Talk:LRN (company)

COI editor statement

Hi, I've created a proposed draft of an article for LRN. I have a WP:COI because I am a paid consultant to LRN. I've created and edited many articles on Wikipedia and always strive to abide by all Wikipedia policies first and foremost, especially thos regarding notability, neutrality and reliable sourcing. I also do not make direct edits if I have a COI, once an article has been published, unless it's something non-controversial like correcting a typo or fixing formatting.

You can lean more about me and my background as a journalist and academic on my user Talk page, as well as further info about my occasional work as a paid consultant.

In this case, LRN has been extensively profiled by Fortune Magazine (twice), the American Lawyer, the National Law Journal, the L.A. Times, Strategy + Business, and many other publications for more than 20 years. There are also extensive sections of articles about LRN (not profiles) in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which provide more information. WP:NOTABILITY is well established, in my opinion. The company invented an industry, ethics and compliance training for corporations, and has a moderately high profile CEO, Dov Seidman, who has kept the company in the news for 20 years.

I know editors always are concerned that bias WP:NPOV has seeped into articles where the editor has a declared COI. I've tried my best to avoid any content or language that isn't neutral and well-sourced. If you feel I've slipped up anywhere, please let me know!

In my opinion, many (maybe even most) new articles submitted via WP:AFC are created by users with an undeclared COI. Very few are created by users who actually declare they have a COI, which is required under WP: COI since 2014. By treating users who declare their COI with fairness, the project encourages openness and transparency and discourages the undeclared COI editing which is now pervasive in the shadows of Wikipedia. It would be great if the disclosure policy took hold, since it's still so rarely actually used. I encourage anyone I consult for to always declare a COI and not make direct edits to published pages where they have a COI. It's usually a surprise to them that there is a COI disclosure policy and that it can actually work - they will be treated fairly even if they disclose, so long as they learn about and follow Wikipedia policies. I'm really trying to get this message out to the large number of tech and PR companies I have relationships with in my professional life. BC1278 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Request edits November 2022

Hello, I have some suggestions for updates to this article. I have a conflict of interest as someone who is an employee of LRN.

1. In the Info box, there have been updates to personnel, titles and number of employees. There is a new CEO.

In the row for founder, please change:

Dov Seidman (CEO)

to

Dov Seidman

And please add two names to the Key Person row, which is now blank:

| key_people = Dov Seidman (chairman)

Kevin Michielsen (CEO) Please change number if employees to: | num_employees = 522

DONE

2. In the “History” section ( LRN_(company)#History), as the new last paragraph, following the paragraph that begins “Since 2008, LRN has been the corporate partner of…” In 2018, Leeds Equity Partners made a “substantial” investment in LRN. The investment enabled LRN in 2020 to acquire Interactive Services, a Dublin-based e-learning company which offers workplace policy compliance training. The combined companies had about 40% of the Fortune 500 as clients, as of 2020.

Explanation: New York Times coverage shows the investment was noteworthy and substantial. It eventually enabled the acquisition, covered in both The New York Times and The Times of London.

DONE

3. In the “History” section (LRN_(company)#History), please delete the subheading “Expansion into Training” but leave all the text underneath it in the article.

Explanation: The statements below this subsection deal with various topics other than training, even with the page as it exists now. This will be even more the case if the additional request edits are approved.

NOT DONE, see explanation below

4. In the “Operations” section, under the “Services” subheading (LRN_(company)#Services), following the paragraph that currently begins “Its online education platform…”, please add the following paragraph: In its annual Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report, which is based on surveys of ethics, compliance, and legal executives from various industries around the world, LRN has found that companies with values-based ethics systems, in contrast to those that focused on rules and procedures, were less likely to experience misconduct among employees, and that 97% of values-based companies outperformed their competition. In both the 2021 and 2022 reports, the majority of people surveyed said their companies’ ethical cultures had been strengthened by their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Explanation: The Program Effectiveness Report is a long-standing annual publication by LRN, which has received substantial coverage in at least one high-quality press source, The Wall Street Journal, as well as specialist trade publications in the areas of human resources and corporate ethics and compliance.

NOT DONE, see explanation below

5. In the “Operations” section under the “Services” subheading (LRN_(company)#Services), following the paragraph that begins “Its online education platform…”, please add the following paragraph: In 2021, LRN published a “Benchmark of Ethical Culture” report, based on surveys of approximately 8,000 employees of companies worldwide representing 17 industries. According to the report, companies with strong ethical cultures outperform other companies by 40 percent across several metrics including customer satisfaction, employee loyalty, and innovation.

Explanation: There is substantial press coverage, primarily in trade publications in the areas of human resources and corporate ethics and compliance, of the Benchmark of Ethical Culture report.

APPROVED, see below

6. In the “Operations” section, directly under the “Organization” subheading (LRN_(company)#Organization), please change:

Job titles were largely eliminated from the company and "employee councils" handle major functions like recruiting and conflict resolution.

to:

Job titles were largely eliminated from the company, according to a 2014 Wall Street Journal article. As of 2021, the company was using job titles such as “Chief Human Resources Officer”. ” Chief Marketing Officer” and “Chief Financial Officer” again.

Explanation: There’s no date in the WSJ article about when the job titles were eliminated (“a few years ago”) so the next best thing is to give the date of the article, in 2015, since more recent sourcing shows job titles are back again.

APPROVED, see below

7. In the “Operations” section, in the last paragraph at the end of the “Organization” subheading (LRN_(company)#Organization), please replace this paragraph:

In 2007, Seidman published the book How, which discussed the business philosophy created at LRN. In it, he argues that companies that "outbehave" the competition will also outperform the competition financially.

With this paragraph:

In 2007, Seidman published the book How, which discussed the business philosophy on which LRN is based. In it, he argues that companies that behave more ethically than their competitors will also outperform the competition financially, and that the rise of information technology has made it more important for companies to operate with integrity.

Reason: Adds sourcing for the second half of the paragraph on How and its relationship to LRN, and replaces a dead link with a current source that contains this information.

DONE

Thanks DiegoPlace6561 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) DiegoPlace6561 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

• I completed edit requests 1 and 2.
• Regarding edit request 3, it does not make sense to remove the subheading about expansion into training. I say this because LRN was not initially an ethics training company. I reject this edit request.
• Regarding edit request 4, I don't know what is meant by "values-based ethics systems" rather than rules and regulations. That requires a lot of explanation as it suggests rules and regulations aren't needed! I read Compliance Week, and it is not the best source for compliance-related news, sadly. I can't accept edit request 4 as it is phrased now.
• Regarding edit request 5, COI editor DiegoPlace6561 has my permission to make that edit to the article.
• Regarding edit request 6, COI editor DiegoPlace6561 has my permission to make that edit to the article. Please use better phrasing though. I will leave that up to you.
• Regarding edit request 7, I will update the deadlink with the new source now, and will change the text to read as follows: "In 2007, Seidman published the book How, which discussed the business philosophy on which LRN is based. In it, he argues that companies that behave more ethically than their competitors will also outperform the competition financially."

I made some other changes to the article which were not requested. I did that as an editor in the usual course of my activities for Wikipedia.

If you wish to discuss your edit requests 1 through 7 in further detail, please reply here.--FeralOink (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

FeralOink How about the paragraph below for #4? It replaces “values-based ethical systems” with “ethical workplace culture”. I agree this is much clearer. I am also providing an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal citation, pasted below the suggested Wikipedia language, which provides additional confirmation.

Hello, DiegoPlace6561. Your proposal for edit number 4 looks good. You have my permission to edit the article using the language you specified. Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you!--FeralOink (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

---

In its annual Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report, which is based on surveys of ethics, compliance, and legal executives from various industries around the world, LRN has found that companies with ethical workplace culture in contrast to those that focused on rules and procedures, were less likely to experience misconduct among employees, and that 97% of values-based companies outperformed their competition. In both the 2021 and 2022 reports, the majority of people surveyed said their companies’ ethical cultures had been strengthened by their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

EXCERPT FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL SOURCE

Companies that emphasize checklists to make sure they have an effective ethics and compliance program would be better served focusing on people’s behavior, a report from advisory firm LRN concluded. Companies with the most effective programs place greater importance on the presence or absence of ethical behaviors such as ethical decision-making, organizational justice and freedom of expression—and place less value on metrics such as the number of training classes or calls to a hotline, the study found.

In a survey of 550 ethics, compliance and legal experts, LRN found 49% said their C-suite engages them while making strategic decisions, while 45% said the C-suite considers ethical behavior as a prerequisite for promotion. The results led LRN to conclude the ethics and compliance activities that led to ethical behavior among employees and managers had three key ingredients: effective communication, core organizational beliefs expressed in behavioral terms and buy-in from managers and the C-suite. "Rules alone aren't enough to ensure an ethical corporate culture," said Susan Divers, a senior advisor at LRN, in a statement. For example, she pointed out the global financial crisis unfolded in 2008 despite a “multitude of rules, policies, codes of conduct and controls.”

17:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)