CSR is Like Teenage Sex!

"Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is like teenage sex. Everyone says they are doing it, but only half are really doing it, and of the half.... only half are doing it the right way." Sarita Bahl (consultant to government, NGOs, the private sector, and multinational corporations in the fields of communications, crisis management, training and advocacy for over 22 years) passed these words of wisdom to me last year, and from the literature on corporate sustainability/citizenship/responsibility, I think it poignantly summarizes the current state of corporate presence in our global community.

While there are still many companies paying lip-service to sustainability/corporate citizenship/corporate social responsibility (CSR), others are in the progressing stages of learning how to do it the right way.  Then there are quite a few that have emerged as role models in developing the kind of sophisticated CSR platform that leads to meaningful triple bottom line impact.

Unfortunately, many of these examples fall outside of the U.S.  In 2009 Gjolberg found that corporate America fell in the bottom five (out of 20 countries studied) in terms of results-oriented, meaningful, and impactful CSR initiatives, and yet Grayson's study in 2008 had identified American consumers as being the most interested of six western countries in socially and environmentally reputable corporations.  Therefore, there is much to be gained by studying the global corporations who have figured out how to develop the sophisticated CSR platform, herein after called itCSR, and even more opportunity for American companies.

As a result, my research focused on systematically identifying which U.S. Fortune 500 global corporations are doing CSR the right way and learning from them why they do it and how they do it.

From this research, I have developed a case for a new organizational development model.

Interested in learning more?  Go to the "ItCSR Development" page at the top right of this blog to read my dissertation abstract and follow me at www.deniseberger.com.

Image from ayushveda.com

Is there More than One Alpha

We recently explored the notion of the “alpha” and felt that the assigned definition was too one-dimensional. In fact, we believe that there are sub-classes of alphas. I came up with two: the “alpha-a” type (alpha alluring) and “alpha-b” type (alpha brutish). I personally realize - through some further thought and research - that this subject is way more complicated than even narrowing alpha down to two categories, but in my mind, I had to start somewhere. Here’s how I define the distinction. Both are highly intelligent, competent, competitive, opinionated, somewhat fidgety, attention-getters. What distinguishes alpha-a from alpha-b is that alpha-a has greater emotional intelligence (EI) and, more importantly, has a higher degree of social intelligence (SI). What is the difference? Daniel Goleman says that EI has to do with “self-mastery” and, I would add, seeking personal betterment; SI has to do with “empathy” in communication, i.e. how a person relates to other people, aspires them and is tuned into them (2008).

Not many of us in our doctoral class labeled ourselves as alphas. And, by the definition given in the article we read on alphas, I am not convinced that any of us would want to define ourselves as alphas. And I would argue that we are not alphas. I would even venture to say that you wouldn’t find too many of those alphas in such a higher learning space unless it had direct ROI on their career position (and, I mean career position, specifically; I am not talking about career path, on which we are all traversing). However, I think the definition from which we were all working was one based on alpha-b and if I shift my perception to an alpha-a definition then I think actually many of us do qualify! And it is a compliment!

What I do want to point out is findings about 5 types of individuals in the context of resource control theory: bistrategic controllers, coercive controllers, prosocial controllers, non-controllers, and typical controllers. “Controllers” is defined by the strategy used to influence. Bistrategic (1) controllers use both prosocial strategies of reciprocation and cooperation as well as coercive strategies of aggression and intimidation, to a high degree relative to peers. Coercive (2) controllers rely only on coercive strategies to a high level; prosocials (3) rely on those social strategies. Non-controllers (4) are low in both areas. Typical (5) controllers form the largest grouping and are average in both areas. Bistrategics have the highest level of social dominance status and are able to work the social elements while also bypassing or confronting them. (Hawley, Shorey and Alderman, 2009.) I am just guessing but I correlate bistrategic controllers with alpha-a types and coercive controllers as alpha-b types, both successful but different. And to really go out on a limb, I think prosocials are tier 2 management: the kind that gets to a certain, fairly successful point, is well-liked and appreciated in the organization, but who don’t quite make it to the top.

Wait, there’s more! Hawley et al. developed their research to identify how confidence and anxiety relate to these types. Ironically, they found that bistrategic controllers run average on confidence and have a high propensity toward anxiety and avoidance (of intimacy)! Coercive controllers have high levels of anxiety and avoidance and run low on confidence. Proscials experience high confidence, low avoidance and modest anxiety, but do not have high achievement orientation. (Hawley et al. 2009.) To me, this does not compute, at least if we operate on the assumption I made above correlating these types to alpha material.

An entirely other forum could be devoted to the similarities and differences between the sub-categories within alphas as they relate to gender. For example, Nancy Briton and Judith Hall developed research on the gender differences in nonverbal cues. They found that women were rates higher than men at interacting with people and recognizing facial expressions, gestures and expression in voice. “Women were perceived by both male and female participants to be fluent, skilled, and involved communicators” (Briton and Hall, 1995). Some would argue that these predispositions lend themselves to greater SI. They could be the reason why alpha females are labeled less overly aggressive. Gill Corkindale, Executive Coach, also believes that alpha females are less likely to run in packs than their male counterparts (2008) and that there are less alpha females than males. So, here is my question: is there such thing a thing an alpha-a female and alpha-b female, assuming you agree with the alpha-a and alpha-b definitions? Or, do we stereotype alpha-a and alpha-b, in thinking that alpha-a is more of a female definition and alpha-b is more male? However, we can envision male leaders of the alpha-a qualities, can’t we. And certainly we can envision those in our past who are alpha-b. I find it hard to come up with female alpha-b type. I don’t think they make it. I think that they are shut down because they push the envelope too far on societal norms.

Briton, Nancy J. and Hall, Judith A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 1 / 2. Department of Psychology: Northeastern University, p. 79-90.

Corkindale, Gill (2008). Keys to working with alpha personalities. Presented by Harvard Business Review, as seen on YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP3KkAdT25I&feature=channel

Goleman, Daniel (2008). Social intelligence and Leadership. Presented by Harvard Business Review as seen on YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qv0o1oh9f4

Hawley, Patricia H., Shorey, Hal S., and Alderman, Paul M. (2009). Attachment correlates of resource-control strategies: Possible origins of social dominance and interpersonal power differentials. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships: 26:1097. DOI: 10.1177/0265407509347939.

Trust and Leadership

When writing on the subject of engendering trust for a school paper, I feel as though I brainstormed a litany of characteristics for a leader to possess. Among the key ingredients for a leader in a corporation, on which I settled, are: integrity, emotional intelligence, knowledge, fairness and thoughtful decision-making, communication, and reliability. Without these qualities, trust is hard to come by.

In order to build trust, it is paramount that the leader first and foremost want to earn trust and that they are trustworthy. Once trust has been established, it is easy to grow its roots. However, just like the expression goes, “one cannot rest on laurels,” so one cannot let trust go unnourished. The risk lies in taking for granted the partnership a leader has with the constituents. It is important for the leader to be knowledgeable, to develop business acumen and to have quality expertise. And building a culture of learning and sharing promotes trust among the team, trust in leadership and trust in the individuals. But trust is delicate and can erode if care is not taken to be fair and make logical decisions, even if they are unpopular decisions. Communication is key and leaving an open forum for diverse contributions creates new opportunities, a sense of accomplishment for individuals and interdependence. Part of this engendering trust among multi-facets within an organization is to focus on talent development, diverse contributions to success and thoughtful promotions. Finally, trust cannot survive if a leader does not follow-through on their word.

My Boss is So Annoying...

I have had a couple of annoying bosses. It actually goes deeper than that. They have had a greater impact on my career and me than they ever should have, but they were in a position of authority and I was stuck, liking my job otherwise. Let's share our rather humorous stories of ridiculous things that go on in corporate America, without getting ugly, angry, using profanities or naming names.

I am fortunate that I never had the kind of boss Meryl Streep depicted in Devil Wears Prada. Yikes! Scary! No, I was unfortunate enough to have a worse kind (in my mind). Meryl Streep, intimidating as she was, wore it all out there. She called it like she saw it and, while that can be harsh to hear, you know where you stand.

I had the kind of boss who smiled when you walked in the room, sat you down, cajoled you into a false sense that there was a trust building between boss and employee. He would talk of lofty visions for a promotion, notice and compliment my skills, and confide in me about others. No sooner than I would leave the room, he was onto his next prey, manipulating people like pawns on a chess board. Getting his pieces in order so that he always emerged as protected king was his triumphant skill. He did this at the expense of people, relationships, emotions and trust. And, he was a smooth talker so he never confronted me about anything awkward. We never had a real conversation. We always had pleasantries. But behind the scenes, he was able to sabotage a career with a deathly slice of presuppositions, unsubstantiated claims, heresay, rumors and playing the popularity games that we all experienced in middle school. The kicker for corporate America is that his peers bought what he said!! Why? As adults, why weren't more of his level seeing through this charade? Is it that they wanted to be "liked" by this person or they didn't have the time to deal with it? I witnessed this boss ruin a career of a colleague merely by bad-mouthing him at leadership conferences. It was toxic. Not only did he block any future growth for this employee - a manager at the time, but he tainted opinions towards the entire department, as people were questioning how this department could be any quality if they follow/work for this manager.

The worst part about a story like this is that this boss continues to wake up every day patting himself on the back for being "the leader" that he is. He proudly dresses for work and shows up thinking he is on top of the world and any "tough" things he has done are a result of him being effective. This type of person has no emotional intelligence. My boss is so annoying... he doesn't think he does anything wrong.