Ethics Program Final Report A collaboration between the MPA 600 – Fall 2007, MPA 504 – Winter...

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%


%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


%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%


%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


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


%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


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


Dat

a A

nal

ysis


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


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


Dat

a A

nal

ysis


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



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


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


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


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


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



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



Ethnicity

Of respondents receiving grades of fair or better (passing) 67 %

Thank you,

49

Q & A

50

Ethics Program Final Report A collaboration between the MPA 600 – Fall 2007, MPA 504 – Winter...

Documents

Transcript of Ethics Program Final Report A collaboration between the MPA 600 – Fall 2007, MPA 504 – Winter...