There isn’t an F&I practitioner who wakes up in the morning and says, “I think I’ll go to work and willfully and knowingly break the law.” Yet, by the day’s close of business, there are deals transacted across the country that will have been “moused.” So how do you ensure you aren’t the guilty party?

Folks, what we’re talking about here is the decisions made by the person you see in the mirror every morning — the one with a working knowledge of the laws and enough common sense to determine when an act crosses the line. Unfortunately, knowing right from wrong isn’t good enough these days. What’s needed is accountability.

And that’s the approach my organization took with the rate matrix sheet you’ll see on the next page. It is based on the belief that while random events occur, there’s no such thing as a random human act. See, unless you aren’t in full command of your faculties, you are, for the most part, aware before, during and after the action you took — no matter how random the situation is. And that awareness creates accountability. In your personal morality play, you’re the only actor on stage.

The Triggering Event: A triggering event launches the decision matrix. It’s any situation in need of resolution that requires weighing ethical or regulatory factors in order to reach a decision. For example, you might discover that you overlooked a form that requires the customer’s signature during the consummation process. Or maybe you’re working a deal that will only get funded if the customer has an additional $10,000 in annual income.

Solution Roster: When an event triggers the decision matrix, list the various possible methods for rectifying the situation. Let’s consider the missing signature situation I previously described. There are several options from which to choose. You could arrange to secure the customer’s signature, submit the form sans the required signature or you could forge the customer’s name.

As for the income shortfall, your solution roster might include two options: Submit the deal as posted or adjust the customer’s income figures to meet the finance source’s requirement. It’s not right, but it is an option.
Weighing Options: Next, you must weigh the options against two standards. The first is the personal accountability test: Who is accountable for my decision? The further a decision moves from its legal or ethical center, the stronger the attempt by the decision-maker to make another person or event complicit in the final decision. The extenuating factors will then somehow justify it. “If that customer wasn’t in such a hurry, I would have remembered to get that form signed,” one could reason. “If my manager didn’t set unrealistic production goals, I wouldn’t need to finesse the income figures on that deal.”

That is not to say that the presence of such factors shouldn’t be considered during the evaluation process, but they cannot be used to justify an unethical or illegal decision. If the dealer habitually sets unrealistic performance expectations, that might become a triggering event in itself. Then the decision you have to make becomes, “Do I want to work for an employer who requires me to break the law or compromise my personal integrity in order to keep my job?”

The second standard is the long-run ramification test: “How will the decision I make today influence future decisions or my personal integrity over the long run?” An illegal or unethical act that goes undetected is known as a perpetuating event. Once set in motion, it is nearly impossible to stop. “If finessing the income on one deal helped me hit my numbers this month, it just might work next month as well,” you may reason. “And if I’m having a really bad month, I may need to mouse five or six deals.”

The open questions then become: “At what point will I get caught? How many dealers will hire me before my reputation forces me out of the industry? And how much time will I need to spend lying to myself so I can look at myself in the mirror each morning?”

The decision matrix is more intricate than space allows for a thorough description. Hopefully, this simplified model and examples provide a practical template for evaluating job-related decisions. When you’re weighing decision options, remember that the standards — personal accountability and long-run ramifications — will point you to the right decision. Decisions derived via the matrix on the following two pages may be difficult to make, but they will serve you well.

David Robertson is executive director of the Association of Finance and Insurance Professionals. Email him at [email protected].

0 Comments