I recently came upon the following article by Norm Murray & Associates. I stumbled on it through Chad Tragakis' blog over at H&K.
I was really impressed with the strip-away honesty the article was written with. It's based on a survey by BT on corporate social responsibility where 44 percent of respondents said they wouldn't work for a company with a bad reputation.
I agree with everything that Norm articulates in his article (I'll leave you to read it for full details). But I had some thoughts on the topic that Norm didn't touch on that I thought I'd spend some time discussing.
Is working for a 'socially' responsible corporation really that important to today's job seeker? So much so that they'd take a lesser paying job?
I'd say yes, but with a few caveats. Gen X'ers definitely are an idealistic bunch. Plenty of baby boomers are idealistic also. And the Gen Y'ers are expecting a lot from their workplace in terms of personal satisfaction. Everyone is looking to enjoy life and if taking 10-20 percent less makes that happen, I think most people would be ok with that.
So yes it matters, but now what?
I think that to understand corporate social responsibility - to communities, to shareholders, to employees, etc. - one almost has to step back for a second. Most people think of good social responsibility as 'doing' something 'good' for others versus bad social responsibility being doing unethical, corrupt things for oneself at the expense of others.
But is that what it really is?
I would argue that social responsibility often goes astray when it's either tossed aside as unimportant (window dressing if you will) or when it's overly embraced and becomes a 'please everyone all the time and if we don't then we're bad people' situation.
And the reason, I think, that most organizations do either one or the other is because of the nuances of managing a diverse workforce with different levels of competencies.
Organizations who embrace accountability and who show appreciation for hard work and good work, have essentially built the foundation for a culture of social responsibility.
The reason so many organizations fail in their social responsibility efforts is because it's not part of their DNA to start with. We've all worked with people who weren't doing their job, yet nothing is done for whatever the reason. And we've all worked with superstars who went unnoticed or under appreciated (or more commonly overworked) and left an organization.
You can't be social responsible if your internal culture isn't one that embraces accountability in all its forms.
And for this reason, I think if you drill right down to it, most people want to work for an organization where they are appreciated for their hard work - not simply because they exist. Likewise, most employees value management teams who show leadership, they don't value them just because they are 'management'.
With this in mind I think what you'll find is that organizations who are tending to their workforce (not pampering them) and who are holding the laggards accountable and rewarding the performers are the same organizations who are doing great when it comes to social responsibility.
I think it's a mistake to judge an organization by how it 'markets' its corporate responsibility, at least for job hunters. Instead the simple evaluation metric that should be used is whether or not an organization is seeking to be the best at what it does and whether it tends to its workforce with this in mind.
Does it turn over 5 percent of the laggards every year to make room for fresh blood and increase the bell curve of performance for its work force?
Does it view situations from a 'win win' perspective? Is it just as thankful to have an employee as the employee is for being hired?
Does it have a culture of collaboration and mentorship or is it every man for himself?
I know the two things seem like two different tracks - one is a corporate philosophy the other is a human resource issue - but to me the two are interconnected.
You can't embrace corporate social responsibility if you don't apply standards of accountability and fairness within your workplace itself.
I'll blog at a later date about Google - because I think they epitomize how the two go hand in hand. From equipping their headquarters with solar panels to their recent scuffle with China - Google more than not does the right thing, not because they have to, but rather, in my opinion, because it's part of their DNA.
Excellence is not something you can apply to one thing alone... it's either everywhere or nowhere... it's either part of every decision or not part of any of them.
This is what today's job hunters are looking for if you ask me... a workplace that's neither cut-throat nor club med... but rather one that is constantly striving for excellence.
Norm's conclusion that organizations often embrace corporate social responsibility only to discard it at first convenience is true and is reflective of organizations that are only interested in spurts of excellence on single items. It's not part of their actual DNA.
So corporate social responsibility is one element to an organization, but I wouldn't assess an organization based it alone. If an organization is committed to excellence then it's almost a guarantee that one day they will evolve a strong corporate social responsibility practice - and sometimes getting in on the ground floor of that process can be an interesting journey.
Job seekers shouldn't work somewhere because it's 'green' or charitable, but rather is it green or charitable because its part of its DNA? Is it a place of excellence?
Find excellence and you'll find an enjoyable workplace.
I was really impressed with the strip-away honesty the article was written with. It's based on a survey by BT on corporate social responsibility where 44 percent of respondents said they wouldn't work for a company with a bad reputation.
I agree with everything that Norm articulates in his article (I'll leave you to read it for full details). But I had some thoughts on the topic that Norm didn't touch on that I thought I'd spend some time discussing.
Is working for a 'socially' responsible corporation really that important to today's job seeker? So much so that they'd take a lesser paying job?
I'd say yes, but with a few caveats. Gen X'ers definitely are an idealistic bunch. Plenty of baby boomers are idealistic also. And the Gen Y'ers are expecting a lot from their workplace in terms of personal satisfaction. Everyone is looking to enjoy life and if taking 10-20 percent less makes that happen, I think most people would be ok with that.
So yes it matters, but now what?
I think that to understand corporate social responsibility - to communities, to shareholders, to employees, etc. - one almost has to step back for a second. Most people think of good social responsibility as 'doing' something 'good' for others versus bad social responsibility being doing unethical, corrupt things for oneself at the expense of others.
But is that what it really is?
I would argue that social responsibility often goes astray when it's either tossed aside as unimportant (window dressing if you will) or when it's overly embraced and becomes a 'please everyone all the time and if we don't then we're bad people' situation.
And the reason, I think, that most organizations do either one or the other is because of the nuances of managing a diverse workforce with different levels of competencies.
Organizations who embrace accountability and who show appreciation for hard work and good work, have essentially built the foundation for a culture of social responsibility.
The reason so many organizations fail in their social responsibility efforts is because it's not part of their DNA to start with. We've all worked with people who weren't doing their job, yet nothing is done for whatever the reason. And we've all worked with superstars who went unnoticed or under appreciated (or more commonly overworked) and left an organization.
You can't be social responsible if your internal culture isn't one that embraces accountability in all its forms.
And for this reason, I think if you drill right down to it, most people want to work for an organization where they are appreciated for their hard work - not simply because they exist. Likewise, most employees value management teams who show leadership, they don't value them just because they are 'management'.
With this in mind I think what you'll find is that organizations who are tending to their workforce (not pampering them) and who are holding the laggards accountable and rewarding the performers are the same organizations who are doing great when it comes to social responsibility.
I think it's a mistake to judge an organization by how it 'markets' its corporate responsibility, at least for job hunters. Instead the simple evaluation metric that should be used is whether or not an organization is seeking to be the best at what it does and whether it tends to its workforce with this in mind.
Does it turn over 5 percent of the laggards every year to make room for fresh blood and increase the bell curve of performance for its work force?
Does it view situations from a 'win win' perspective? Is it just as thankful to have an employee as the employee is for being hired?
Does it have a culture of collaboration and mentorship or is it every man for himself?
I know the two things seem like two different tracks - one is a corporate philosophy the other is a human resource issue - but to me the two are interconnected.
You can't embrace corporate social responsibility if you don't apply standards of accountability and fairness within your workplace itself.
I'll blog at a later date about Google - because I think they epitomize how the two go hand in hand. From equipping their headquarters with solar panels to their recent scuffle with China - Google more than not does the right thing, not because they have to, but rather, in my opinion, because it's part of their DNA.
Excellence is not something you can apply to one thing alone... it's either everywhere or nowhere... it's either part of every decision or not part of any of them.
This is what today's job hunters are looking for if you ask me... a workplace that's neither cut-throat nor club med... but rather one that is constantly striving for excellence.
Norm's conclusion that organizations often embrace corporate social responsibility only to discard it at first convenience is true and is reflective of organizations that are only interested in spurts of excellence on single items. It's not part of their actual DNA.
So corporate social responsibility is one element to an organization, but I wouldn't assess an organization based it alone. If an organization is committed to excellence then it's almost a guarantee that one day they will evolve a strong corporate social responsibility practice - and sometimes getting in on the ground floor of that process can be an interesting journey.
Job seekers shouldn't work somewhere because it's 'green' or charitable, but rather is it green or charitable because its part of its DNA? Is it a place of excellence?
Find excellence and you'll find an enjoyable workplace.
Comments
Post a Comment