Tracy Coenen: stereotype or profile?

by Dennis Howlett on August 17, 2006

Stereotyping is ugly, dangerous and discriminatory. As such it is always wrong. Profiling is useful in forensic accounting. I know something about this as I used to do contract forensic work for National Westminster Bank.

So when I read Finding a thief: personal red flags of fraud by fraud expert Tracy Coenen my sense of outrage was piqued:

Back in May, I published an article in the Wisconsin Law Journal about red flags of fraud related to employees. The article is a must-read for business owners and executives.

Tracy – you say it’s a must read but without adequate justification. She goes on:

The article covers the work habits, attitudes, and lifestyles of employees. A few of the specific red flags include:

Unusal dedication to job

Rationalization of poor work performance

Instability in relationships and household

Personal financial problems

Substance abuse problems

So the many partners I’ve known who work long hours, struggle to get things done on time, have golf widow wives in the name of client relationships and hit the scotch most nights to chill out are potential thieves and fraudsters?

At worst I’d argue they’re poor business people who may be ill. Does Tracy not know that substance abuse is widely regarded as an illness? Does Tracy not realise there are 1,001 reasons why relationships run into difficulty? Has she never come across the over-stretched partner?

Linking the heavily loaded ‘red flags of fraud’ to a combination of factors: ‘habits, attitudes and lifestyles’ in what she calls ‘common characteristics’ creates the stereotype.

Stereotypes leads to labelling, another socially destructive get out for ill-informed people.

If, instead, Tracy had said something like: “In my experience, the typical profile of a person who may be considered as an at risk employee generally, but not always displays a combination of…” then the tone would have been entirely different. None of that appears in her post.

I would have left a similar comment on Tracy’s site but there’s no commenting facility. I’ve tracked back.

Words matter.

Technorati Tags:

  • Share/Bookmark
  • I'm afraid to say ... actually, no, that's not right: I'm *glad* to say Dennis' argument is quite correct. Words matter, a lot.

    I've not read the article but consider the quote:

    A convergence of several of the characteristics I identified is what MAY signal a problem, not one alone.


    Well, well, well. It also "may not" signal a problem. As Dennis' argument suggests, "may" and "may not" isn't really the issue: Presumably the "Red Flags of Fraud" should be factors suggesting a relatively high probability of fraud. I wouldn't and I don't think many others would want to spend a lot of time delving into details of someone's personal life for factors that simply "may" indicate fraud.

    This is perhaps the problem with a narrow view on any subject. To an over-zealous investigator or forensic accountant all employees are potential thieves. Why not worry about designing a nice management control system that actually has a pretty good shot at preventing and detecting such problems without presuming our poor "unstable employee with problems" is likely a thief?
  • nan
    Hey Dennis,
    Who paid you off to write this trash?

    It's obvious you don't understand anything about the subject, but are just posting it here to hurt someone.

    Anyone ever educate you about libel?

    Your ignorance is showing.
  • I did read the article. It's worse than I thought. Not a single fact. Plenty of generalisations. Apparently: "Companies need to pay attention to evidence of bankruptcy filings...frequent changes in residence, romantic relationships, and family situations."

    No science here, but a healthy dose of prejudice suffices. But according to Tracy - I don't get it. Damned right I don't. But then I never did get BS.
  • Tracy
    Did you read the article, Dennis? Apparently not. The post clearly indicates that you've got to read the article for the whole story.

    As stated in it: "A few of these traits alone do not indicate the potential for fraud, but the probability rises as we identify more of the characteristics."

    A convergence of several of the characteristics I identified is what MAY signal a problem, not one alone. If you want to call awareness of common red flags stereotyping, that's okay, but I disagree.

    Oh, and you keep spelling my name wrong.
  • Talk about someone with poor communication skills!

    Also, how dedicated is too dedicated? What's unusual dedication?

    And who wouldn't try to rationalize poor work performance if confronted about it?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: