Firing staff for watching multiple training videos at the same time raises questions about the accountancy firm’s corporate culture, says Eliot Wilson
Internal disciplinary procedures in the US arm of one of the “Big Four” accounting firms may not seem like headline news. Last week, however, The Financial Times reported that Ernst and Young (now modishly branded as EY, of course) had fired dozens of staff in its American division after an investigation revealed they had undertaken more than one online training course at a time. This kind of multitasking, the firm declared, was “in violation of our global code of conduct and US learning policy”.
Some of those who were dismissed were shocked, feeling EY had been heavy-handed. The courses, which included “How strong is your digital brand in the marketplace?” and “Conversing with AI, one prompt at a time”, were part of EY Ignite Learning Week, and contributed to the 40 continuing professional education credits which employees are required to accrue every year. That fact led to EY regarding simultaneous participation in two courses as an ethical breach – bluntly, cheating.
The company’s sensitivity on issues of ethics and integrity is understandable given it was fined $100m by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2022 for concealing the fact that hundreds of its accounting staff had shared answers on their professional tests (including, awkwardly, ethics examinations). But dismissing so many employees wholesale seems like an extreme and ill-considered reflex response. Those who have been sacked have cause to feel harshly treated, but it also raises questions about EY’s wider corporate culture.
On the first point, several (now former) members of staff argued it had not been made clear that participating in more than one session simultaneously was forbidden, and that the internal communications had encouraged employees “to join as many sessions as our schedule allowed”. They also noted sourly that EY encourages multitasking as a means of efficient and effective working. As one dismissed consultant said to the FT, “If you are forced to bill 45 hours a week and do many more hours of internal work, how can it not?”
There is an obvious hint of unfairness. EY has tacitly acknowledged a lack of clarity: emails promoting a learning event in August warned employees were “expected to complete this learning activity with integrity, including being present for all content and class interactions” and they “should not take any other learning while completing this activity”.
Management vs employees
More profoundly, though, the affair suggests a disconnection between management and employees, between a “mission statement” declared culture and real-life working practices. The failure to warn against taking courses simultaneously and the heavy-handed sanctions imposed speak of a lack of trust and collegiality within EY.
I spoke to Christian Hunt, ethics and compliance expert and founder of Human Risk. As a former regulator at the Prudential Regulation Authority, he appreciates the importance of enforcing rules but argued there was a lack of flexibility and foresight.
“I understand the desire to be seen to be tough on ‘cheating’ given their previous fine but this feels fundamentally unfair. Why did so many EY employees spot the opportunity to multitask, yet it didn’t occur to those promoting the training (and presumably policing CPD) that this could happen? This was predictable and preventable. A defter solution would be to issue a warning to all employees, remove any duplicate credits earned and admit the system shouldn’t have permitted it.”
The way EY has handled this issue seems to demonstrate an unhelpful and unproductive duality in the company’s approach
The way EY has handled this issue seems to demonstrate an unhelpful and unproductive duality in the company’s approach, not only to continuing professional development, but to behavioural and ethical expectations and norms. It requires employees to achieve 40 CPD credits a year, and is prepared to monitor this to the extent of discovering that some were taking two courses at the same time. But what other assessment, if any, is done of the value of CPD? Or is it another box ticked to keep regulators and professional bodies at bay?
Encouraging efficient working and flexibility is sensible, and we all multitask all the time, professionally and personally. But EY’s horrified overreaction to the apparent unintended consequences of this culture suggests that it has not been carefully considered. The company is left looking like it expects its staff to embrace the behaviour it promotes, but only in certain contexts – and they might not know what those contexts are till it is too late.
Eliot Wilson is a writer