Social responsibility begins at home

Talk to anyone about corporate social responsibility and some of the first images that come to mind are the rainforest in Brazil, with the associated need for conservation, and sweatshops in the Far East, where young children They make t-shirts for the West. . In other words, things far from home; big multinational things, the sins of globalization that Seattle warriors fight by burning down McDonalds franchises. Society is a nice concept that, while a bit vague, a bit idealistic, and a bit moral, fits well into the company’s mission statements. After all, imagine the alternative. Do you know of a company that admits to wanting to pollute the environment, destroy social relationships, or manage workplaces such as concentration camps?

The problem with global social responsibility is that it distracts from what is happening next door or below. Companies that are “socially responsible” by stereotypical standards of no pollution, no child labor, may, in fact, apply socially irresponsible policies that affect their own staff. Sumantra Ghoshal, a professor at London Business School in the UK, refers to the environment in some companies as “Calcutta in summer”, a suffocating environment. These companies may have mission statements that uphold their commitment to social responsibility: They promise not to pollute rivers, while ignoring the daily pollution of the minds of their workforce.

Let’s face it, Ghoshal is right. Some work environments are not pleasant! High levels of internal politics and personal wars, disregard for employee lives that are just numbers on a spreadsheet, and irrational ‘contingency policies’ (hire fast / fire fast) can lead to a workplace of ‘Calcutta in summer’, even if the company swears that it will never dump a chemical into the nearby river.

Social responsibility, like charity, begins at home: in the manager’s office next door and downstairs in the human resources department and labs. It has to do with understanding that people spend a large part of their daily lives working for organizations and that the company, whether it wants to recognize it or not, has a “social responsibility” towards them. A responsibility that involves the duty to provide an environment that respects the individual, improves the human condition, and values ​​the employee. Surely, if it’s good for trees, it must be good for humans.

Those who think this is a fairy tale are no different from those who think that the pollution of the river by the chemical plant is a necessary evil for businesses to meet their goals. Years ago, those people got away with it because the population was largely ignorant of the subject, or was silent or insensitive. Today, these practices make headlines that backfire on the business in ways it cannot afford. Probably a few years from now, Kolkata’s summer workplaces will make similar headlines, with similar consequences.

As a self-confessed newbie to green stuff, who still needs to be reminded what a recycling box is for, it might seem strange that you should use ‘green examples’. I am not bringing you here as an expert professional, but to compare and expose the double standards of so-called social responsibility.

The circadian mind of a manager

One of the behaviors one encounters in a less than socially responsible environment is a kind of management schizophrenia. Outside of the office, a manager can be a kind, civilized, and perhaps church-going human being. At the office, you can morph into a sloppy nine-to-five manager who, frankly, may not give a damn about the “work environment” as long as “the numbers are hit” (and your bonus is secure). Perfectly reasonable human beings turn into unreasonable managers by walking into the office as if they were affected by some kind of toxic gas. Once in the office, toxic management takes over. It is as circadian as day and night.

The obvious need for a company to have policies and procedures is a perfect excuse for toxic managers. They say, “Sorry, it’s not me, I have to do this, it’s company policy” gold “If it was up to me, I would allow it, but I don’t make the rules.“; gold “I can’t allow you to do that, because then everyone will expect the same.“And the employee is denied a small privilege that would have made no difference to the running of the business, but perhaps could have made a big difference to a working mom, like a little flexibility in her working hours.

Managers who hide behind company policies – ‘I don’t make the rules’ or ‘I have to treat everyone the same’ – often just lie. In many cases, they have the power and ability to interpret company policy. They could grant an exception to the rule and give the individual a special concession because common sense says the rule was not invented to make life more difficult.

One of the best defense systems for the toxic manager in the Calcutta environment is the use of “internal fairness” as an argument for all seasons. “We must see the equity aspects of this issue in the organization., “a manager or HR leader will say”We can’t give this to Smith or it will set a precedent for others“.

That kind of argument assumes many things, but the one that has always puzzled me is that it presumes that the entire organization may want the same thing as Smith. This is not true in most cases. For example, I did an MBA sponsored by my employer. As I recall, there were no rigid criteria on who could do it. I met a couple of colleagues like me who were sponsored. My boss didn’t have a long line of people in his office who wanted to do an MBA! In fact, some of us did hard work in addition to our normal workload. In another organization, such an opportunity would not have been available because (here it comes): “It would not be fair in terms of internal fairness! “

Justice, the greatest parapet

Equity is a word that can be used with great semantic discretion. Many managers, and many human resources departments, seem obsessed with defending fairness. And yet, under this parapet, they exhibit the greatest injustice of all, that of homogenization. Fairness, as unilaterally dictated and interpreted, may stimulate the manager’s moral ego, but it may not impress anyone else. Salary differences between staff, executive privileges, boards of directors driven by personal gain, are all unfair, but they are a part of daily life.

At this point, you can be convinced that I am determined to paint a dark picture of corporate life. Let me be clear: I know that business life can be very rewarding and instructive. I also appreciate that a lot of work is done in settings outside of Kolkata. But the cynical way in which corporations handle so-called social responsibility should not be hidden. The company is socially irresponsible, despite all its ‘caring for the environment’ policies, when all it achieves is a good track record of clean rivers, but it is not a place worth working as mental pollution Internal simply replaces external contamination. The fault is my lack of environmental education, but I cannot stand those environmentalists who worry about recycling their memos, who throw the cans in special containers and who use the same hotel towel every day to save water, while polluting the work environment . of the people who work for them. Maybe we should have offices or cubicles painted green for those managers.

Pending revolutions

The customer revolution took place in the 1980s with a proliferation of customer service departments. Today, these are the baseline; they no longer raise their eyebrows in admiration. Companies are supposed to have them. The Quality movement focused on quality as the final goal, today, this is the starting point. A few years from now, you won’t see an ISO logo on company letterheads or truck.

Now, as the shareholder revolution begins to take off, board and management actions are increasingly scrutinized. The next great revolution will be the employee revolution. At that point, toxic management will be uncovered and companies that are socially irresponsible internally will make headlines. Those companies that are brave enough to look in the mirror and identify socially irresponsible internal practices, and that are also brave enough to do something about it, will win the game.

You and I know companies full of “nice people.” In many cases, however, it is as if we said: “Individually, we are all basically good. Collectively, we can be a group of arrogant people who use the excuse of the rules dictated by some other place to exert power and control.“If a work environment can produce and nurture Calcutta summer managers, who are otherwise ‘individually nice guys’, this environment is toxic; you should avoid it if you can. And that’s the problem: the’ if you can. ‘After all, a few million people live in Kolkata, many cannot afford to be anywhere else, and indeed some may even like summer there.

Social responsibility is not simply an ecological issue or an ethical corporate governance approach that is committed to not polluting rivers and not cutting down trees in Brazil. It must start at home. That is, in the office next door, the manufacturing plant, or the project team. However, none of this is taught in business schools.