LEADING THOUGHTS

Born in the U.S., the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now a global phenomenon, with identifiable practices such as certification schemes, reporting standards, and investment criteria. But even though CSR is global, writes Norwegian researcher Maria Gjølberg (U Oslo) in the Scandinavian Journal of Management, it is applied differently across different social, economic, cultural, legal, and political contexts.

Gjølberg set out to measure CSR activity on a national basis. She developed an index of CSR practices in 20 nations by identifying the nationality of the companies that adopted or qualified for major global CSR initiatives. She then weighed the results to correct for differences in the size of the nations’ economies.

The result: the leading CSR nations are Switzerland and the Nordic countries of Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. Mid-range performers are the UK, Netherlands, and Australia. Just on the positive side are Japan and Canada.

On the negative side of the index (in order from the worst performer) are Greece, Austria, the U.S., Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and France.

Gjølberg offers two explanations for the high achievers:

“The first country cluster of CSR leaders comprises countries with comparatively strong globalised economies and large proportions of TNCs (transnational corporations), namely the UK, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. One possible mechanism linking TNCs to increased CSR efforts is the fact that these companies are more exposed to the spotlight of watchdogs from NGOs (non-government organizations) and the media.”

The other explanation is that Nordic countries all have strong corporatist traditions, more extensive social and environmental public policies, and strong political cultures that value participation.

What seems clear in Gjølberg’s research is that enthusiasm for CSR has less to do with ethics than with susceptibility to “naming and shaming” and the degree to which business is socially embedded in society.

This is a meaty and accessible article, so if CSR really rings your bell you will want to read the entire paper for excellent background on the topic.

“Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries”, by Maria Gjølberg; Scandinavian Journal of Management (2009, 25, 10—22)

If you cannot find this journal in your local library, email me for a copy of the paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: dbersabe

Public agencies may be doing a good job at slashing waste using Six Sigma and lean techniques but they could be doing a lot better by focusing on the “soft” side: implementing a robust management structure and changing employees’ mindsets.

In the publication McKinsey on Government, consultants Maia Hansen and John Stoner offer a step-by-step approach to establishing the right infrastructure for a lean transformation (lean has been defined as strategy that focuses on eliminating waste, which includes all processes that do not add value to the final product or service).

Create a value-stream map that identifies where value lies in each step of the process. “Our strong recommendation . . . is to form a cross-functional team with representatives who interact with the process in a variety of ways and therefore see it from different perspectives.”

Get data to the right people at the right time. That means focusing on Key Performance Indicators that matter most and ensuring that the right people are viewing them.

Establish new roles to smooth processes. The lean initiative may be best served, for example, by creating a new coordinating position to boost efficiency.

Align interests to drive momentum. The McKinsey consultants like gainsharing arrangements to embed the concept of continuous improvement, build morale, and sustain enthusiasm.

Hansen and Stoner also offer suggestions on how to change employee mindsets.

Get staff to focus on the consumer. This may be a challenge for a public agency with no competitors, but a good technique is to have employees follow a customer through the entire process of interacting with the agency/employer and to experience bureaucratic frustrations.

Break down silos. Make sure units know what other units are up to or create shared metrics to help units better understand shared goals.

Inspire employees to overcome risk aversion. The public sector may be allergic to performance measurement and risk but managers can change that perception. “Managers should thank employees for trying new approaches,” the authors write, “and focus on solving problems rather than assigning blame for mistakes.”

A Leaner Pubic Sector, by Maia Hansen and John Stoner; McKinsey on Government (Number 4, Summer 2009)

photo credit: Toban Black

In this video clip, INSEAD Professor Herminia Ibarra discusses perceptions of women being relatively weak at “envisioning,” essentially the ability to articulate a vision of the future and translating it into a strategic direction.

Ibara’s study is based on 360-degree evaluations of some 2,000 male and female managers. Prevailing wisdom is that there is a bias against female managers, who are generally rated less favourably than their male counterparts. Not so fast: Ibarra found that women score higher than men on many measures (such as communication, emotional intelligence, feedback) except for one: envisioning.

Yes, this is perception and not reality, but “when it comes to senior management,” she points out, “perception is reality.” (3:15 mark)

At the 4:00 mark, Ibarra says it is possible the way in which women arrive at a new vision is simply different than the process used by men (consensus versus going to the mountaintop), and that this organic process is not as evident.

At 6:10, she wonders if some women prefer to stick to the facts rather than striking out with a bold vision because they are often in a more vulnerable position in organizations.

And at 8:50, she talks about the “identity trap” in which men and women often find themselves: being pigeon-holed as an expert in one area. One way to escape this trap is to get out of the office to enlarge your perspectives with your network and do some “pattern recognition” in other areas. (11:24).

Leading Thoughts is built on the assumption that in the world of people management, there is yawning chasm between practice and research. The gap is twofold: HR practitioners are generally not aware of the latest HR-related research findings that impact on their work; and HR practitioners and researchers are interested in different issues.

Researchers Diana L. Deadrick and Pamela Gibson (Old Dominion University) wanted to determine how consistent that gap has been over time and what issues have dominated the practice and research fields over the past 30 years. To answer those questions they went on a massive reading binge. They content-analyzed more than 6,300 articles published in four HR-focused journals between 1976 and 2005 according to 14 topic areas. Two journals were geared to practitioners and two to academics.

Deadrick and Gibson found:

• Issues relating to HR development (training and development, careers) dominated the field over all time periods. Next most common topic over time was staffing (such as job analysis, testing), followed by motivation-related topics (job design, satisfaction, stress).
• Two topics — teams and organizational exit — were the least popular in all the time periods studied. Teams did experience some growth in interest during the past 20 years, though organizational exit continued to be off the radar.
• HR development and staffing issues were the dominant issues for both practitioners and academics. The gap in interest narrowed over time for employee/labour relations and widened for compensation and rewards (with growing interest among practitioners and decreasing interest among academics.

The researchers say they want HR practitioners and academics to assess the field and determine what is most important to HR as a coherent discipline. “If we want to progress as a field, we need to articulate the common values and body of knowledge that sets up apart from other disciplines,” they write. “What is the mission statement of the HR discipline as a whole? What are the core values underlying the field of HR? Are those values reflected in our publications?”

Good questions indeed.

Note: The four journals studied were: HRMagazine, Human Resource Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology.

Revisiting the research–practice gap in HR: A longitudinal analysis, by Diana L. Deadrick and Pamela A. Gibson; in Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 144–153.

If you cannot find this paper in your local library, email me for a copy: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: ThomasThomas