This blog is about improving the relationship between organizations and the people who work for them. And, it’s dedicated to the millions of people around the world who go to work every day wanting to do a great job.
CEO
Random Posts:
Random Posts:
Sometimes the words do matter
Twice in the course of preparing posts I’ve found myself looking at Codes of Conduct [the first time]. In writing my post earlier this week, I found myself reading the Canadian Forces Code of Conduct. What I found was certainly not what I expected. It is clearly written, and behaviour focused. It’s virtually free of jargon and legal language.
So, today I thought I’d go back and check out British Petroleum’s Code of Conduct and compare to see if there’s anything we can learn.
Before I go any further, let me say that BPs Code of Conduct is pretty representative of most Corporate Codes of Conduct I’ve ever seen. Neither better or worse. Obviously the Canadian Forces are not in business. They have 1000s of years of military experience behind their Code of Conduct. And, I think it’s because of this that the following comparison may be instructive. Here’s what I found [italics are mine]:
British Petroleum |
Canadian Forces |
Our commitment to integrityFocus on the company and feels like PR. What does integrity look like?
|
Code of Conduct for CF PersonnelFocus on employee behaviour and feels like a practical tool. Conduct is easy to picture. |
Length and general description: |
|
| 84 pages describing topic areas and including Q&A | 28 pages + 66 pages with behaviour-based lesson plans = 95 pages |
| Management speak and jargon | Plain English |
Message from the top: |
|
| Yes – letter from the group chief executive | No |
Table of contents |
|
| Yes | No |
Introduction |
|
| 10 pages on “Our commitment to integrity”Presents context , describes “Your personal commitment”, and describes how to ask questions and raise concerns | 3 pages on scope, why, the Law of Armed Conflict, etcPresents context for the Code of Conduct
|
Organization |
|
| 6 topics [e.g. Employees], supported by 21 sub-topics [e.g.Fair treatment and equal employment opportunity] | 11 very concrete behaviours |
Why a code of conduct?: |
|
| The BP code of conduct stands for a fundamental BP commitment – to comply with all applicable legal requirements and the high ethical standards set out in this code – wherever we operate. To help us meet this commitment, the code defines what BP expects of its businesses and people regardless of location or background. It provides both guidance in key areas and references to more detailed standards, instructions and processes for further direction. | Operational missions often require CF members to make decisions under considerable stress and in times of confusion. Moreover, the course of action one elects to make during operations can have serious consequences. Decisions must often be made very quickly. Compliance with this simple Code of Conduct helps to ensure that split second decisions are consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict and Canadian law. |
Who’s it for?: |
|
| All employees must adhere to the principles and requirements contained in this code and should consult the code for guidance when acting on behalf of BP. | This publication briefly outlines the Code of Conduct applicable to all Canadian
Forces personnel taking part in all military operations other than Canadian domestic operations. |
What’s in and what’s out?: |
|
| The code cannot describe every law, regulation or BP requirement that may apply to you. The company has additional standards, instructions and processes to further implement the principles in the code. Make sure you know the rules that do apply to you.Employees need to figure out which ones apply. | The CF Code of Conduct consists of eleven rules which capture the essence of the law of Armed Conflict. This Code does not in any way replace or alter the existing treaties and conventions to which Canada is a party. Actually, it represents a summary of the Law of Armed Conflict. It is designed to assist you, your commanders and your fellow members of the armed forces to achieve legitimate military objectives while ensuring operations are carried out in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. You must, therefore, know and faithfully comply with these eleven rules.The rules are all there. |
Consequences for failure to comply? |
|
| Failure to do so is taken very seriously and may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
All head |
Failure to do so is contrary to the direction of your government; can adversely affect the successful completion of your military mission; dishonours you and your country; and ultimately can leave you or your subordinates open to prosecution.
Head and heart. Calls on personal, professional and national pride. |
What differences/similarities do you see? What are the implications from a culture point of view? Is there anything we can learn?
How does your organizational Code of Conduct stack up?
Random Posts:
Actions speak louder than words
This week, British Petroleum [BP], under Tony Hayward’s leadership, failed to make any progress in stopping or even slowing the flood of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Five weeks after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform the crisis is now described as perhaps the largest man-made disaster in history.
In the same week, the Canadian military leader of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard, was removed from his post after rumours of an affair with a soldier in his command.
The military responded quickly and unequivocally. Ménard is now back in Canada awaiting a hearing and potential court-martial. The allegations alone were serious enough to remove him from his post.
Back at BP, Tony Hayward, continues to run the company despite:
- The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010 that killed 11 people and began the uncontrolled oil spill in the Gulf
- Rumours that the explosion happened because the company had not invested in a relatively inexpensive remote control shut off device due to budget constraints
- The fact that the oil spill now threatens some of the most important and fragile ecosystems in North America along the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida and the livelihood of millions of people. Today, on the first day of hurricane season, the potential threat to people and the environment has just increased. The current and potential costs are incalculable.
- The lack of an actionable crisis plan. Now over 5 weeks later it is very clear that the company did not anticipate an accident of this magnitude or have plans in place. Every attempt [and there have been many] to stop the flow of oil is a new and so far failed experiment.
- The fact that the direct costs to the company of responding to the spill is now reported to be at $1B
- Today’s news that BPs stock plunged 17% – Investors will pay – and that the company’s very survival is at stake. If this happens, over 80,000 employees and their families will be directly affected. The direct social and economic costs to the supply chain and everyone in and around the communities where BP operates will be huge.
In the case of the Canadian Military morale may be affected by this revelation about a man they respected and trusted to lead in a critical and dangerous theatre of operation, but they will have no doubt that the institution values the lives of the people on the mission and in the communities they are there to protect over the image of the institution or the reputation of the commander.
What about the 80,000 employees at BP?
These are extreme examples, but I’d love to hear from you. What actions are speaking louder than words in organizations you know? What impact does that have?
Random Posts:
Spin is still in
Today’s article titled “Air Canada raises number of stock options for execs” raised my hackles. Not because of the specific case, but what this story really tells about the state of communications today. We talk in our bubble about transparency and authenticity, but almost daily reports tell another story.
In this case, the company’s shareholders decided to quadruple the shares available for stock option plans for senior executives. And, you can imagine that if the stock option plan at Air Canada had been wildly out of whack with the market there would certainly be a business case for doing this. You can imagine that getting and keeping good leadership in an industry as challenged as the airline industry isn’t easy. And you can even imagine that total potential compensation is the key attractor for senior executives.
And then, the CEO said: “There will be no change in compensation plans for senior executives.” What? If increasing the number of available stock options doesn’t change compensation plans then why are they doing it?
Now, I’m not naïve. The company has negotiated an agreement with their union that says there will be “no change in compensation plans of senior executives.” And, I understand that going back and renegotiating with them on this point might not be an option. But, falling back on a statement that is technically accurate without being true is just not right.
Every time any CEO does this they [and their leadership teams] lose credibility. Every employee and every person reading the article knows that the total potential compensation for senior executives has most certainly changed.
What do you think? Do you think spin is still in? And if so, where do you stand?
Do you see this kind of thing in your organization? If you’d been at the table when the decision to announce this change was made, what advice would you have given?
Random Posts:
Not all jobs are in cubicles
It’s easy to forget when you’re working in an office at HQ that not all jobs are in cubicles.
When I first began working at Alcan [now Rio Tinto Alcan] our then CEO, Jacques Bougie, insisted on beginning every talk with employees by talking about health and safety starting with the stats for the last quarter. As the newly appointed Director, Internal Communications, I thought this was simply a terrible way to begin every talk. I was wrong. He was right.
The recent explosion of the BP oil rig Deepwater Horizon and the deaths of 11 workers reminds us that every day men and women around the world go to work at dangerous jobs. Some very dangerous jobs.
The “Deaths on the Job Report” for 2010 reports that for the USA alone “In 2008, 5,214 workers were killed on the job—an average of 14 workers every day—and an estimated 50,000 died from occupational diseases. More than 4.6 million work-related injuries were reported, but this number understates the problem. The true toll of job injuries is two to three times greater—about 9 to 14 million job injuries each year.”
What role do you play in communicating health and safety information to your employees, your customers? Your shareholders? What role should you play?
The real work of your institution may be happening in places without cubicles, without internet access, maybe even without computers. By workers who farm, chop trees, provide patient care in hospitals, pack groceries, load container trucks, bottle beer, or teach in classrooms. Who may or may not be literate? And if they are may or may not be speaking French or English as their first language. Their cultures and their lives may be vastly different than yours.
How well do you and your executive understand their employees experience of their work and the organization they work for? What are the implications for how well they/you can do your job?
When was the last time you went and spent time with people on the front line? What was that experience like? If not, why not? If so, when will you do it again?
Random Posts:
Random Posts:
Making the case for employees first
When Richard Branson said he would run Virgin from the inside out – employees first, customers next and then shareholders – his logic was clear, compelling and pretty radical. His logic: “If your employees are happy, they will do a better job. If they do a better job, the customers will be happy, and thus business will be good and the shareholders will be rewarded.”
Over the years, Virgin’s success would seem to prove his point. And yet, I continue to be astonished by the number of CEOs who haven’t got it.
This is especially surprising given that in the 20 years from 1975 to 2005 the big drivers of company value have shifted from tangible [73%] to intangible [80%] assets. [Thanks to David Martin, Interbrand]
And what are intangible assets? “They are non-monetary assets that cannot be seen, touched or physically measured, which are created through time and/or effort and that are identifiable as a separate asset.” According to Arthur D. Little, Inc. “reputation is critical to corporate success, topping the intangible asset list of most CEOs.”
What builds reputation? A consistent experience. Whether you’re an employee, a customer or an investor. Whether you have a direct relationship with the organization or not.
Who builds reputation? The people who design, build and/or deliver your products and services and serve your customers. The people who get the work done every day. Your employees.
So, I’m curious, when you sit down with your senior executive where do your employees and health of that relationship figure in the conversation?
Random Posts:
Learning from the Vatican [part 3]
Today, few believe the Vatican was unaware of the ‘priestly sexual abuse’ that occurred over several decades in Ireland, the US and more recently reported in Germany. Instead, it is widely assumed that they knew and their response was ‘cover-up, evasion and criminal negligence’. It is “a time for contrition” it is also a time to reflect on the role of internal communications in this most terrible story.
In the Roman Catholic Church as an organization there are many features we would wish for as corporate communicators [part 2] including a clearly a structured disciplined communication system designed precisely to feed very “rich” information up and down the system [part 1].
It is impossible to believe that what was going on in individual parishes around the world wasn’t known within those communities. Institutionally, they either knew or they didn’t. If they didn’t then as communicators I think we need to ask ourselves why? And, if they did and didn’t act. Again why?
Collecting such vast amounts of rich information may have contributed to
- Seeing and not recognizing
- Listening and not hearing
- The long time delays
And may also underscore the importance of the art rather than the science of communication. What can we do to ensure institutionally we’re listening wisely?
Once the institution understood what was going on that same in depth knowledge may have actually served to enable the cover-up and manipulation rather than ensuring swift and appropriate action. Unfortunately and as we’ve seen during the global financial crisis and the aftermath this may not only be an isolated situation. We as corporate communicators have been fighting to get to the strategic table, so if you’d been in the room when these issues were discussed what would you have done?
And, finally, a lesson: If the leadership of any organization values the institution over the employees or its clients – where the means justify the ends – then all the great communications systems in the world aren’t enough. If that is so, what are the implications for us as corporate communicators?