconduct / education
21
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Sum of Responsibility
22
Supervise / sum of responsibility score
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Sum of Responsibility
23
Area / sum of responsibility score
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Responsibility
Greatest Influences:
• Ethnicity
• Education
• Area
• Supervise
24
Responsibility:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Public Trust:
Definition: Public interest / Concerns resolves / right to know /
helping unhappy patron
25
area of responsibilityadministrationcommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
%A
gre
e t
ha
t e
ffo
rt i
s m
ad
e t
o r
es
olv
e p
ub
lic
s c
on
ce
rn
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
95.83%95.65%
74.47%
94.53%
area of responsibilityadministrationcommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
%A
gre
e t
ha
t e
ffo
rt i
s m
ad
e t
o r
es
olv
e p
ub
lic
s c
on
ce
rn
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
95.83%95.65%
74.47%
94.53%
Agree with Organization Resolves Public’s Concerns
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
26
Agency promotes public interest
• Agree that the organization acts to promote the publics interest
area of responsibilityadministrationcommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
%A
gre
e t
ha
t o
rg.
ac
ts t
o p
rom
ote
th
e p
ub
lic
in
tere
st
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
100.00%95.65%
75.00%
90.48%
area of responsibilityadministrationcommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
%A
gre
e t
ha
t o
rg.
ac
ts t
o p
rom
ote
th
e p
ub
lic
in
tere
st
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
100.00%95.65%
75.00%
90.48%
Public Trust:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
27
Sum of public trust by area of responsibility
• Agree that the organization acts to promote the publics interest
area of responsibilitycommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
su
mo
ftru
st
15.00
12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
284
75
area of responsibilitycommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
su
mo
ftru
st
15.00
12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
284
75
Public Trust:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Citizenship:
Definition: Commitment to health / environmental misconduct / complains on coworkers
28area of responsibility
community/businessoperationspublic safety
%in
Co
mm
it t
o H
ealt
h;
eco
hea
lth
into
2 g
rou
ps
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
90.91
67.03
82.54
area of responsibilitycommunity/businessoperationspublic safety
%in
Co
mm
it t
o H
ealt
h;
eco
hea
lth
into
2 g
rou
ps
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
90.91
67.03
82.54
Significant relationship: Committed to Health / Area **
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Citizenship:
29
Significant: Gender and MySpace
gender of respondentfemalemale
%in
Info
rm S
up
ervi
sor;
Cit
izen
: M
ySp
ace
for
com
pla
ints
ab
ou
t o
rgan
izat
ion
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50.54
36.99
gender of respondentfemalemale
%in
Info
rm S
up
ervi
sor;
Cit
izen
: M
ySp
ace
for
com
pla
ints
ab
ou
t o
rgan
izat
ion
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50.54
36.99
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Respect & Collaboration:
Definition: Respect & Collaboration in order to promote human worth and foster partnerships among the employees.
30
• Employees treated fairly within organization
• Lines of communication are open
• Sharing difference of opinions
• Apologize for inconsiderate remark
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Respect & Collaboration:
Relationship:Treated fairly / area / supervise
31area of responsibility
public safetyoperationscommunity/business
% E
mp
loye
es p
erce
ive
trea
ted
fai
rly
in o
rgan
izai
ton 100
80
60
40
20
0
62.557.9
65.1
92.3
42
65
yesno
does respondent supervise others
area of responsibilitypublic safetyoperationscommunity/business
% E
mp
loye
es p
erce
ive
trea
ted
fai
rly
in o
rgan
izai
ton 100
80
60
40
20
0
62.557.9
65.1
92.3
42
65
yesno
does respondent supervise others
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Respect & Collaboration:
Relationship:Lines of Communication / area / supervise
32
area of responsibilitycommunity/businesspublic safetyoperations
% E
mp
loye
es p
erce
ive
op
en li
nes
of
com
mu
nic
atio
ns 100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
92.86
51.43
83.95
50.0057.89
80.00
noyes
does respondent supervise others
area of responsibilitycommunity/businesspublic safetyoperations
% E
mp
loye
es p
erce
ive
op
en li
nes
of
com
mu
nic
atio
ns 100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
92.86
51.43
83.95
50.0057.89
80.00
noyes
does respondent supervise others
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Respect & Collaboration:
33
Areas for Improvement:
• Communication
• Consistent application of policies
• Supervisory motivational and sensitivity training
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Definition: Organization’s Ethics = Respondents’ answers to ten specific Employee Survey questions.
Demographic / ethical viewpoints / Views on the organization’s ethics
Individual Characteristics:
Age Gender
Area or responsibility Language
Education Supervisory status
Ethnicity Years in org.
34
LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics:
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Area of Responsibility & Organizational Ethics
35
LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics:
Area of Responsibility
Community/BusinessOperationsPublic Safety
Org
aniz
atio
n's
Eth
ics
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00284
6
6175
53
213
223
Area of Responsibility
Community/BusinessOperationsPublic Safety
Org
aniz
atio
n's
Eth
ics
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00284
6
6175
53
213
223
Public safety ranked the lowest of the three groups
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Years in Organization & Organizational Ethics
36
LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics:
Less than 3 year and more than 10 years: related
Years in Organization in 3 Groups
Up to 3 years10 or More4-9
Org
aniz
atio
n's
Eth
ics
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00284
6
129
61
48
293
135
Years in Organization in 3 Groups
Up to 3 years10 or More4-9
Org
aniz
atio
n's
Eth
ics
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00284
6
129
61
48
293
135
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Conclusions
37
LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics:
Area of Responsibility and number of years in the
organization influence the perception of the Airport
ethics
How to utilize this new found information:
Consistent ethics training create, grow, maintain, and evaluate.
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Definition: The score was derived from questions 7, 10, and 14-23.
38
Sum of Individual Ethics:
Sum of Individual Ethics by Grades
not passingDCBA
Per
cen
t40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
33.8%
7.4%
21.2%
11.6%
26.0%
individual would respond to specific ethical scenarios.
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
:
Supervised others / individual ethical score
39
Sum of Individual Ethics:
.
Sum of Individual Ethics by Grades
not passing
DCBA
Per
ce
nt
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
20.7%
14.3%
25.6%
33.5%
5.9%
17.6%
6.6%
27.5%
36.3%
12.1%
noyes
does respondent supervise others
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Sum of All Ethics:
Definition: Composite index made up of all the individual ethic questions (22) in the 6 areas (honesty, integrity, trust, responsibility, respect/collaboration and citizenship)
40
Individual Characteristics:
Age Gender
Area or responsibility Language
Education Supervisory status
Ethnicity Years in org.
Dat
a A
nal
ysis
: Sum of All Ethics:
Significant: sum of ethics / years in organization
41
Bars show MeansBar
less than a year 1-3 years 4-9 year 10 years and more
years in organization
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50su
m o
f e
thic
s in
to 3
gro
up
s2.75
1.82
Bars show MeansBar
less than a year 1-3 years 4-9 year 10 years and more
years in organization
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50su
m o
f e
thic
s in
to 3
gro
up
s2.75
1.82
The Training Experience
42
Ethics training / sum of organization ethics
Ethics training (overall, instructor knowledge, setting & supervise, influence)
The Training Experience
43
overall rating / Instructors knowledge
Ethics training (overall, instructor knowledge, setting & supervise, influence)
knowledge in 3 groups
very knowledgablefairly knowledgable
not knowledgable
%F
AIR
TO
PO
OR
rat
ing
o
vera
ll in
2 g
rou
ps 60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
knowledge in 3 groups
very knowledgablefairly knowledgable
not knowledgable
%F
AIR
TO
PO
OR
rat
ing
o
vera
ll in
2 g
rou
ps 60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
44
Training on employee communication
Training topics (regarding gifts, contracts, public trust, employee relations, employee communication confidential information, records, public health, environmental issues, sharing information and/or use of technology)
Future Training Needs
training on communicationitem circled, yesnot circled
Per
cen
t
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
48.87%51.13%
training on communication
training on communicationitem circled, yesnot circled
Per
cen
t
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
48.87%51.13%
training on communication
45
Training on employee relations
Future Training Needs
training on employee relationsnitem circled, yesnot circled
Per
cen
t60
50
40
30
20
10
0
49.84%50.16%
training on employee relations
training on employee relationsnitem circled, yesnot circled
Per
cen
t60
50
40
30
20
10
0
49.84%50.16%
training on employee relations
Conclusions
46
Organizational Factors/ area, supervise and yrs.
• Area influence all 6 core values,
• Supervise influences 3
• Years influences integrity and sum of all
Individual / Demographic factors / ethic and gender
• Citizenship,
• Responsibility,
• Honesty, and
• Integrity.
Conclusions
47
Moving forward
• Literature review:
• Changing demographics in US workforce,
• High road approach to ethics.
• Based on feedback:
• Training using outside professional sources,
• Focused on employee relations and
communications,
• Customized training for specialized areas in
organization,
• Address issues of gender and ethnicity.
Conclusions
48
The Good NEWS!
Sum of ethics unrelated to;
Age Gender
Area or responsibility Language
Education Supervisory status
Ethnicity
Of respondents receiving grades of fair or better (passing) 67 %
Thank you,
49
Q & A
50
Recommended