Morgan Fenelon, Juliette van Doorn, Wieke Scholten
{"title":"Crossing the lines a human approach to improving the effectiveness of the three lines model in practice","authors":"Morgan Fenelon, Juliette van Doorn, Wieke Scholten","doi":"10.1108/jfrc-09-2023-0150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Financial services firms have a significant societal responsibility to prevent issues. The three lines model helps them do that though faces challenges in its effectiveness. This paper aims to offer a behavioural perspective on these challenges and practical solutions to help improve the model and herewith better prevent issues.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors detail key behavioural pitfalls and underlying psychological mechanisms that hinder the effectiveness of the model. The authors illustrate these with examples from the corporate practice, alluding to the behavioural patterns and drivers identified in the academic and consultancy work. The authors conclude with offering practical solutions how to enhance the effectiveness of the model.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The authors discuss common ineffective intergroup behaviours between the controllers (here: internal audit) and the controlled (here: the audited business or 2nd line functions): the controllers responding to issues with increased scrutiny; the controlled dismissing the feedback and challenging the issues raised; and the controlled and the controller competing for power. The root causes of these ineffective intergroup behaviours include: psychological defence mechanisms, social categorisation and collective beliefs about intrusiveness. The offered solutions range from actions the controllers can take, actions the controlled can take and actions both can take to improve the effectiveness of the model in practice.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The authors argue that the behavioural perspective on the effectiveness of the model is a blind spot and largely omitted from organisations’ agendas. This paper adds this behavioural perspective to help organisations improve the effectiveness of the model.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-09-2023-0150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Financial services firms have a significant societal responsibility to prevent issues. The three lines model helps them do that though faces challenges in its effectiveness. This paper aims to offer a behavioural perspective on these challenges and practical solutions to help improve the model and herewith better prevent issues.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors detail key behavioural pitfalls and underlying psychological mechanisms that hinder the effectiveness of the model. The authors illustrate these with examples from the corporate practice, alluding to the behavioural patterns and drivers identified in the academic and consultancy work. The authors conclude with offering practical solutions how to enhance the effectiveness of the model.
Findings
The authors discuss common ineffective intergroup behaviours between the controllers (here: internal audit) and the controlled (here: the audited business or 2nd line functions): the controllers responding to issues with increased scrutiny; the controlled dismissing the feedback and challenging the issues raised; and the controlled and the controller competing for power. The root causes of these ineffective intergroup behaviours include: psychological defence mechanisms, social categorisation and collective beliefs about intrusiveness. The offered solutions range from actions the controllers can take, actions the controlled can take and actions both can take to improve the effectiveness of the model in practice.
Originality/value
The authors argue that the behavioural perspective on the effectiveness of the model is a blind spot and largely omitted from organisations’ agendas. This paper adds this behavioural perspective to help organisations improve the effectiveness of the model.
期刊介绍:
Since its inception in 1992, the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance has provided an authoritative and scholarly platform for international research in financial regulation and compliance. The journal is at the intersection between academic research and the practice of financial regulation, with distinguished past authors including senior regulators, central bankers and even a Prime Minister. Financial crises, predatory practices, internationalization and integration, the increased use of technology and financial innovation are just some of the changes and issues that contemporary financial regulators are grappling with. These challenges and changes hold profound implications for regulation and compliance, ranging from macro-prudential to consumer protection policies. The journal seeks to illuminate these issues, is pluralistic in approach and invites scholarly papers using any appropriate methodology. Accordingly, the journal welcomes submissions from finance, law, economics and interdisciplinary perspectives. A broad spectrum of research styles, sources of information and topics (e.g. banking laws and regulations, stock market and cross border regulation, risk assessment and management, training and competence, competition law, case law, compliance and regulatory updates and guidelines) are appropriate. All submissions are double-blind refereed and judged on academic rigour, originality, quality of exposition and relevance to policy and practice. Once accepted, individual articles are typeset, proofed and published online as the Version of Record within an average of 32 days, so that articles can be downloaded and cited earlier.