Corporate Social Responsibility

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process

Todd Landman1 and Steve Glowinkowski2

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process

Corporate Social Responsibility has increasingly become part of mainstream business practice, at least in terms of boardroom attention, specialist teams within organisations, and company responsibility audits. The UN Global Compact has brought renewed attention to CSR and has linked it to the larger global agenda for environmental sustainability, labour standards, the protection of human rights and struggle against corruption. Far from a constraint on business, CSR and how an organisation is seen to operate reflects its brand values, which are critical determinants of its success in the global market place. The ways an organisation operates also creates its culture in terms of its status as an employer of choice. CSR has thus become a critical sphere of activity if an organisation seeks to create a sustainable framework for its business activities. But have CSR approaches really changed the way that most organisations operate in terms of how business gets done? Or have organisations simply delegated CSR responsibility to junior staff members and relegated CSR to a mere boxticking exercise? We suggest that a good part of current CSR approaches are still box ticking exercises and fail to address the fundamental culture and behaviour of an enterprise. During the recent financial crisis popular commentators suggested that a number of high level bankers should face criminal prosecution for their actions. In the most publicised cases it seems clear that the behavioural style of the senior directors inhibited appropriate advice and input from more junior colleagues. Such behaviour created a culture of fear that led to poor decision making and poor results seen throughout the current economic crisis. In Industry and Manufacturing, disasters such as Union Carbides Bhopal chemical spill in India and the BP Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are significant examples of managerial malfeasance that resulted in catastrophic outcomes. Nike and Reebok suffered from problems in supply chain management, which cost them in terms of brand value, market confidence and their status as an employer of choice.

We argue that in these and similar cases the evidence demonstrates that the behaviour of senior leadership has both stifled and inhibited input from those within their respective organisations. Short term cost considerations side lined those who actually knew how to do the job well. With a focus on behaviour, our contention is that WHAT YOU DO MATTERS. We are not talking about high minded aspirations but about real everyday behaviour: management style and thinking that goes on at board and senior levels. Only when the behaviour of management changes can organisations begin to change the way they operate in terms of CSR. We argue that what a leader does in terms of style, content and behaviour directly creates the Climate or Atmosphere of the workplace. It is within the Climate that people make and implement decisions. If the Climate is positive then high performance and good decision making emerges. If the Climate is negative then poor performance emerges. In the financial services and industry examples above we argue that the ineffective behaviour of the senior leadership inhibited high performance and sound decision making the result of which was catastrophic. This suggests that it is not possible to be socially responsible without the right behaviour at the top of an organisation that engages its employee base. We contend further that to act in a socially responsible way is also to act in a commercially responsible way. As Richard Branson says, doing good is good for business. All of the above is perhaps obvious and self evident. But the most important question is what, from a practical perspective, can organisations do in order to shape and direct behaviour that is socially responsible and provides the basis to deliver a culture of high performance? How can a firm move from its current state of activity to one that is more in line with the principles of CSR? The following describes a process that can deliver practical outcomes in this regard.

Glowinkowski International
2

2011 Glowinkowski International Limited

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process

Corporate Social Responsibility

A Framework for CSR and High Performance

Figure 1 represents a framework developed by the consulting organisation Glowinkowski International. The model is based on many years of Glowinkowskis global research across public and private sectors involving over 15,000 senior leaders. The evidence shows that a key differentiator between outstanding and average performance is the Climate of the organisation. By Climate we mean the Atmosphere of the workplace, or what it feels like to be here. Our data shows outstanding performing organisations are underpinned by a positive Climate, while average performing organisations are characterised by a measurably poorer Climate. The Integrated Framework points to three key drivers for better performance: (1) the effectiveness of an organisations Structure, (2) the quality of Processes and (3) the effectiveness of the Behaviour of senior leadership. There is a direct link between senior leadership Behaviour, Climate and Performance. Thus a focus on behaviour of leaders is crucial to any organisational commitment to CSR. Figure 2 illustrates different kinds of leader behaviour and where outstanding leadership is located. The figure includes two intersecting dimensions of behaviour. The first dimension ranges from Indifferent to Concerned and the second dimension from Passive to Directive. Combining the two dimensions yields four quadrants of behaviour. Red 1 in the top left quadrant combines Directive and Indifferent behaviour. Amber 2 in the bottom left quadrant combines Indifferent and Passive behaviour. Green 3 combines Passive and Concerned behaviour. Blue 4 combines Directive and Concerned. This is our ideal type of behaviour for leaders. Our data show that the more a leader can deliver Blue 4 behaviour on a consistent basis, the greater both the Climate and the subsequent Performance. By extension, we also believe Blue 4 behaviour is linked to the principles of CSR. The examples cited earlier from the Financial and Industry sectors were characterised by a combination of predominantly Red (aggressive and non inclusive), Amber (disengaged from employees) and Green (pretending things are all ok) behaviour. These types of behaviour can inhibit Climate through creating a fear culture, instances in which things get ignored and cases where important issues do not get addressed. Many will recognise these types of behaviour and how they result in lower levels of performance. Our work with many organisations across many different sectors suggests that the more an organisation engages in Blue 4 behaviour, the more its activities and performance will be in line with the principles of CSR and the UN Global Compact. Blue 4 leaders are Directive and Concerned. Blue 4 leaders create a healthy Climate, better Performance, and engage in business activity that is socially responsible.
Critical Success Factors

Strategic Objectives

Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors

Predispositions & Motivations

Organisational Structure

Behaviours

Processes

Organisational Climate

Business Performance

Integrated Framework

Figure 1: The Glowinkowski Integrated Framework

Our approach engages an organisation in a change management process that moves beyond mere box ticking and encourages greater consistent Blue 4 behaviour. The first stage of the process measures the proportion of Blue 4 behaviour exhibited by leaders and the resulting Climate. The second stage establishes a mechanism through which senior leaders raise their Blue 4 game. We find that this game is one of 10, 20, and 40: a 10% shift in Behaviour delivers a 20% shift in Climate, and in turn, a 40% improvement in Performance. We are convinced that this ratio of Behaviour to Climate to Performance is crucial in bringing an organisation more in line with the principles of CSR. Through an engagement skills programme which incorporates robust measurement of behaviour and a practical approach to behavioural skills development we have demonstrated the feasibility of helping organisations enhance, improve and develop a Blue 4 Culture. Our approach is a much needed input in the current period of scrutiny over business activity, and we believe we offer a practical and sensible solution for senior leaders looking to respond to the expectations of the UN Global Compact.

2011 Glowinkowski International Limited

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process

DIRECTIVE (Proactive)

DIRECTIVE and INDIFFERENT

DIRECTIVE and CONCERNED

INDIFFERENT

CONCERNED
(for people)

(towards people)

PASSIVE and INDIFFERENT

PASSIVE and CONCERNED

Figure 2: The Model of Behaviour

PASSIVE (Reactive)

1 Todd Landman is a Professor of Government, Director of the Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution and Principal Consultant with Glowinkowski International

Steve Glowinkowski is the Founder and Principal Consultant, Glowinkowski International and Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Health, Medical Science and Society, Glyndwr University.
2

Glowinkowski International
4

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process

2011 Glowinkowski International Limited

Corporate Social Responsibility

Glowinkowski International Limited

5 St Peters Court, Middleborough, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1WD. United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1206 710945 Fax +44 (0)1206 576910 www.glowinkowski.com

Corporate Social Responsibility - Version 1.0

2011 Glowinkowski International Limited

Responding to the UN Global Compact through Glowinkowski Internationals Change Management Process