Posts Tagged ‘Best Place to Work’

One of the advantages of having worked at several companies is that you really get to understand how different cultures can be. In the newest strategy + business study -- The Global Innovation 1000: Why Culture is Key, the researchers make the point that the most important ingredients in building an innovative environment is strategic alignment and a culture that supports innovation. They found after studying the world's biggest spenders on R&D over seven years that "there is no statistically significant relationship between financial performance and innovation spending, in terms of either total R&D dollars or R&D as a percentage of revenues." That's a very revealing statistic. It is natural to assume that high R&D spenders would have the best bottom lines and most success. It just is not true. Now that innovation spending is back on track after a poor economy, the authors conclude the following below. This is such a critical point for those wishing to understand innovation and what really is important in building a reputation for being a best place to work:

"Culture matters, enormously. Studies have shown again and again that there may be no more critical source of business success or failure than a company's culture -- it trumps strategy and leadership. This isn't to say that strategy doesn't matter, but rather that the particular strategy a company employs will succed only if it is supported by the appropriate cultural attributes."

It always gets back to the people and the culture. The research is alot deeper than this but the quote above about culture trumping strategy and leadership just jumped out at me. I'd have to argue that the leadership provides the foundation for a culture that supports innovation and that leadership might matter even more than strategy but culture shapes success, and ultimately reputation.

  Not sure if you were sent this article about "green" rankings....based on another article in MITSloan Management Review by Auden Schendler and Michael Toffel (you have to sign in to get the article). It is definitely worth reading but the central premise is that many of the environmental ratings focus on the wrong criteria, namely failing to incorporate advocacy activities that influence environmental regulation. What the article says is that environmental ratings should also include whether a company's political actions support or undermine climate action. From a reputational point of view, these sentences stood out:

Third party corporate responsibility ratings matter. They help consumers vote with their wallets, aid job seekers with employment decisions, affect employee morale, guide socially responsible investors and pension funds and generate good -- or bad -- PR for businesses. Research has shown that poorly rated firms respond by improving their performance.

We work with companies on rankings of all sorts. And these "green" ratings are very sought after. There is no perfect scorecard that I know about and yes, companies can game the system even when they don't deserve the reputation burnishing. What else is new? But winning them is important to reputation-buidling of credentials in the environmental space. And for those companies that are not truly green today, these environmental scorecards push them to do better and that's what counts in my book. I often tell companies to go ahead and apply for Best Place to Work awards because it gets the CEO involved and gets leadership focused on one day being among the chosen few. Even if you don't win, you usually can get your scores to determine what you need to do better. The same goes for climate change. If you don't win, that's okay. Try again next year. The article rightfully says that these rating systems should factor in other criteria such as political contributions, CEO advocacy and NGO relations. True. And they also rightfully say that these rating systems could benefit us all by spurring corporate activism "to solve one of the world's most pressing problems." True. But we should recognize how far we have come already. I remember when there was no such thing as "green" ratings. As it's been said, we've come a long way baby.