A friend worried out loud to me the other day. His gentle eyes looked sad as he told me this story.
“A decision was made to move the technical support organization to a different location for cost reasons. As a result of this decision, my team is responsible for managing the transition over a two to three year period and the reward for a job well done is two choices. First: move to the new location and take a pay cut. Appealing proposition, wouldn’t you say? Second: Lose your job after work is transitioned to new team in new location. Seriously, I can’t think of a drearier environment to work in.”
My friend works for a Fortune 100 company that is not struggling financially. In fiscal year 2009, their GAAP operating profit was over $10 billion.
The story he shared struck me. Creativity, optimism, and productivity were squashed on this team. Once committed employees to the quality of their work and the satisfaction of their customers, were now being asked to stay engaged while executives essentially gave them the finger. The feeling of fairness and a sense of purpose towards meaningful work was completely eroded. The level of uncertainty was beyond stressful.
The manner in which executives make decisions sometimes is, well, despicable.
First, executives that forgo leading with a set of values and principles, shame on you. Hasn’t this global economic crisis taught you anything about responsibility for the communities in which your company resides? I get the need for cost cutting. I understand the requirement to improve your bottom line. I even understand the choice to “restructure” (cut jobs) as a last resort. What I don’t have patience for is your behavior when there are clearly other options. Or, when you make choices that impact people’s lives and you clothe your decision in corporate speak. For executives that think you’re doing the best you can with what you have, that’s gibberish. There are plenty of companies, Fortune 100 and 500 companies that are leading with values and principles at the forefront. Read the book, SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good, by Harvard Business School professor and best selling author, Rosabeth Moss Kanter.
Kanter shows conclusively that companies that are masters of change by being focused, fast, flexible, friendly, and fun (known as the five Fs) not only achieve high levels of business performance, but also make a difference in terms of social good. Kanter shares her findings from a remarkable three-year investigation into vanguard companies–“companies at the forefront of action, and example of change to come.” Their approach—making service to society an integral part of their business models and linking well-articulated values with every change they embark on. They use a human centered approach to engage the hearts and minds of their employees to build a resilient culture; embrace innovation; enhance customer success; make effective acquisitions; attract and retain top talent; and work collaboratively to tap into the depth of their employees’ talents.
My prediction for 2010 is that top employees will leave companies that lack corporate social responsibility.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development in its publication Making Good Business Sense by Richard Holme and Phil Watts, used the following definition to describe corporate social responsibility (CSR).
“Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.”
With the AIG “like” companies of the world that get a lot of media attention, it’s hard to garner a glimpse of CSR in big business. I think people are done with big business fueled by ubiquitous greed and corruption and led by business elite that are divorced from global, local, and employee needs, working only for shareholders.
I have to believe that more companies will do better.


{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Over the years, I have seen companies make many of these decisions to relocated purely on the "numbers", not taking in account the intangibles such as culture, talent availability etc. It has been these factors that have caused the most anguish getting a new business segment to operate smoothly. There are different tolerance thresholds for staying vs going and is often attributed to generational differences. The older worker often feels shackled, trying to hold onto seniority and security and the younger worker will readily pick up and move on.
Melissa, another nice post, I am adding you to my blog roll.
Thanks for the insightful comments Lynn and thanks for adding me to your blog roll too. Here's to a great 2010!
~Melissa
Thanks for the insightful comments Lynn and thanks for adding me to your blog roll too. Here's to a great 2010!
~Melissa