How Corporate Social Performance Attracts Job Seekers


Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: Why Are Job Seekers Attracted By Corporate Social Performance? Experimental & Field Tests of Three Signal-Based Mechanisms
Reviewed by: Will Smith, MA

 

In recent years the topic of Corporate Social Performance (CSP) has become increasingly of interest to major corporations.

It’s becoming more important for organizations to have a social presence, display their dedication to the community and adopt positive practices that go beyond the company’s bottom line. Some may wonder just how important corporate social performance actually is to a company’s stakeholders.

A recent study by Jones, Willness & Madey examined several questions in relation to recruiting new talent: Are job seekers more interested in working for organizations that have a greater CSP presence and, if so, which aspects of CSP are they more drawn to?

 

THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

The areas of CSP that Jones, Willness & Madey were interested in investigating included how an organization’s community involvement and pro-environmental efforts influenced job seekers. Community involvement was defined as philanthropic efforts and supporting employees’ efforts for volunteerism, while pro-environmentalism was focused on policies and procedures being put in place to enable a company to become more eco-friendly and sustainable.

To get more specific, the researchers wanted to see how these two factors influenced the applicants’ prospective pride in working with a CSP-conscious company, their perception that the company’s values matched their own due to CSP practices, and their expected treatment as an employee due to the company’s social/communal efforts.

They set out to answer these questions through two separate studies, presenting CSP information to research participants in exactly the same formats most of us would use to gather information when hunting for jobs. This practical approach means that their research can easily translate into real world applications.

 

STUDY #1

The first study’s participants consisted of 180 senior undergraduate students with an average of nearly two years of work experience, each of whom attended two sessions scheduled a week apart.

In Session 1, participants were given a survey with questions focused on political beliefs and values. Embedded within that survey were questions directly related to Corporate Social Performance. In Session 2, participants were asked to look at content from three fictitious companies. The content for two of the companies remained the same for all 180 participants, but the third company’s content had three different versions– one focusing on community involvement, one highlighting pro-environmental practices, and one with no CSP-related content– divided evenly among the participants. They were then asked to rank the companies and give their feedback on each one.

The results showed that participants who received versions focused on community involvement or pro-environmental practices felt that these issues carried significantly more weight in their top company choices. Participants who received a CSP-focused version of the company’s materials were more attracted to that company than participants with the non-CSP version. The results also showed that exposing jobs seekers to CSP-related information increased their anticipated pride in working with the company, as well as the feeling that the company’s values fit their own.

 

STUDY #2

In the second study, researchers sought out job seekers at two different job fairs, ultimately finding 171 participants to answer a survey. They also looked at booth setups for the majority of recruiters in order to catalog the amount of Corporate Social Performance content in their materials.

The participants were asked to identify the top companies they were interested in working with, and the survey also contained questions regarding community involvement and pro-environmental practices.

The results of this study found that job seekers had more favorable perceptions of companies that had CSP information. Community involvement had a much stronger influence than the environment when it came to factors like anticipated pride, perceived value fit and employee treatment.

 

BIG PICTURE TAKEAWAYS

In order for companies to attract a larger pool of talented job seekers, it may become necessary to include more Corporate Social Performance information on their websites.

The researchers found that many Fortune 500 companies did not have CPS information on their recruitment and job pages. Not having this sort of content could prove to be a missed opportunity for these organizations.

The study found that it’s beneficial for companies to have pro-environmental practices, but even more important to increase community involvement initiatives, which may be perceived by job seekers as reflective of a more “selfless” organization.

Outsiders are Better Negotiators than Insiders


Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (2013)
Article: On being peripheral and paying attention: Prototypicality and information processing in intergroup conflict
Reviewed by: Scott Charles Sitrin

In a series of four studies, Van Kleef, Steinel, and Homan show that status in a group, either as an insider (i.e., a group member) or as an outsider (i.e., not a group member) is related to the ability to negotiate. For example, if you are a woman in a group of four men, you are considered on some level you are an outsider; you are different in some aspect from the majority of the group. This status as an outsider relates to your ability to perform skills that are important in a negotiation process. Outsiders experience heightened sensitivity to social cues, increased motivation to process incoming information, improved recall of information acquired, and an ability to achieve win-win solutions. So, if you an in a situation in which you are outnumbered four to one, you can take solace in the fact that being on the outside makes you a better negotiator.

Given how complexity and challenging many negotiations between groups are in business, it is often vital to pick a highly motivated negotiator who will search for, process, and assimilate as much information as possible in order to achieve the most favorable outcome for your company. In the past, many of us have assumed that sending someone with strong similarities or ties to another group would yield the best, most profitable results. These findings tell a different story.

 

How to get Promoted: Lessons from the movie Office Space


Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (2013)
Article: Linking subordinate political skill to supervisor dependence and reward recommendations: A moderated mediation model
Reviewed by: Scott Charles Sitrin

In the movie Office Space, Peter Gibbons, a programmer at a software company, shows up late to work, takes his boss’s parking spot, and disregards requests from his supervisor. Despite this behavior, the human resource consultants hired to assist with the company’s downsizing promote Peter, because, by being frank about the company’s problems, he makes a positive impression on them. Thanks to Junqi Shi of Sun Yat-sen University, Russell E. Johnson of Michigan State University, Yihao Liu of the University of Florida, and Mo Wang of the University of Florida and Peking University, this type of promotion behavior is now scientifically supported. Supervisor rewards (or recommendations for rewards) were linked to the number of times an employee interacted with a supervisor at work, their political skills, or the ability to make a good impression on colleagues and supervisors. Specifically, a subordinate with greater political skill was likely to interact with their supervisor more frequently. Unsurprisingly, supervisors tended to recommend rewards more for those subordinates with whom they interacted with most often.

In their study, data was collected from 53 construction management team supervisors and 296 subordinates from a construction management company in South China. Among the subordinates, most were men in their early thirties, and for the supervisors, most were men in their late thirties. So, next time you try to get a promotion, you should maybe follow the brave steps of Peter Gibbons and get noticed.

When Retailers Screw Up: How Can they Win Customers Back? (IO Psychology)


Publication: Journal of Business Research (2013)
Article: Should retailers pay to bring customers back? The impact of quick response and coupons on purchase outcomes
Reviewed by: Megan Leasher

Retailers aren’t perfect. When they screw up, how do they try to get you to fall in love with them again?

Science to the rescue! In this study, researchers investigated customers’ spending after filing of a customer service complaint to a grocery retailer. Some customers received a coupon after complaining. Some didn’t. Some customers received a quick response from the retailer. Others received a slower response. Overall, they found that those who received the coupon actually spent less after filing their complaint, and those who received a quick response spent more in the time following.

Upon further digging, they found that for customers who received a slower response, the coupon made a big difference; a slow response AND a coupon reduces future spending greatly. This tells retailers to respond quickly to all customer complaints. However, if you can’t respond fast, giving a coupon may hurt your bottom line even more.

When you think about a coupon versus a quick response solution, it makes me think of being in a relationship. Ladies, when your man screws up, he might immediately apologize. He might buy you flowers. He might do both. (He might do neither; let’s be real.) If he chooses to buy you flowers, but never apologizes, you constantly look at those crappy, unattractive flowers as the cheesy substitute “thing” you got… the thing that now represents his second mistake. The flowers represent what you really wanted but didn’t get: your man immediately owning up to his mistake and sincerely apologizing for it. The flowers become undesirable in your eyes. Unhappy customers see the coupon as a reminder of being treated like crap.

But when your man immediately owns up to his mistake, apologizes, and you talk it through, ladies feel better. They feel listened to; they feel their point of view matters; they feel understood, attended to, and cared for. (This is starting to sound like a Lifetime movie…) It’s the timing and the care that matters, and this treatment impacts how you feel and act going forward.

This is a common “how” versus “what” scenario. The “how” you treat me is much more important that the “what” you give me. Coupons don’t fix the mistake. When not apologized for in a timely fashion, they represent the mistake. And they don’t help.

So apologize. Quickly. (And white tulips certainly don’t hurt…!)

Keeping Your Business Model Afloat Before It Goes Under Water


Publication: Harvard Business Review (Dec 2012)
Article: Surviving Disruption
Reviewed by: Susan Rosengarten

At some point in our lives we’ve all had that nagging worry of being replaced or displaced by someone younger, smarter, better looking, or more talented. Well, navigating the business world is much the same. You’ve got to be vigilant and constantly on the lookout for new products or services that come to market and threaten to steal your client base.

The best way to protect your organization from a typhoon that could be heading your way is to accurately assess the current state of your business environment, and compare the pros and cons of the goods or services you provide against those of potential threats or “disruptions” to your business. Disruptive innovations are those products that possess technological or business model advantages over their competitors. These advantages enable them to gain traction and maintain their industry status as they become more advanced and continue to gain market share.

Wessel and Christensen provide a basic framework through which you can accurately evaluate whether a threat is looming on your horizon, and if so, plan a strategic response accordingly. First off, identify the strengths of your disruptors’ business model, or their “extendable core.” What are your competitors doing really well that is allowing them to expand their market share and gain traction? Next, identify what your organization’s strengths or areas of competitive advantage are, and why consumers turn to your company to meet their needs. What aspects of your competitors’ “extendable core” may enable them to develop better products or offer better services, but in what strategic spheres might you still have a clear advantage? Finally, look to the future. What conditions could enable a looming disruptor to subsume your business and what circumstances might thwart or hinder its hostile takeover within your domain?

Consider online grocers, for example. Consumers love that they no longer have to drive to the store, search for their items, stand on long lines and drive all the way back home again. With one click of a button you can have everything you need brought straight to your door. At the same time though, your local supermarket or grocery store serves its purpose for last minutes runs to pick up ingredients for dinner. Also, there’s something about being able to squeeze your tomatoes before you buy them that online grocers will never be able to compete with. Online grocers certainly have a clear advantage when it comes to nonperishable, staple items that people stock up on. However, the necessary changes to their business model that would allow them to meet consumers’ last minute shopping needs would destroy their competitive advantage.

Give ‘em the One-Two Punch!

Topic: Business Strategy, Change Management
Publication: Harvard Business Review (DEC 2012)
Article: Two Routes to Resilience
Authors: Clark Gilbert, Matthew Eyring and Richard N. Foster
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten

PR_009-_SI_-_14_03_12-390Strategists at every organization worry about keeping their companies’ products and services relevant for the twenty first century. With new electronics brought to market before you can say the word “i-phone,” its no wonder companies are finding it harder to compete and maintain market share, yet alone dominate their industries. What’s the secret to not just staying afloat, but flourishing in this economy? Well, Gilbert, Eyring and Foster have the answer for you in their article “Two Routes to Resilience.”

You’ve got to take a dual-transformation approach and come at your competitors from both sides. Give them the “one-two punch,” if you will. “Transformation A” should focus on your presently existing core business, and strategies that allow you to adjust your current business model to accommodate shifting markets, technological advancements and an ever-changing business environment. “Transformation B” on the other hand should create a separate business that feeds and thrives off of “disruptions” in your environment. The trick to creating synergy and a competitive advantage for both businesses is a “capabilities exchange” through which the parallel businesses share resources without infringing upon the mission or operations of either company.

Take the chain bookstore Barnes & Noble for example, which saw a dramatic drop in sales with the rising popularity of the virtual mega-bookstore Amazon. Barnes & Noble responded by redesigning their business model and concentrating less on lower-margin high-selling books and more on higher margin children’s books and gifts.  Stores were no longer merely places that sold books, but they now sold an experience; they became a place where parents could spend time with their children and customers could peruse through gifts for their loved ones (Transformation A). Barnes & Noble also became relevant for the 21st century with its release of the ‘Nook,’ which had an advantage over Amazon’s ‘Kindle’ because consumers could touch it in their hands and try it out before buying it (Transformation B). These transformations benefited from a number of shared resources including common branding and publishing relationships.

Now’s your chance! Take the next step in transforming your business and competing with the best of what’s out there. Best of luck! Knock ‘em dead!

Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. & Foster, R. N. (2012). Two Routes to Resilience. Harvard Business Review, 90(12),65-73.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Businessman_Wearing_Boxing_Gloves_p98605.html

Take the Lead!

Topic: Business Strategy, Change Management, Leadership
Publication: Harvard Business Review (JAN/FEB 2013)
Article: Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills
Authors: Paul J. H. Schoemaker, Steve Krupp, and Samantha Howland
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten

imagery_09_11_08_000051Whether you set your sites on becoming CEO or simply want to take your lemonade stand to the next level, there are a couple of essential skills you’ll need to have. According to Schoemaker, Krupp and Howland, mastery of these six skills will help you navigate the murky waters of the 21st century and become a strategic leader in your own right.

1) Anticipate- Don’t get stuck on the present; conduct a SWOT analysis of your surroundings and consider how economic and market changes may effect your business model. Anticipate and plan for potential opportunities and threats, and gain insight into what makes your competitors successful.

2) Challenge- Never be complacent! Challenge the status quo and think outside the box. Promote a collaborative culture within your organization that encourages diversity of thoughts and ideas. Argue your point from different angles and multiple perspectives and see where it takes you.

3) Interpret- Take a closer look at relevant feedback and how it relates to the current state of your organization. Are there any readily emergent trends? Put your critical thinking skills to use by analyzing the situation and forming patterns and connections. What is your information telling you?

4) Decide- Come to educated conclusions based on a thorough consideration of the issues and all of your options. Play devils advocate and argue the problem from all angles. Once you’ve come to your conclusions, muster the strength and courage to begin executing on your plans.

5) Align – Make sure all your stakeholders are on the same page. Communicate the plan and bring everyone onboard. Consider whether your suggestions run counter to some of your stakeholders’ agendas or interests, and how you might go about dealing with resistance to change.

6) Learn- Set the example for your team and show your coworkers that it’s okay to take risks and make mistakes. Learn from your failures and come out stronger for them. Promote a “culture of inquiry,” and take advantage of every opportunity to learn and grow.

Want to put the pedal to the metal and see which of these six areas you can work on to hone your strategic leadership abilities and reign supreme?  Take this Strategic Aptitude Assessment and find out: Hbrsurvey.decisionstrat.com

Schoemaker, P. J. H., Krupp, S. & Howland, S. (2013). Strategic Leadership: The  Essential Skills. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 131- 134.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Smiling_Manager_Pointing_Back_p91399.html

Managing Change for the Twenty-First Century

Topic: Business Strategy, Change Management
Publication: Harvard Business Review (NOV 2012)
Article: Accelerate!
Author: John P. Kotter
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten

Organizations are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of consumer, industry and worldwide change. Technological advancements as well as cross-cultural integrations have allowed for tremendous economic opportunities. At the same time though, the stakes are much higher, and the threats more real. Today’s leaders feel progressively more pressure to carefully consider how their investments in new ventures and R&D to remain competitive in changing markets will impact stakeholders’ perceptions and affect their bottom line.

While the conventional operating systems of the past, composed of traditional hierarchies and managerial processes, have been sufficient to run day-to-day activities, they are not enough to enable organizations to develop and implement strategic initiatives and react to unexpected impediments to organizational goals.

John Kotter, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School and a pioneer in the field of change leadership suggests a new approach to dealing with this ever-pressing problem; create a dual operating system. Maintain current organizational hierarchy systems to sustain daily operations, and in addition, create a concurrent “network-like structure” to carry out strategy. This new network or “volunteer army,” composed of employees at all level of the organization serves as a “guiding coalition” to swiftly address inadequacies and manage change.

Kotter outlines eight “accelerators” imperative for the strategy network to operate effectively:

1) Create a sense of urgency around a single big opportunity.
2) Build and maintain a guiding coalition.
3) Formulate a strategic vision and develop change initiatives designed to capitalize on the big opportunity.
4) Communicate the vision and the strategy to create buy-in ad attract a growing volunteer army.
5) Accelerate movement toward the vision and the opportunity by ensuring that the network removes barriers.
6) Celebrate visible, significant short-term wins.
7) Never let up. Keep learning from experience. Don’t declare victory too soon.
8) Institutionalize strategic changes in the culture.

So go ahead- transform your organization! Do you dare?

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate! Harvard Business Review, 90(11) 43-58.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Colleagues_Working_Together_p46926.html

Inviting the Inquiry of Science into Strategic Planning (IO Psychology)

Topic: Business Strategy, Creativity, Strategic HR
Publication: Harvard Business Review (SEPT 2012)
Article: Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy
Authors: A. G. Lafley, R. L. Martin, J. W. Rivkin, and N. Siggelkow
Reviewed By: Megan Leasher

Strategic planners sit down once a year.  They pride themselves on their scientific rigor in how they analyze and shoot down every idea they generate.  They then proceed with a less-than-stellar, not-so-innovative idea, and they wonder why the organization doesn’t swoon with delight?  Lafley and colleagues (2012) assert that a key component of science is missing in these proceedings: the inquiry.  They argue that the scientific method must first begin with the brainstorming of novel hypotheses, then proceed into the design and testing of these hypotheses.  The authors detail a series of steps that incorporate the inquiry of science into strategic planning to achieve a more creative, successful, and efficient direction.

The first step is the key differentiator of the entire process.    This step entails identifying at least two mutual exclusive options to resolving the issue at hand.  All options must be framed as pure possibilities, devout of criticism, skepticism, and analysis.  This is where the invention and inquiry of science comes into play.  This is where we all get to be creative designers and dream into the realm of pure possibilities.  The authors describe possibility as any “happy story that describes how a firm might succeed” (p. 59).

Then the list of possibilities is broadened and time is taken to identify what conditions must hold true in order for each possibility to succeed.  Conditions may include things like customer support, market sustainability, or feasibility of supply.  All conditions must be framed positively, so that everyone feels confident in success if all conditions were to hold true.  Judgment, skepticism, and analysis are not yet allowed, so that all possibilities continue to be framed as positive.  After this, barriers that would prevent each condition to hold true are identified and ranked.  We now allow judgment and skepticism through the door, but analysis must still wait outside.

The next step is where experiments are designed to test the barriers to each condition.  We must ask: What are the right questions that will lead us to answers that we can have faith in?  As the authors mention, tests can be as simple as talking to a supplier, or as complicated as surveying thousands of customers.

We then conduct the tests and allow the scientific analysis to begin.  It’s time to put on our goggles, get data happy, and crunch the numbers.  The authors assert that the first test should always be of the condition that the group feels will least likely hold true.  If the test fails and the barrier is confirmed true, no further testing is needed and the possibility is rejected.  If the condition passes the test, move on to the next condition unlikely to hold true, and so on.  Tests for a possibility should only be conducted sequentially, never in parallel, to conserve effort and resources.

Lastly, the final possibility is selected.  After reviewing the results of all tests of the barriers, the group simply picks the solution with the fewest serious barriers left standing.  It is a relavitvely simple, anticlimactic step; all of the hard work has already been completed and we are left with practically a simple tally count.  It is important to call out that testing barriers to conditions provides evidence, not proof.  Evidence still requires human judgment that is fully aware that risk is always present.

I feel this framework has such potential and would love to see its value play out first hand.  But controlling the judgment and skepticism early on is a monumental challenge; this process requires a shift in mindset and determined, focused group leaders who can direct participants to frame all choices as possibilities for success.  Plus, a geek like me wants to jump right into the test design and analysis.  But to be “scientific,” we must inquire.  Science isn’t just analysis; it’s play, and brainstorming, and invention beyond your brain’s current capacity.

Lafley, A. G., Martin, R. L., Rivkin, J. W., Siggelkow, N. (Sept 2012).  Bringing science to the art of strategy.  Harvard Business Review, 57-66.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Thinking_Young_Manager_Looking_Up_p89781.html

Using data to make smart decisions: 1 + 1 = It’s Not That Simple

Topic: Business Strategy, Decision Making, Evidence Based Management, Statistics
Publication: Harvard Business Review (APR 2012)
Article: Good Data Won’t Guarantee Good Decisions
Authors: S. Shah, A. Horne, and J. Capellá
Reviewed By: Megan Leasher
 
When we were in grade school, we learned that 1 + 1 = 2.  We quickly realized and celebrated the immediate success in figuring out what came after the equal sign.  This celebration built faith; blind faith that we should always believe in the result of an analysis.

But in business, it’s not quite so simple.  We should not automatically rejoice in what we see after an equal sign, because we need to judge what went into the numbers in the first place.  This concept is the focus of a study conducted by the Corporate Executive Board, which classified 5,000 employees at 22 global companies into one of three categories:  Those who always trust analysis over judgment, those who always rely on their gut, and those who balance analysis and judgment together.  The Board advocates the latter “balanced” group, as their research found that this group demonstrated higher productivity, effectiveness, market-share growth, and engagement than those in the other two groups.  However, the Board also found that only 38% of employees and 50% of senior executives fell into this “balanced” group.  Taken together, their findings advocate cultivating both analysis and judgment in decision-making at all levels of organizations.

The authors present several ideas as to how organizations can begin to make a shift toward a culture of applying appropriate insight and judgment to their data analysis.  First and foremost, they argue that data must be made accessible and presented in usable formats that enable analysis.  A dual-focus must be placed on the both the data and the judgment; increase data literacy and statistical expertise while simultaneously training employees how to correctly use the data, encouraging both dialogue and dissent throughout the interpretation.

But this is easier said than done.  You have to know what to trust and distrust in data.  You have to learn if and how metrics support the strategy and growth of an organization.  You have to learn what types of caveats and error can be found within the data.  You have to learn how the data was collected, what might be wrong with the collection process, and what important information might have been ignored.  You have to know how to interpret and proceed when you find that multiple metrics of performance are giving you competing answers; not all data play nice with each other.  You have to know what data is worth analyzing and what data should be abandoned altogether.  Sometimes running away screaming is the appropriate response.

Analysis isn’t just about writing a formula and clicking “run” or “execute” to crunch the numbers.  After all, data without method is just numbers in columns and rows. It’s about a series of critical, incremental, and ethical judgment calls before and after each iteration within an analysis.  Some of the judgment calls come from understanding the content and context of the data, some come from a grounding in organizational and industry knowledge, and some come from an understanding of the past, present, and future strategy of the organization.  And yes,  some judgment calls come from pure statistical knowledge.  The true expertise comes from a constant interplay and interdependence of all of these factors.

Regardless of the challenges presented, the authors are clear that decisions should never be made by data or one’s gut alone; analysis is critical, but so is applying corresponding judgment.

Shah, S., Horne, A., & Capellá (2012, April).  Good data won’t guarantee good decisions.  Harvard Business Review, 23-25.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Office_and_Stationer_g145-Calculator_p43860.html