🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

ADM 1101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee Engagement, Motivation

63 views5 pages
School
University of Ottawa
Department
Administration
Course
ADM 1101
Professor
Joseph Audi

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Enron"s corporate culture was about money, rather than people. When california had blackouts, they were laughing and they wanted to make money because the energy supply was low and the price will be very high. Enron was not the only company engaged in the ethical problems, but also other banks and companies that benefited from the process. Some companies knew about the black holes, but they did not want to report it because the business was profitable when lying. Employee engagement: an engaged employee shares the vision of the company and is totally engaged when doing the job. A survey done in 2012 shows that only 10% of employees are fully engaged. 37% are one foot of one the job looking for alternative jobs and not speaking positively about the workplace. Operating income will improve by 19% in one year. 59% of engaged employees say that their jobs brings out their most creative ideas vs. 3% for disengaged employees.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

ADM 1101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Consumer Protection, Job Performance, Economic System
purplewallaby959
ADM 1101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Consumer Sovereignty, Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, Employee Engagement
rosegoldfish777
HRM 1101 Lecture 4: First The Rules
pucetiger239

Related Questions

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read “scrap” or “re-engineer”) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to “weed out” the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the “potential” rating, which tries to capture an individual’s potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that “ we cant totally trust managers” so we’re going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it’s often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically “judge” an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback – and the “appraisal” process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the “development planning” conversation – what can one do to improve performance and engagement – and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don’t we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employee’s profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, I’ve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a “feedback-rich” culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses – give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they aren’t performing well it’s not necessarily their fault – the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well – when you move to customer service, engineering, and other “builder” roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent “production” not talent “hoarding.” If you pay your managers to “produce output,” they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills – so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

I’ve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today’s globalized,talent constrained workplace it’s clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.


TOPICS: Corporate Culture

SUMMARY: Kimberly Clark was a company characterized as paternalistic. It was a place where you could have a job for life. The company paid above market salaries and avoided layoffs. Low performers didn't face consequences and could hide "in the weeds." That's changed as the company significantly overhauled how it evaluates and tracks employees' progress. The company uses performance management software which can quickly recognize those who are performing well or expose those who are not. The company was proud of its low turnover, but now turnover is twice of what it was a decade ago. The company doesn't view this as a problem because the culture changed. These changes are designed to help the company generate more revenue and profit. Companies are moving away from annual performance reviews to continuous oversight and feedback. The goal is to create continuous improvement. Software lets managers track the progress of workers with dashboards that display goals, accomplishments, attendance, peer feedback and other data. The performance culture which requires setting goals and holding workers accountable seems to result in faster growth, higher profitability and a lower likelihood of bankruptcy. Change can be difficult at a company like Kimberly-Clark because it requires a cultural shift.

CLASSROOM APPLICATION: Instead of focusing on the financial performance of a company, this article focuses on the role of culture and management. As times changed, Kimberly-Clark changed its culture. The company had low turnover because employment was for life. The company had to change to become more competitive. The company now tracks, evaluates and communicates with employees using performance management software. The company culture was paternalistic and avoided conflict. Like many other large companies, Kimberly-Clark moved from annual performance reviews to continuous reviews. The company made changes beginning in 2008. It now recognizes the relationship between its human-resource innovations and the stock price. Changes in human resources practices are mostly invisible to analysts and investors. Other factors including lower commodity prices, cost-cutting and growth in emerging markets also likely explain performance. The company no longer promises employment for life and has reduced its workforce by 2,900. The company has gone from a conflict-averse culture to one where "I care enough to tell you the truth."

QUESTIONS:
1. Explain in detail what the term "corporate culture" means?

2. Describe the culture at Kimberly-Clark prior to the changes it instituted starting in 2008.

3. Review the characteristics of performance management software and how it is used at Kimberly-Clark to improve employee performance.

4. How would you describe the current culture at Kimberly-Clark?

5. Why do you think many larger companies are using or plan to use performance management software?

Corporate Culture Change at Kimberly Clark

Diaper and tissue maker shifts from a paternalistic company to one focused on pushing workers to constantly improve, closely tracking progress and shedding laggards

Not long ago, when Kimberly-Clark Corp. employees gathered for interdepartmental meetings, they prefaced their comments with their names and years of service at the company.

These days, “no one cares,” said Scott Boston, vice president of human resources. The attitude in meetings is “ ‘let’s get moving,’ ” he said.

For generations, having a job at Kimberly-Clark meant having a job for life. The maker of household products such as Huggies and Kleenex paid its employees above-market salaries and avoided layoffs.

Even low performers rarely felt pressure. “A lot of people could and would hide in the weeds,” said Rick Herbert, a sales director who retired in 2014 after more than three decades with Kimberly-Clark.

That’s over. One of the company’s goals now is “managing out dead wood,” aided by performance-management software that helps track and evaluate salaried workers’ progress and quickly expose laggards. Turnover is now about twice as high it was a decade ago, with approximately 10% of U.S. employees leaving annually, voluntarily or not, the company said.

Armed with personalized goals for employees and large quantities of data, Kimberly-Clark said it expects employees to keep improving—or else. “People can’t duck and hide in the same way they could in the past,” said Mr. Boston, who oversees talent management globally for the firm.

It has been a steep climb for a company that once resisted conflict and fostered a paternalistic culture that inspired devotion from its workers.

The changes mirror what is happening inside many large companies, where “performance management” reflects the conviction that a sharpened focus on creating a high-performing workforce is a vital tool to generate revenue and profit.

Some of Kimberly-Clark’s best-known products are decades old, including Kotex sanitary napkins, above in 1949, Kleenex tissues and Huggies diapers. Photo: Kimberly-Clark

In the past year, firms including Accenture PLC and General Electric Co. have dropped annual performance reviews in favor of more continuous oversight and feedback from managers, all meant to drive constant improvement.

Coca-Cola Co. in June approved pushing its new performance-management process from the pilot stage to a global rollout. The new system encourages managers to conduct a monthly “reflection” on every direct report, answering five questions that include “Given his/her performance, would you assign this associate to increased scale, scope, and responsibilities?” and “Is this associate at risk for low performance?”

Adobe Systems Inc., which was one of the first big companies to home in on performance management, scrapped its annual review in favor of frequent “check-ins” in 2012.

Performance management shifts companies away from backward-looking, once-a-year reviews framed largely as compliance requirements—a paper trail for potential job cuts and salary decisions—to a process that is real-time, continuous and focused on helping people meet ambitious goals, or move out of the company faster.

The last recession led many employers to rethink the nearly automatic merit raises they had been doling out, forcing them to do a better job identifying high and low performers when giving raises and bonuses. Millennial workers, meanwhile, demand more feedback, more coaching and a stronger sense of their career path.

Companies spend $14 billion a year on products to help manage employees, including human-resources software from Workday Inc., SAP SE ’s SuccessFactors and Cornerstone onDemand Inc., with about $2 billion of that dedicated to performance management, according to human-resources advisers Bersin by Deloitte.

Those systems let managers track workers’ progress via dashboards that display their goals, accomplishments, attendance, peer feedback and other data.

The company was founded in 1872 by Charles B. Clark, Frank C. Shattuck, Havilah Babcock and John A. Kimberly, clockwise from top left. It initially specialized in top-quality newsprint. Photo: Kimberly-Clark

Executives’ use of phrases like “performance culture” in conference calls with analysts and investors has doubled in the past five years, according to a review of transcripts in the Factiva news database. Firms that set goals and hold workers accountable “clearly outperform,” said Nicholas Bloom, an economist at Stanford University and co-author of a recent paper that used Census data to examine more than 32,000 U.S. manufacturing plants. He said they have faster growth, higher profitability and are less likely to go bankrupt.

Some academics say constant monitoring can feel intrusive and threatening to workers, especially those who value stability. But human-resources experts largely agree that the traditional review process is a waste of time and needs an overhaul.

The shift to a performance focus, which requires consistent oversight and sometimes uncomfortable feedback, can be bumpy.

At Kimberly-Clark, CEO Tom Falk—himself a 33-year veteran—pushed the Dallas-based company onto its new course. “We all talk about how having the best team is the most important difference-maker in your results,” said Mr. Falk, who became chief in 2002. “But we didn’t have the supporting processes to make that sustainable.”

In 2008, with the company’s shares stagnant, few innovations in the pipeline and a belief that costs were bloated, the CEO added human-resources executives to the team putting together the firm’s long-term business plan for the first time.

Holding workers close through good times and bad is “not sustainable” any more, said Liz Gottung, the company’s human-resources chief. “If you look at when we started implementing the big pieces of the company’s people strategy, when you map that to our stock price and our business results, you can see the clear correlation.”

Shares closed at a high of $138.13 in April, and its quarterly dividend, which it has raised every year for more than four decades, hit a high of 92 cents a share in February. The share price has more than doubled since 2008.

Engineers in 1948 worked on product development at a company mill in Neenah, Wis. Photo: Kimberly-Clark

Behind-the-scenes changes to human-resources practices are largely invisible to analysts and investors. Analysts attribute Kimberly-Clark’s rising stock price to declining commodity prices, aggressive cost-cutting, growth in emerging markets and a generous dividend payout.

Big cuts

Since 2009 Kimberly-Clark has laid off around 2,900 mostly salaried workers world-wide, some of the first big cuts in the company’s 144-year history. It currently employs about 43,000.

Remaining employees are expected to work “smarter” and meet regularly raised targets. “We have to routinely shuffle the resources and say, what’s the most important thing we need to do today, this week, this month, to drive this objective?” said Stephanie Martin, an engineer who analyzes new product ideas.

Using the Workday tool, Kimberly-Clark’s salaried employees set goals and report their progress, record accomplishments or mistakes, and solicit and send feedback. (Hourly workers don’t use the system.)

The system collects and archives feedback, which can be seen by employees’ managers. It also holds data on staffers’ strengths and development needs, their performance ratings and the risk they might leave the company.

“It’s certainly more challenging” for employees, said Mr. Herbert, the retired sales director. “If you really don’t have the mettle, you’re asked to get on with your life’s work [elsewhere].”

In 2015, Kimberly-Clark retained 95% of its top performers. Among the employees whose work was rated “unacceptable” or “inconsistent,” 44% left the company voluntarily or were let go. Ms. Gottung said she is “pretty pleased” that low-performer turnover has been rising.

Retired sales manager Jeanne Sanders remembers executives boasting about the firm’s low turnover when she interviewed at Kimberly-Clark in 1987. Stories are told about how during the Depression and in more-recent production interruptions, mill managers reconfigured shifts to avoid layoffs.

These days, leadership has communicated to employees that turnover is a good thing, said Chris Luettgen, a senior research manager who left in 2014 to join the engineering faculty of Georgia Tech. “I saw it as a good move in that we could get some new thinking and innovation into our pipeline,” he said.

Mr. Falk, the CEO, reviews 100 senior managers’ performance plans every year to make sure their goals are ambitious and reflect company priorities. Managers are instructed to begin every meeting with a story about how someone demonstrated one of the six behaviors the company promotes, such as “build trust” or “think customer.”

Training sessions

Regular “culture of accountability” sessions train employees in giving and receiving difficult feedback. When a colleague suggests improvements, “the proper response was ‘thank you for the feedback,’ not defensiveness,” Mr. Luettgen said. Employees also practice reinforcing positive behaviors, such as praising a colleague who had given up a weekend to solve a customer complaint.

More than 10,000 of Kimberly-Clark’s workers used the feedback feature in Workday in 2014, and about 25% of the comments were considered “constructive,” while the rest were positive or neutral, said Sandy Allred, a senior director on the talent management team. Staffers can send feedback to peers or workers above or below them.

Making paper for Scott paper towels at the company’s Chester, Pa., mill in 1917. Photo: Kimberly-Clark

An earlier, unpopular system required managers to rank employees in a nine-box grid according to strict percentages, and then put the lowest performers on mandatory performance improvement plans, often the first step to a termination. In 2013, the company switched to the current, more-flexible system, which uses four ratings, with percentages that are suggested for each rating.

Around that time the company trimmed some salaries and put more workers on a bonus plan, to tie pay more closely to performance.

Dave Bernd, a 33-year veteran whose father was a senior executive at the company, said that when he walked on the Roswell, Ga., corporate campus a few months ago he found the old warmth missing. “It doesn’t feel like the family it once was.”

The former manufacturing director, who retired in 2013, said a decade ago, “whether you knew anyone or not,” employees said hello in the parking lot and engaged in camaraderie typical of a smaller company. Even so, he said he approves of the recent management changes.

One of the firm’s core values is still “caring,” said Ms. Gottung, who joined Kimberly-Clark in 1981. “When I started with the company, we were very conflict-averse, very oriented towards consensus,” she said. “And now it’s ‘I care enough about you to tell you the truth.’ ”

CEO Tom Falk, left, at a volunteer event to clean donated furniture, electronics and appliances for needy families in Ventura, Calif., in April. Photo: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Viva (Kimberly-Clark)

One former employee said he was initially glad that the company was identifying those who weren’t pulling their weight. Then, after earning top reviews over his decadeslong career, he said he was given a low rating and placed on a performance-improvement plan after missing a project deadline. After that, “no one would talk to me” about other positions, he said.

He said the situation eventually improved with a new supervisor, but he still decided to leave the company last year.

In that instance, “did the system work or not? I don’t know,” said Ms. Gottung. With thousands of performance reviews happening every year, “I wish we had 100% satisfaction, but that’s unrealistic. Overall, our employees think this is a fair and equitable process.”

Basma Osman a 27-year-old product-development engineer, considers herself a beneficiary of the new system. Tapped early in her career as a high-potential employee, she was working on health and wellness products but told her manager she was interested in industrial safety. He soon asked her to oversee a $30 million project in that area. “I was terrified,” she said, but she was also grateful that her manager “understood what I wanted and what I’m good at.”

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA*

Steven, a junior at Northeast State, just started working part-time at a local fast food restaurant chain. Although not his dream job, it paid for tuition and books, and the restaurant gave him the flexible schedule he needed for school. After a few months, Steven found he got along well with all of his coworkers, but it was apparent they did not respect the company or the management. The employees made fun of their bosses and treated the work area like a playground. In some respects, Steven thought it was a fun environment to work in, especially after hours when management was gone for the day. They played their music loudly, laughed, and talked with one another during the down times instead of cleaning up their work areas like they were supposed to. Despite the fact there were ethical policies telling employees how they were expected to act in the workplace, these policies never seemed to be enforced. One day, while working with his coworker Julie on the food assembly table, Steven saw Julie accidentally drop a meat patty on the floor. Without so much as a flinch, she bent down, picked up the patty, stuck it back on the bun, and wrapped it up. It happened so fast that Steven wasn’t even sure he had seen right—especially since Julie had done it so casually. Steven watched in dismay as another worker took the hamburger out to the customer. Over the next few weeks, Steven saw others, including the shift supervisor, do the same thing with burgers and other products. Once, an entire cheeseburger hit the greasy floor, was picked up, and was taken to the customer. This time the customer complained the burger tasted funny and sent it back. Steven noticed other unsanitary practices such as employees not washing their hands between handling meat and vegetables and not washing utensils between uses. Obviously, such practices were against company policies and, if reported, the supervisors in charge could get in trouble and the restaurant would face investigations from the health department. However, there was ample opportunity for things like this to occur. There was no one watching them, and the shift supervisor also engaged in these activities. Steven felt it was the company’s responsibility to hire good people, so they were to blame if these things happened. One day, Steven approached Julie and asked, “Why do so many people here serve food that has fallen on the floor to customers?” Julie thought about it briefly as though she had never considered it before and replied, “I guess it’s because it would take too much time to get another beef patty out of the freezer, cook it, and serve it to the customer. This is a fast food restaurant, after all, and I’m not interested in hearing customers complain about the time it takes for them to get their food. Besides, the restaurants with the fastest service get a bonus from corporate headquarters. Last year the supervisors rewarded us with some extra money for doing our jobs so quickly.” Steven was somewhat taken aback by the honest reply and asked, “Wouldn’t you be disgusted if you were served dirty food at a restaurant?” This time Julie’s response was quick. She said, “What I don’t know won’t hurt me.” She walked off. Several weeks went by and the same practices continued. Steven became more and more concerned about the consequences that could happen in an environment so laid back and unconcerned about safety and health. It seemed like the more time that passed, the worse everyone’s attitude became. One day, at the beginning of his shift, Steven noticed the walk-in freezer had been left open. As he went to shut the door, he discovered a smell of rotten meat. It almost made him vomit. “How could this happen?” he wondered. He threw away the rotten meat without asking anyone because he was afraid of what the answer might be. After Steven threw out the spoiled meat, he began to wonder how the culture of the restaurant got to the point of supporting such practices. He realized the seemingly minor unsanitary practices allowed major issues to arise that could possibly hurt someone. Steven felt he should say or do something, but to whom? He sat down and pondered what he should do.

QUESTIONS | EXERCISES

1. Describe the nature of the organizational culture in the restaurant. What kind of opportunities are there for unethical behavior to occur? Are there any opportunities for ethical behavior?

2. What are some of the incentives employees might have to engage in this type of behavior?

3. If the organizational culture of the restaurant does not change, what are some likely outcomes and consequences?