1 / 50

Ethics Program Final Report

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. Introduction. Letter of Understanding Between Cal Poly Pomona’s MPA Program &

wirt
Download Presentation

Ethics Program Final Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Introduction Letter of Understanding Between 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Methodology Survey Response % Sample Size Return rate = 71% Return rate per area Completed Spanish surveys.

  6. Who Are the Respondents? 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

  7. Literature Review Deontology 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 7

  8. Literature Review High Road & Low Road Low Road: Primitive, reactive, negative, punitive High Road: Pro-active system, focused on human development and problem solving strategies.

  9. Literature Review Can We Train Adults to be Ethical? Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Reasoning & Stages of Development John Locke: Blank Slate Theory Experience and the Development of Ethics

  10. Literature Review Changing Demographics in Workforce Heterogeneous workforce in American / Perception of ethical issues Supervisor leads by example Train leaders in diversity issues in the workforce 10

  11. Literature Review Ethical Behavior Consequences • 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.

  12. Honesty: Definition: employee awareness and understanding of ethical conduct both within and outside of the organization. • Modest influence: gender / phone bill Data Analysis:

  13. Honesty: Significant: gender / the sum of all honesty Data Analysis:

  14. Honesty: Modest Influence: area /there is a gap between what we say and do Data Analysis:

  15. Integrity: Definition: Employees ability to uphold the truth and fulfill their duties. Ethnicity / reward ethical behavior Data Analysis:

  16. Integrity: Area / disagree with ethics rewarded Data Analysis: 16

  17. Integrity: Area / supervisor / reward ethical behavior Data Analysis:

  18. Responsibility: • Definition: Value opinions / Deadlines / Inconsistencies • Evaluating Responsibility • Inconsistency – Feedback and Policy • Perceived Tolerance of Misconduct • Problems with Deadlines • Sum of Responsibility Data Analysis:

  19. Responsibility: Modest influence: Ethnicity / willingness to talk to supervisor Data Analysis:

  20. Responsibility: Ethnicity / supervise / willingness to talk to supervisor Data Analysis:

  21. Responsibility: Perceived Tolerance of Misconduct Modest Influence Agree -Little tolerance for misconduct / education Data Analysis:

  22. Responsibility: Sum of Responsibility Supervise / sum of responsibility score Data Analysis:

  23. Responsibility: Sum of Responsibility Area / sum of responsibility score Data Analysis: 23

  24. Responsibility: • Responsibility • Greatest Influences: • Ethnicity • Education • Area • Supervise Data Analysis:

  25. Public Trust: Definition: Public interest / Concerns resolves / right to know / helping unhappy patron Agree with Organization Resolves Public’s Concerns Data Analysis:

  26. Agree that the organization acts to promote the publics interest Sum of Public Trust Public Trust: Agency promotes public interest Data Analysis:

  27. Agree that the organization acts to promote the publics interest Sum of Public Trust Public Trust: Sum of public trust by area of responsibility Data Analysis: 27

  28. Citizenship: Definition: Commitment to health / environmental misconduct / complains on coworkers Significant relationship: Committed to Health / Area ** Data Analysis:

  29. Citizenship: Significant: Gender and MySpace Data Analysis:

  30. Respect & Collaboration: Definition: Respect & Collaboration in order to promote human worth and foster partnerships among the employees. • Employees treated fairly within organization • Lines of communication are open • Sharing difference of opinions • Apologize for inconsiderate remark Data Analysis:

  31. Respect & Collaboration: • Relationship: • Treated fairly / area / supervise Data Analysis: 31

  32. Respect & Collaboration: • Relationship: • Lines of Communication / area / supervise Data Analysis: 32

  33. Respect & Collaboration: • Areas for Improvement: • Communication • Consistent application of policies • Supervisory motivational and sensitivity training Data Analysis: 33

  34. LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics: 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. Data Analysis:

  35. LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics: Area of Responsibility & Organizational Ethics Public safety ranked the lowest of the three groups Data Analysis:

  36. LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics: Years in Organization & Organizational Ethics Less than 3 year and more than 10 years: related Data Analysis:

  37. LAWA/Ontario Organizational Ethics: Conclusions Area of Responsibility and number of years in the organization influence the perception of the Airport ethics Data Analysis: How to utilize this new found information: Consistent ethics training  create, grow, maintain, and evaluate.

  38. 40.0% 30.0% Percent 20.0% 33.8% 26.0% 21.2% 10.0% 11.6% 7.4% 0.0% A B C D not passing Sum of Individual Ethics by Grades Sum of Individual Ethics: Definition: The score was derived from questions 7, 10, and 14-23. individual would respond to specific ethical scenarios. Data Analysis:

  39. does respondent 40.0% supervise others yes no 30.0% Percent 20.0% 36.3 % 33.5 % 27.5 25.6 % % 20.7 10.0% % 17.6 % 14.3 12.1 % % 6.6 5.9 % % 0.0% A B C D not passing Sum of Individual Ethics by Grades Sum of Individual Ethics: Supervised others / individual ethical score . Data Analysis:

  40. 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) Individual Characteristics: Age Gender Area or responsibility Language Education Supervisory status Ethnicity Years in org. Data Analysis:

  41. Sum of All Ethics: Significant: sum of ethics / years in organization Data Analysis:

  42. The Training Experience Ethics training (overall, instructor knowledge, setting & supervise, influence) Ethics training / sum of organization ethics

  43. The Training Experience Ethics training (overall, instructor knowledge, setting & supervise, influence) overall rating / Instructors knowledge

  44. Future Training Needs 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) Training on employee communication

  45. Future Training Needs Training on employee relations

  46. Conclusions • 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. 46

  47. Conclusions • 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. 47

  48. Conclusions The Good NEWS! Sum of ethics unrelated to; Age Gender Area or responsibility Language Education Supervisory status Ethnicity 67 % Of respondents receiving grades of fair or better (passing) 48

  49. Thank you,

  50. Q & A

More Related