????對(duì)于同事的違規(guī)行為視而不見，這在很多金融服務(wù)公司已經(jīng)司空見慣。雖然近年來金融業(yè)頻頻爆出丑聞，包括明富環(huán)球（MF Global）倒閉、瑞銀（UBS）和法國興業(yè)銀行（Societe Generale）的流氓交易員、次貸危機(jī)、高盛（Goldman Sachs）聲譽(yù)受損等等，但近期一項(xiàng)研究顯示，大多數(shù)員工在明知同事行為違規(guī)的情況下依然是知情不報(bào)，直到一切演變成一起嚴(yán)重的金融危機(jī)。

????事實(shí)上，有半數(shù)違規(guī)行為在被內(nèi)部員工發(fā)現(xiàn)后都沒有上報(bào)。總部位于弗吉尼亞州阿靈頓的咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)公司執(zhí)行委員會(huì)（Corporate Executive Board）對(duì)150家公司（其中很多都是金融服務(wù)公司）的50萬名員工進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)為期四年的調(diào)查，2011年公布的調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，即便是有員工報(bào)告此類不道德行為，60%的經(jīng)理們表示如果涉事金額沒有超過100萬美元，他們才會(huì)上報(bào)高管。

????不當(dāng)行為未予上報(bào)，是因?yàn)槿藗儭昂ε略獾綀?bào)復(fù)，害怕丟掉工作、失去晉升或獲得獎(jiǎng)金的機(jī)會(huì)，”公司執(zhí)行委員會(huì)的董事長兼首席執(zhí)行官托馬斯?莫納漢稱。許多員工認(rèn)為，不當(dāng)行為最終會(huì)隱瞞過去，公司不會(huì)采取行動(dòng)。莫納漢指出，很多公司都沒有建立起健康、合乎道德規(guī)范的企業(yè)文化，讓員工深信“自己不會(huì)遭到報(bào)復(fù)，公司會(huì)對(duì)不當(dāng)行為采取行動(dòng)”。

????金融服務(wù)公司的員工對(duì)非法行為知情不報(bào)潛藏著巨大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。公司可能面臨高昂的罰款和法律成本，聲譽(yù)受損，并受到更嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管審查。莫納漢稱，針對(duì)違反《美國反海外腐敗法》（U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act）的公司，罰款已高達(dá)1億美元。

????為什么要造成100萬美元的損失才警示員工，揭發(fā)違規(guī)行為呢？莫納漢稱：“人們需要確信無疑，違規(guī)可能帶來巨大的災(zāi)難?！狈駝t，他們就會(huì)保持沉默，以免危及自身的職業(yè)穩(wěn)定。

????經(jīng)理與員工沒什么不同，他們也往往選擇隱瞞不報(bào)，擔(dān)心遭到報(bào)復(fù)或因違規(guī)事件受到指責(zé)，不管是不是他們的責(zé)任。莫納漢說，經(jīng)理們擔(dān)心：“如果我把這些問題曝光，我會(huì)遭到唾棄嗎？”

????莫納漢指出：“公司需要重視的最關(guān)鍵因素是，‘如何讓員工能夠放心地舉報(bào)不良行為？’”

????至于如何改變公司文化、鼓勵(lì)檢舉不當(dāng)行為，莫納漢建議管理者必須“預(yù)先”讓員工知道，不道德的行為時(shí)有發(fā)生，但檢舉者都會(huì)得到保護(hù)。同時(shí)，他建議管理者應(yīng)明示將采取什么手段來糾正不道德行為，并廣而告之。莫納漢還認(rèn)為，管理者需要懲罰、開除有不道德行為的員工。

????公司執(zhí)行委員會(huì)制訂了一個(gè)“道德資本”度量表，從預(yù)期明確、鼓勵(lì)員工檢舉、對(duì)同事的信賴、直接經(jīng)理的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力、溝通開放度以及最高層的立場等六方面對(duì)公司進(jìn)行打分。加拿大皇家銀行（Royal Bank of Canada）在這些排名中居于靠前的25%。但具有諷刺意味的是，2012年4月3日，美國商品期貨交易委員會(huì)（Commodity Futures Trading Commission）指責(zé)加拿大皇家銀行通過虛構(gòu)交易，騙取稅務(wù)優(yōu)惠。加拿大皇家銀行否認(rèn)所有指控。

????Turning a blind eye to the wrongdoing of colleagues has become the norm at many financial services firms. Despite the MF Global debacle, the rogue traders at UBS and Societe Generale, the subprime mortgage mess, and Goldman Sachs' tarnished reputation, most corporate employees continue to withhold information about misconduct by colleagues on issues they know are wrong, until it turns into a major financial imbroglio, according to a recent study.

????In fact, employees do not report 50% of observed misconduct. And even when unethical behavior is reported, 60% of managers said they'd only divulge information to a senior executive if the impact of the case exceeded $1 million, according to a 2011 study of 500,000 employees at 150 companies (many, but not all, financial services firms) over four years, conducted by Corporate Executive Board, an Arlington, Va.-based consulting firm.

????The improper conduct goes unreported because people "fear retaliatory action, including losing their job, failing to get promoted, failing to get a bonus," explains Thomas Monahan, chairman and CEO of Corporate Executive Board. Many employees expect that the misconduct will be buried under the table and no action will be taken. Indeed, companies have failed to create a healthy, ethical culture where people feel "they will not be retaliated against and the company will go and do something" about the wrongdoing, Monahan suggests.

????When illegal practices go unreported at a financial services firm, the stakes are high. Firms face significant fines and legal costs, reputation damage, and tightened regulatory scrutiny. Fines of $100 million have been leveled against companies that have defied the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, says Monahan.

????Why would it take a one million dollar loss to influence staff to blow the whistle on an illegal practice? Monahan says, "People need to be highly convinced that this is a potential catastrophe to take the risk." Otherwise, they'll stay mum and avoid the threat to their career stability.

????Managers are no different from employees, often choosing to squelch rather than report illegal incidents. They also fear retaliation and being blamed, justifiably or not, for the wrongdoing. "Will I be a pariah if I bring these issues to bare?" they wonder, Monahan argues.

????"The most important thing companies can focus on is, 'How do you make it okay for someone to feel comfortable sharing negative information?'" Monahan notes.

????For companies to change their culture and encourage wrongdoing to surface, Monahan says leaders must communicate "preemptively" to let staff know that unethical actions are going to happen at times, but if they surface these issues they will be protected. He says they should also describe what action was taken to resolve any ethical lapses and spread the word. Monahan also argues that managers need to penalize or dismiss employees that commit unethical acts.

????Corporate Executive Board has come up with an "Integrity Capital" scale, which rates companies based on six components, including clarity of expectations, encouraging staff to speak up, trust in colleagues, direct manager's leadership, openness of communication, and tone at the top. Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) scored in the top quartile on these rankings. Ironically, on April 3, 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused the RBC (RY) of fabricating bogus trades to generate ample tax benefits. RBC has denied the charges and all wrongdoing.???