Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition

Report
Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Ten years ago, who would have guessed?
Cellular-telephone adoption increase from
738 million in 2000 to over 6 billion today
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates lead the world in
philanthropy
Investments in renewable energy technologies
overtake investments in fossil fuel technologies
Greenpeace partners with multiple multi-national
corporations
SOURCE: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), US Chamber of Commerce, organization website
Unscientific look at changes in corporate giving:
Local, reactive, heartstrings-driven
 Give if asked; “good neighbor” giving
 Give to causes important to senior leaders
 Intentionally NOT strategic or connected to the
business for fear of a backlash
Visible, proactive
 See other companies begin to get credit
 Grants are proactive and “make sense”
 Better measurement of inputs
Strategic, aligned, beyond cash




Accept very few unsolicited grantee proposals
Giving as a “portfolio” of expectations to manage
Co-design initiatives with nonprofit partners
Greater attention to employee engagement
Session Objectives
In a fast-changing environment, let’s examine:
 Trends in employee engagement
 How corporations are defining the value
proposition for employee engagement internally
and externally
 Pertinent data to help build and define value of
employee engagement
 How corporations and their employees identify
success in employee engagement
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Employee Engagement
Charities at Work Summit
Bradley Googins PhD
Professor Management and Organization
Former Executive Director Center for
Corporate Citizenship
Boston College
April 2011
Engaging Employees
Top Companies
Typical Companies
Levels of Engagement: LOW and
getting LOWER….
Source: Gallup Employee Engagement
Index
What is the meaning of CSR?
Source: Fleishman Hillard/National Consumers League study,
“Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility”
Corporate Citizenship
US Consumers’ Perspective – What matters most
1. Values and treats employees well and fairly
2. Executives and business practices are ethical, honest, open and
transparent
3. Authenticity
4. Goes beyond what is required to provide safe, healthy and reliable
products and services
5. Listens to consumer, customer and community input when making
business decisions
6. Active and involved in the communities where it does business
Committed to corporate social responsibility, sustainability,
economic opportunity, environmental stewardship, etc.
7. Donates or invests its fair share of profits, goods or services to
benefit others
Source: Golin Harris Corporate Citizenship Gets Down to Business 2006
Relevance of Corporate Citizenship:
Employees in High versus Low CC
Firms
Negative View of Firm's CSR
Work
Positive View of Firm's CSR
Work
41
High Levels of
Engagement
Senior
Management's
Direction
82
17
67
21
71
37
75
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sirota Survey Intelligence, 2007
The Corporate Handprint
Philip Mirvis & Bradley Googins
12
Corporate
Footprint
Corporate
Handprint
Green--Environment
Social & Ecological
Reduce/Minimize
Increase/Maximize
Do Less Harm
Do More Good
Reactive
Pro-Active
Report
Reach Out
Green is Gold!
Blue is too—
for business & society!
Reducing the Corporate
Footprint is Good,
but….
Can’t Your Company do
Better?
PROSPERITY
PRODUCTS
PURPOSE
PLANET
PEOPLE
The Corporate Handprint
Relational Model: Engaging the ‘Whole Person’
Across Identity Spheres
Self-in-Work
Roles
Employee
Engagement
Self-inAffinities
Who am I?
Who am I to
become?
Self-in-theWorld
Self-in-Life
Roles
Millennial Generation on
Corporate Citizenship
– Three of four young people want to work for a company that
“cares about how it impacts and contributes to society.” Nearly
seven-in-ten say that they are aware of their employer’s
commitment to social/environmental causes and 65 percent say
that their employer’s social/environmental activities make them
feel loyal to their company. (Source: The Cone Millennial Cause Study).
– How many students believe that business should work toward the
betterment of society? Over 80 percent of the members (and
66% of nonmembers). How many agree business is currently
working for the betterment of society? Some 18 percent of
members (and 24% who are not members). Corporate citizenship
matters to tomorrow’s business leaders. (Source: Net Impact)
Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Introduction to CECP
Who We Are


Nonprofit organization founded in 1999.
The only international forum of business CEOs
and chairpersons with an agenda exclusively
focused on corporate philanthropy.
What We Believe



Philanthropy is a long-term investment
Executive leadership is essential
Corporations have unique resources
Who is Engaged



Over 175 CEOs and Chairpersons
Companies from each industry sector
Companies represent over 40% of all corporate
giving in the United States
Our Strategic Focus



Represent the CEO voice.
Bring business discipline to corporate
philanthropy.
Own the standard on philanthropy practice and
measurement.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
“I helped to start CECP with
the belief that corporate
America could be a force for
good in society.”
- Paul Newman
The CEO Perspective
“When considering a change in your company’s
contributions, which constituency most influences
your decision?”
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy
Between Grant Recipients and Giving Officers
• How to assess whether grantees are achieving the intended
results
• How to estimate a "return on investment" (ROI) numeric for
comparing and/or aggregating the effectiveness across
different grants in achieving social results.
Between the Giving Officers and the CEO
• "business case" and demonstrate how supporting the
philanthropic initiative will be valuable to business.
Between the CEO and the Investor Community
• Investors want assurance that spending on corporate
philanthropy enhances (or at least does not diminish)
shareholder value.
• Concurrently, a number of investors ask that the companies
in which they invest demonstrate greater philanthropic
leadership and social responsibility.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy
Enhance employee engagement.
• Companies engage employees through group volunteer
programs and awareness of their philanthropic initiatives,
which raise employee motivation, productivity, and a sense of
identification with the organization.
Build customer loyalty.
• Especially in consumer-oriented industries, a company’s
commitment to communities and certain philanthropic causes
enhances brand perception, customer loyalty, repeat
business, and word-of-mouth promotion.
Manage downside risks to the company’s
reputation.
• Philanthropic initiatives provide companies with a fresh
opportunity to prioritize and address stakeholder risks, i.e.,
ways in which the company may not be meeting public
expectations.
Contribute to business innovation and growth
opportunities.
• Philanthropy also provides access to new relationships and
opportunities whereby the company can find, test, and
demonstrate new ideas, technologies, and products.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy
CORPORATE
PHILANTHROPY
ACTIVITIES
BUSINESS IMPACT
• Increased output, sales,
and productivity
e.g.: grants and employee
volunteer programs
EMLOYEE NEEDS
FULFILLED
•
•
•
•
•
Self-enhancement
Work-life integration
Reputational shield
Bridge to company
Collective self-esteem
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME TO BE
TARGETED AND
MEASURED
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES
• Sense of organizational
identification
JOB-RELATED
BEHAVIORS
•
•
•
•
•
•
OTHER MODERATING FACTORS
• Extrinsic incentives, e.g. compensation and performance-linked
rewards
• Employee characteristics, e.g. tenure and training
• Employee perception of HR practices, work environment,
management, and company capabilities
Source: Adapted from Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S. & Korschun, D. (2008) and Bartel, C. (2001).
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Reduced absenteeism
Retention
Efficiency
Cooperative behaviors
Work effort
Advocacy
Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy
Employee Attitude or
Job Behavior
Collective self-esteem
References
Metrics and Survey Instruments
Luhtanen & Crocker
(1992).
Co-operative behaviors
McAllister (1995).
Survey completed by employees with eight-item scale to reflect a member’s
personal evaluation of the group (private collective self-esteem), as well as his or
her assessment of how non-members evaluate the group (public collective selfesteem):
1. I feel good about working for X.
2. I often regret that I work for X.
3. Overall, I often feel that working for X is not worthwhile.
4. In general, I am glad to be an employee of X.
5. Overall, X is considered a good company by others.
6. In general, others respect what X stands for.
7. Most people consider X, on average, to be less effective than other
companies.
8. In general, others think that X is not a good company to work for.
Survey completed by managers with ten-item scale to reflect affiliation, cooperation, and assistant co-operation behaviors:
1. Takes time to listen to other people’s problems and worries.
2. Rarely takes a personal interest in others.
3. Frequently does something extra that won’t be rewarded, but which makes
co-operative efforts with others more productive.
4. Passes on information that might be useful to others.
5. Willingly helps others, even at some cost to personal productivity.
6. Rarely takes others’ needs/feelings into account when making decisions that
affect others.
7. Tries not to make things more difficult for others at work.
8. Goes out of his/her way to help co-workers with difficult assignments.
9. Offers to help others who have heavy workloads.
10. Covers for absent co-workers.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Overview of Matching Gifts
94%
57%
$1.70
million
25
of companies offered
at least one matching
gift program (N=170).
of companies
increased matching
contributions from
2009 to 2010 (N=133).
median matching gift
contributions in 2010
(N=133).
Matching Gift Allocations
Matching Gifts as Percentage of Cash Giving, Medians, 2010
All Companies (N=159)
15%
85%
Consumer Discretionary (N=19)
16%
84%
Consumer Staples (N=15)
Energy (N=8)
11%
7%
89%
93%
Financials (N=41)
13%
87%
Health Care (N=22)
14%
86%
16%
84%
Industrials (N=13)
Information Technology (N=17)
22%
78%
Materials (N=8)
17%
83%
Utilities (N=14)
16%
84%
Matching Gifts
All Other Cash Giving
26
Note: Telecom. Services industry not detailed due to small sample size
Volunteer Programs, 2010
Paid-Release Time and Outside-Company-Time
69%
69%
62%
54%
54%
Percentage of Companies
50%
2008
Offered Paid-Release Time Program
27
2009
Offered Outside-Company-Time Program
2010
Employee Volunteer Program Offerings, 2010
92
91
78
76
73
67
66
54
53
48
Number of Companies
44
40
33
40
32
27
18
15
16
10
4
Dollars for
Doers
Employee
Flexible Paid-Release
Family
Recognition Scheduling
Time
Volunteering
Awards
Domestic N=143
28
34
Day of
Service
Board
Team Grants Retiree
Leadership
Volunteering
International N=83
Pro Bono
Service
Incentive
Bonus
Examples of Paid-Release Time Program Policies
SPECIALIZED Policy:
• Manager approval for paid-release time requests
• Offering different opportunities by division or region
• Restricting paid-time off to company-wide days of service
• Restricting paid-time off to employees participating in team grant activities
• Restricting paid-time off to employee volunteer programs specifically run by the
company.
• Offering fellowship or sabbatical options.
HOURLY Policy:
• Hours per year: 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours, 20 hours, 24 hours, 40
hours
• Hours per month: 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours
DAY Policy:
•Days per year: 1 day per year, 2 days per year, 3 days per year, 5 days per
year, 6 days per year, and 3-6 month sabbaticals.
29
Data Collection Happening Now!
Giving in Numbers
Since 2001, the Giving in Numbers report has
provided thorough analysis and
comprehensive benchmarking data for
corporate philanthropy professionals seeking
to assess the scope of their contributions
initiatives.
Free download: CorporatePhilanthropy.org
Includes findings on:
• Giving and the Economy
• Benchmarking Tables
• Giving by Program Area
• Giving by Motivation
• Employee Volunteerism
• Matching Gifts
• International Giving
• Corporate Foundations
• Giving by Gender and Ethnicity
• Management & Program Structures
30
Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
GE Employee Engagement:
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager
Charities at Work Summit
April 3, 2012
“I find out what the world needs,
then I proceed to invent it.”
– Thomas Edison
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 33
GE Today
GE works on things that matter. The best people & the best
technologies taking on the toughest challenges. Finding
solutions in energy, health & home, transportation &
finance.
Building, powering, moving and curing the
world.
Not just imagining. Doing.
GE works.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 34
GE’s Citizenship Framework
Making an Impact in Communities Around the World
Make
money
Strong, sustained economic performance
Make it
ethically
Rigorous compliance - financial & legal rules
Make a
difference
Ethical actions, beyond formal requirements
Citizenship for GE is not just about “giving back” but about
enabling positive changes around the world… a full-time
commitment with the same goals, strategies & accountabilities that
drive business.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 35
Community Engagement
The Goal: To build deep and positive relationships where
GE people live and work
Communities
Town
Neighbors
Local Infrastructure
Education
GE People
Contributions
Time
Expertise
Environment
Health
GE
Company/Foundation
Matching Gifts
United Way
GE Volunteers
Humanitarian Relief
The Opportunity: GE and its employees & retirees help meet
community needs through a variety of resources & skills.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 36
Time, Talent, Treasure
Matching Gifts
• 1:1 match of employee & retiree
contributions to eligible charities
• Includes broad variety of areas;
available year-round
• 2011 Total: $70M
United Way Giving Campaigns
• Supports UW & other charities
with pledges, volunteers, &
supplies
• Additional 50% contribution from
GE Foundation to local UWs
• 2011 Total: $26M
GE Volunteers
• Employees & retirees donate
time & effort towards initiatives in
their local communities.
• 80 year+ tradition
• 220+ Volunteers Councils in 51
countries organize over 6,200
projects annually
• 1.3M volunteer hours per year
Supporting GE employees and retirees in their
personal philanthropy and volunteerism
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 37
Matching Gifts Created by GE
“The employer matching gift program
was the brainchild of Philip Reed, chair
of the General Electric Board of
Directors, who wanted to encourage
GE employees to contribute to their
alma maters. Reed believed the
incentive to contribute was greater if
the company matched the employee’s
gift.”
Since the launch in 1954, many others have
followed suit and $2B has been contributed by
individuals and their employers to education alone.
* Source: HEP Data
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 38
FSG Analysis
Are these the results we seek?

Retirees claim a large portion of matching funds,
primarily for Higher Education institutions

Cumbersome process on community side deters
employees and broader participation

High matching limits favor officers, directors, retirees
“The only value in employee engagement efforts
lies in the actions taken once the data has been
collected and analyzed.”
Bersin & Associates Research Report
Employee Engagement: A changing marketplace (Sept. 2010)
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 39
Matching Gifts – Then & Now
1954
2004
2011
Gifts Registered (#)
5,234
32,941
109,948
Total Matched ($)
$200K
$18M
$35M
Charity Participants (#)
359
1,781
13,360
GE Participants (#)
4,928
13,927
30,194
Annual Max per person
($)
$1,000
$50,000
$50,000
Substantial increases across the board, particularly
following the 2005 Program enhancements
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 40
The Value Proposition





Encourages giving to many organizations and causes
Empowers employees & retirees to direct GE’s charitable
giving
Helps strengthen recipient charities and institutions
Builds internal reputation and goodwill
Demonstrates Company support of employee & retiree
interests
Employee
Concerns
Matching
Gifts
GE Fdn.
$$
GE Foundation has matched more than $460M
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 41
Impact Examples
Special Food & Shelter 2:1 Matching Gifts
Partnerships–More than Just $$
• GE Aviation & the Lynn Shelter Association
(Mass.): 250 volunteers donated 1,500
hours to rehab 10 apartments, build a
library & computer center, & redo the
lighting. Others have donated professional
skills, such as IT employees providing
computer support. President Bill Hayes
said, "Since GE has gotten involved, the
Association has been on an upswing. It
has become highly respected in the
community."
• African American Forum (AAF) at GE
Healthcare: conducted a food drive across
the country, collecting more than 2,000
pounds of food for multiple charities.
Employee Responses
• “It is great to know that GE is still
capable to support and help needed
families during challenging times
(financial crises all over the world).”
• “The 2:1 is a great program and I am
proud to be associated with a
Company that believes in taking the
extra step to support those of us who
engage in philanthropic activities.”
• “I was so pleased to tell my local
shelter that GE would double my
donation. This encouraged me to give
more.”
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 42
Discussion Questions:
• What does successful engagement look like to you?
• What challenges have you overcome or continue to face
in engaging employees?
• What are your learning objectives for this conference?
43

similar documents