[Dialogue] Change belief
marilyncrocker at juno.com
marilyncrocker at juno.com
Wed Aug 10 18:24:26 EDT 2011
Hi Guys(and the few gals who have spoken up thus far),
I have finally decided to "weigh in" on this interesting dialogue.
I was an Order permeator who left my first love, secondary and higher
education (1960s/70s), for better income-producing positions at the time
(the late 1970s/early 1980s): first with a small privately owned Chicago
fundraising consulting firm (one that deeply cared about clients and
employees as first and second priorities, and yet was able to be
profitable); then with McDonald's Corp., later with Red Lobster
Restaurants. With respect to the latter two multinational corporations,
I found the public story about priorities (customers, employees and
stockholders) was quite different from the reality (stockholders,
customers, employees). This was in the 80s before the time of massive
takeovers and mergers, and those of us "permeating" such companies
hoped/intended to catalyze transformation.
In each of these work settings my position was "high" enough in the
organization that I could hear, often by accident, sometimes in formal
meetings, the "truth" about what was really going on. I found that
"truth" was more often than not antithetical to the purported public
story.
Now, thirty years later, I would love to have the then "young ones" --
Raymond Spencer, John Patterson and Cyprian D'Sousa -- speak with us.
Cyprian spoke movingly at the Symposium in DC in 2009 about the Kanbay
model -- a newer, more fine-tuned version of what many of us had
attempted as permeators in the 70-90s.
I'm guessing the Kanbay leadership stood on the shoulders of permeators
like me. But in Kanbay the transformational impetus came from the top
leadership, the CEOs. In our years of permeation experiments we
documented the sine qua non for organizational transformation: CEO
approval and support. This was immensely ironical, antithetical to our
1960s song, "local man, shall rise again, shall rise again, to build the
earth..."
I look forward to your comments, and hope that our women who were the
strong presence in the work force (and so have longitudinal data easily
at hand) will join in this chat.
Grace and peace,
Marilyn Crocker
Dr. Marilyn R. Crocker
123 Sanborn Road
West Newfield, ME 04095
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:06:44 -0700 "David Walters" <walters at alaweb.com>
writes:
I live in Alabama where here are auto plants paying any where from 14 to
18 dollars an hour.These workers are living next door to people making
minimum wage, if they are lucky enough to be working. When a large
textile yarn plant opened here in the early 80s the powers that be urged
them to offer a starting pay at half of what they had planned and
gradually work the pay up over time. These new plants are doing the
opposite and making a differrence in peoples lives. $14 sounds mearger
compared to Detroit but given the local wage scale and the local cost of
living. We are now working to expand the local retail base so that these
folks can spend more of their earnings locally. Every weekend I go my
favorite local social node- Walmart Superstore and watch people and
their baskets. When the economy blewup in 08 , I notice that their
baskets were not as full as they had been and they generally contained
the basics. That has now changed baskets are now over flowing and some
families are checking out with 2 baskets. I have also have noticed that
their children are dressing differrently.
This is on the other side of my earlier unscienitific observations in the
old Walmart in the 90s when Clinton changed the welfare program that
meant a single woman with 3 kids living on ADC had two more years and the
payments would stop. When it did stop, these woman were working all over
town. Some moved to better housing, drove better cars and their children
were involved in the community in ways they had not before. .
-David Walters
--- icabombay at igc.org wrote:
From: Jack Gilles <icabombay at igc.org>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Change belief
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:20:42 -0500
Randy,
Yes, the push for this quarter returns does skew things terribly. And I
agree with your statement on what is desirable for companies that want
sustainability. The issue that usually keeps this from happening is that
companies can often get away with adverse behavior without government
pressure (I think of Shell in Nigeria) and the fact that the lifetime of
most companies is quite short, (takeovers and buyouts), and then add into
the equation that not only is there a global market, but there is a
global capacity to locate and do your dirty work elsewhere and polish
your image at home. I know that Nike is very keen to keep its image
clean, but not only have they been caught a few times with wretched
working conditions in some plants, the fact is they could afford to pay a
few cents an hour more to all their overseas cheap labor and you'd never
see it in the sneaker price. I know there are shining examples out there
and there are truly some great CEO's doing the right thing, but I've been
in this field for a lot of years and gone to a lot of conferences on
transformation etc. and still I don't see much of a groundswell to do the
right thing. Perhaps the answer is with the next generation of business
leaders and the new MBA's that are graduating. It's one thing to teach
these things, it's quite another for it to go deep within and withstand
all the pressures to do otherwise and not succumb to the big bucks and
perks. And all this talk about jobs, jobs, jobs; well look at all the
new auto plants located in the South paying $14 and hour and people too
scared to complain because there are a dozen willing to take the job at
that price.
Just one story before closing. One of our metro colleagues in Cleveland,
the Battershells, had a daughter who headed up BP's green and renewable
energy sector for a number of years. She finally quit because it became
crystal clear that although their slogan ("BP means beyond petroleum) and
green logo was up front in all the adds etc, the company not only gave
priority to the oil and gas sectors but really weren't willing to invest
and gamble on alternatives. She now is in the Dept. of Energy at the
highest level that doesn't require confirmation. She also says that
department is a mess! Seems the "professor" who runs it has no clue on
how to manage a hugh complex of people and missions. I could go on, but
that's enough for now!
Jack
On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:29 PM, R Williams wrote:
Jack,
I agree, the crux is in the requirement in the corporate charter to
"maximize" profits, and the usual unwritten addendum, "this quarter." I
think if the requirement could be restated to emphasize "reasonable" and
"sustainable" rather than maximum profits, meaning over the long-term but
not necessarily every quarter, then serving the entire stakeholder
network could be possible. Over the long-term, if the business does not
treat employees fairly, does not deliver value to customers (on the
customers' terms) and at least "do no harm" to the community (can't have
a healthy business in a sick community), then consistent and sustainable
profits are not possible. This requires that serving stakeholders not be
extra-curricular (charitable donations and volunteerism), but be done in
the course of the day-to-day conduct of the business itself. I suggested
in a seminar I did that customers want products that work, organizations
that perform and people who care. Employees want equitable compensation,
meaningful work and opportunities to grow professionally and personally.
Communities expect business to provide products and services that
directly or indirectly add value to the overall quality of life of the
community, operate in an ethical manner, and grow in a way and at a pace
that is sustainable both for the business and the community.
I am told that even Adam Smith insisted the business serve the general
welfare.
Randy
From: Jack Gilles <icabombay at igc.org>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Change belief
Randy,
Every company or organization, has three demands it must balance.
Customers, Employees and remainder on the Balance Sheet (stockholders
for a traded company). These three always require consideration, with no
one of them taking priority over the others, though at any given time
there may be strategic reasons to focus more on one than the other. I
like to talk about Balance Sheet because there are competing and
necessary investments that require judgment and often sacrifice.
Unfortunately, because we tend to start with the bottom line, that is,
what's left over after spending on operations, investment, payroll,
promotion, donations, etc. it gives management and stockholders a big
club to minimize the "expenses" and maximize their share. But the killer
in all this is that most companies by the very act of their incorporation
are legally bound to maximize shareholder return. So all a conscientious
CEO and management team can do is try and protect the other demands on
the balance sheet, but so often the Board will squeeze and squeeze until
a good person just opts out. This happened to Ben & Jerry's when they
were taken over. At first they were left alone and allowed to continue
their "odd" path because it was a powerful part of the brand. But slowly
the tentacles spread and started to squeeze. It's not a pretty or
pleasant sight.
Jack
On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:57 AM, R Williams wrote:
John,
Excellent point. I know of one highly successful company whose mission
statement is that its purpose is to serve its employees, and that the way
it would do that was to provide excellent products and services to its
customers. All this, in the long run, benefits the community as a whole
and sustains consistent, reasonable profitability. So why must business
choose one stakeholder over others when it's possible to serve them all,
including stockholders?
Randy
From: "jlepps at pc.jaring.my" <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Change belief
This is a fine article, and Michael Porter will give it considerable
credibility. He's the recognized spokesman for business analysis and
strategy.
The problem with Milton Friedman's notion ("The purpose of business is to
increase its profits") is that it ignores stakeholders and focuses only
on stockholders. A company DOES impact society, and whether for good or
for ill is up to the company. I like to say that the purpose of a company
is to deliver a product or service that benefits society, and profit is a
measure of how good it is doing at that purpose. Unfortunately too many
in business have bought into Friedman's simplistic notion (he's a Nobel
laureate, so don't write him off too easily!), and we're attempting to
alter that basic misunderstanding. Charles Handy is another who advocates
the more comprehensive purpose, saying something like: to say profit is
the purpose of business is like saying the purpose of life is eating.
It's necessary, but as a means rather than as an end.
At 07:41 AM 8/9/2011, you wrote:
This would not be bad . . .
Companies (add in governments, etc.) cannot continue to pretend to serve
society while simultaneously acting against it. Neither can they continue
to give shareholder's interest primacy above the interests of the public.
No amount of investment in charitable causes or employee volunteering can
change that fact. The purpose of a company will be to create shared
value, where business and society achieve success together.
CSR is dead, long live social enterprise
We must move in to an era were companies do not separate themselves from
the consequences of their operations, we must champion shared values
Share56
reddit this
Comments (2)
Dermot Egan
Guardian Professional, Tuesday 9 August 2011 06.00 BST
Article history
Companies cannot continue to pretend to serve society while
simultaneously acting against it, says Dermot Egan Photograph: Issei
Kato/REUTERS
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been around as a term since the
60s but it really came to prominence in the last decade when large
multinationals began to adopt the phrase to demonstrate that they were
serious about delivering a positive social impact on the communities in
which they operated.
Some cynics felt that CSR was simply a marketing exercise, an attempt to
reassure employees, garner consumer favour and stave off government
regulation. Other more hawkish economists such as Milton Friedman were
uncomfortable with the notion that companies had any moral obligation to
society, famously stating "the social responsibility of business is to
increase its profits".
To communicate their efforts companies such as PepsiCo, Shell and
Barclays began to produce CSR reports which laid out all their positive
impacts from charity donations and employee volunteering to supporting
renewable energy production and promoting diversity. CSR reporting became
so popular that even much maligned companies such as British American
Tobacco felt that they too needed to communicate the benefits of their
operations to society.
As climate change and the environment came to the fore, CSR reports
quickly evolved into sustainability reports and their emphasis became
more focused on driving low energy solutions and mitigating the
environmental impact of a company's operations.
While the language and emphasis of CSR has changed, one key problem
remains. The adoption of CSR has been and continues to be reactionary, a
response to a growing concern from employees, customers, and to an
increasing extent investors, about the conduct of businesses. The
principal drivers have been largely external rather than internal,
calling into question whether those principals are core to the companies
DNA.
The explosion in popularity of social enterprises recently is a direct
consequence of the inability of existing companies to grasp the new
reality that a company's core purpose must be to deliver positive social
impact and not to simply minimise negative impacts while ultimately
focusing on maximising profit in the short-term.
As esteemed Professor at Harvard Business School, Michael E Porter wrote
corporations must "create economic value in a way that also creates value
for society by addressing its needs and challenges".
The comments are taken from a remarkable article in the Harvard Business
Review where Porter lays out his concept of "shared value". Companies are
urged to "reconnect company success with social progress" and "take the
lead in bringing business and society back together".
You could be forgiven for thinking that these words had been lifted from
the speech of a social entrepreneur to describe their business
philosophy. But Porter is the father of modern business strategy and his
Five Forces model has been universally taught to students of business for
the last 30 years.
While Porter doesn't mention the term explicitly, he is in effect calling
on all businesses large and small to reinvent themselves as social
enterprises and redefine their operations beyond profit maximisation
towards addressing societal needs.
Placed in this context, CSR initiatives appear hopelessly inadequate.
Particularly, as they have tended to exist as peripheral activities
connected to the marketing function of companies and leveraged as a means
to enhance reputation.
The extent to which companies, particularly large corporations, are able
to embrace the shared value concept will depend on the attitudes of those
leading them and the foundation on which they were built. In some cases,
they will be able to seek inspiration from their history. Companies such
as General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and SC Johnson have delivered
profound positive social impacts, raising people's quality of life,
improving healthcare and helping to develop basic hygiene standards. What
inspired these companies was a combination of the profit motive and the
desire to innovate and improve people's lives.
For other companies whose motive and inspiration is profit above any
explicit social purpose, it will be more difficult to adjust.
As we move towards the shared value model, more questions will be asked
of companies. The measure will not simply be profit, but to what end
profit is pursued, how it is gained and what is its impact. Whether it's
the pollution of the environment by energy companies pursuing fossil
fuels or the effect on child obesity from food companies promoting
unhealthy snacks to infants; companies will no longer be able to separate
themselves from the consequences of their operations, with taxpayers and
governments paying for the resulting negative outcomes.
Companies cannot continue to pretend to serve society while
simultaneously acting against it. Neither can they continue to give
shareholder's interest primacy above the interests of the public. No
amount of investment in charitable causes or employee volunteering can
change that fact. The purpose of a company will be to create shared
value, where business and society achieve success together.
CSR is dead, long live social enterprise.
Jim Wiegel
Life isn't meant to be easy, it's meant to be life. -- James Michener,
The Source
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com
UPCOMING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FROM PARTNERS IN PARTICIPATION
ToP Facilitation Methods Sept 20-21, 2011
ToP Strategic Planning, Nov 8-9, 2011
The AZ Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday of every month at 1 pm
Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation
program is available in Phoenix in 2011-12. Program begins on Oct 12-14,
2011. See our website for further details.
--- On Tue, 8/9/11, John Cock <jpc2025 at triad.rr.com> wrote:
From: John Cock <jpc2025 at triad.rr.com>
Subject: [Dialogue] Change belief
To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 6:11 AM
So what belief do you really want to change in the "entire community,"
bro
Jim?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[ mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:49 AM
To: James Wiegel; Colleague Dialogue
Subject: [Dialogue] Any colleagues connected with Rensselear
PolytechnicInstitute?
All it takes to change
Globe and Mail 8/9/2011
"To change the beliefs of an entire community," says Discovery News,
"only
10 per cent of the population needs to become convinced of a new or
different opinion, suggests a new study done at the social cognitive
networks academic research center at Rensselear Polytechnic Institute.
At
that tipping point, the idea can spread through social networks and alter
behaviors on a large scale."
Jim Wiegel
Jfwiegel at yahoo.com
When physicians were given a gift a bag of candy they were better at
integrating case information and less likely to become fixated on their
initial ideas and coming to premature closure in their diagnosis. --
Some
study I read about somewhere
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
Dr. Marilyn R. Crocker
123 Sanborn Road
West Newfield, ME 04095
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e4305498bb00543e4cst06vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110810/14dde8fe/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon_reddit.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110810/14dde8fe/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Man-passes-electronic-boa-007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 37768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110810/14dde8fe/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list