video-thumbnail-11-24

[Video] Three dumb compliance training myths (that everyone falls for)

December 5, 2019 4:00:00 AM CST / by Ricardo Pellafone

The compliance training space is DROWNING in stupid, corrosive, credibility-shattering myths. So let's bust some of 'em!

In today's video, we kick off with some rapid-fire busting of a few particularly dumb learning myths—and then we spend the most of the video going deep into three dumb myths that lawyers fall for.

Because the biggest threat to your program isn't dumb behavioral myths, but dumb myths that lawyers believe.

I mean: yes, the behavioral myths mean you'll get suckered into buying a bunch of dumb stuff, but that's just money; you can recover from that.

The lawyer stuff, though ... if your CCO or General Counsel believes dumb myths like "prosecutors only care about records" or "we have to start with Code of Conduct training," you're dead in the water.

So watch—and then give it to a lawyer you love.

clubhouse-joinWant tools that focus on the right stuff? Get 'em at Compliance Design Club!
Take me to the Clubhouse!

Production Notes

Correct, that is a fart noise playing when I bust the behavioral myths at the beginning. They're just so dumb that it felt right. And if you've never listened to a whole bunch of stock fart sounds to find the one that is "just perfect," it's, uh ... a thing you can do.

And yeah, this is a real problem: each of those three fart-worthy myths has actually been used by a compliance training vendor.

Here are the sources for the images I show when we're talking about the behavioral myths:

Goldfish attention span myth / Busted

Cone of Learning SmartArt purgatory / Busted

60,000x myth / Busted

Mikey from Life Cereal Was Killed Because He Mixed Pop Rocks and Soda and His Stomach Exploded Oh Wait Not Really

And finally, let me unpack what I mean when I say "I get that" about folks taking a "just in case" approach before the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. 

Because no, I don't think that the law firm approach of "train everyone just in case" was good or useful or smart.

It was stupid and wasteful and reflected a desire to avoid liability instead of actually preventing misconduct, which is a betrayal of what the compliance job is supposed to be.

At the same time, the DOJ wasn't really any help here in the past. A lot of folks relied on that Morgan Stanley NPA to justify all this stuff, which was an absolute trainwreck of a document but was at least a document and not a speech or scuttle from a former SEC or DOJ prosecutor-turned-law-firm-partner that you had to hire to tell you what the government really meant.

Was that smart? No. But understandable. Dark times.

(But not anymore! The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs is crazy clear on this stuff. And if you need help on it, make sure you grab the preview of our workbook on it here—you can get the full one through Compliance Design Club!)

Ricardo Pellafone

Written by

Ricardo Pellafone

As Broadcat’s Founder, Ricardo is responsible for setting and obsessively refining Broadcat’s core methodology, approach, and vision of practical, useful compliance.