“You really don’t want the job and manage an office full of people.  Stay in the field, make money, and leave the administrative headaches to George”

Being the founder of a social enterprise can at times be tough, as I mentioned in last week’s post about maintaining positive energy, and no where is that more true than managing staff.

Something I personally did not fully understand until I began the process of expanding an office of 3 core believers to 15.  IT was a time where I full began to understand the above, but more than that, it was a time a time where I (and my directors) began to realize that regardless of the mission, some people just want a job… and they need to be “managed”

Interestingly, it was a time that we had in fact been planning for, for quite a whlie.  We knew the platform had the potential to scale, and we were regularly seeking the advice of outsiders to understand how we should structure ourselves for the transition.  I had personally invested significant amounts of time into building the directors, who would manage their own teams, we created titles and org charts, and worked to refine job descriptions so that applicants would have a clear understanding of the position they were applying for.

Needless to say, things did not go exactly as we had planned, and it is not because we didn’t hire the right people, or the best people.

On paper we did, but after 6-9 months we began to see where our expectations, their capacity, and their passions began to diverge.  That, while they were capable project managers, when tasked, there was a disconnect in that we needed more.  We needed new hires to think, act, and CARE for the mission like we did, and they didn’t.  They didn’t because, as we came to spend more thought on, for some they were “employees” and for them our mission was a “job” .

Which was a problem because we were looking for owners.  Team members who would step up, take a piece of the organization, and run with it.  Versus perform well at their “job”, but not see the opportunity that existed for the organization to grow through them.  Which made the dream of creating  capacity and stability in the organization a little more difficult.  Until of course, we learned to weed out those who were “non-believers” and learned to attract (and retain) those saw the mission as one they shared as well.

A process that required us to rewire our culture a bit, and spend a lot more time looking for and hiring the “right people”.  A process that includes the following steps:

1) Resume reduction – Looking objectively at a resume, does the applicant have an aligned background, i.e studied / worked with the issues, or is the applicant a burned out member of the “traditional” work force looking to do “something good” for a year before they return to their former life?  This is an important question to answer because passion always fades and with limited resources to invest, the last thing a small organization should do is invest in people hoping they will be converted and will stay.  There needs to be a natural alignment.

2) Interviews – Perhaps the most critical part of the process is the interviews, and over time we have learned that it is important to take. our. time. with this process.  Phone interview first. Second round with a director and manager. Third round with a second director.  final round with several staff members.  All with the purpose to judge whether or not they understand the mission, are capable of doing the job, and what their long term staying power will be.  During the interview notes are taken, and prior to the next round a briefing of each candidate takes place.

3) Reference checks – This is an area that only was only recently something we needed to do as many of our hires were coming from word of mouth contacts, or were otherwise known to us previously.  this is itself a challenge as the organization may or may not be successful, and they may or may not be a good employee of the organization.  so, it is absolutely critical to call and find out about their work at previous employers.

4) Clear expectations and objectives – Spending time on the job description is important, as is making sure they speak with the person currently overseeing that role (if one exists).  Any ambiguity can become a source for trouble, particularly for those employees who are confined to their “scope” and do not make an effort to reach beyond that.

5) Honest Assessments – One of the hardest lessons that my directors had to learn was to make cuts early, before it is too late.  Being too accepting, and offering too many second chances, can come back to haunt you a year later when nothing has been accomplished, and sometimes it is better to start all over than to get that far down the road with someone who is a drag on the mission.  Particularly if they are someone who becomes a drag on the culture and is toxic to those around them.

For many social entrpreneurs, including myself, we are always under the belief that if we have a good mission, others will follow.  But in reality, that is not always true.  That as the “entrepreneur” one has a level of ownership for the organization that others may not, and for as much as one might want to think otherwise, some of the people hired simply want a “job” with an organization they believe in, relate to, or want to support for a period of time before their next “job”.  Sometimes it is a hard thing to accept, but organizations still have to create plans, processes, and fall backs, so that they are able to make sure they get the best from their employees… and that their employees have the best job they can find.  for it is there that greatness can be found, and maintained.  And it is there where employees can be turned into owners over time.

And my answer to her was the following:

I would honestly say that those who succeed in this field have the highest pain tolerance levels of any profession. It ain’t easy being “nice”. seriously. and to maintain positive energy, you have three options: first is to build it yourself, second is to receive/ take from others, and the third is to lie to yourself

1) Build it yourself by having a mission, team, and cause you believe in, are taking steps that achieve impact, and you are seeing the work have an impact. The team feeds off that, as do partners/ beneficiaries, and that closes many of the loops that result in a feedback of positive energy.  It self sustains.

This is what should be the long term source, and (sadly) it is possible to only appreciate this when you are at a higher position looking back.

2) Others give you positive energy :
This comes in several forms, all in a way selfish. Seeing a child recover… winning an award… locking in funding for new program.. getting invited to speak about what you “do” for the first time… in essence, positive energy is created once someone recognizes the effort, the team, or the impact. At that helps to create some internal sustainability because it reinforces the positive energy you have built yourself

This way feels the best short term, but reality sets in quickly

3) Manufacture positive energy by lying to yourself (i.e. suck it up) through the tough times.  You convince yourself, even when you are not 100% sure, that what you are doing is making a difference… even if you are the unsexist duck in the pond. And if you can do that, then you can convince your people, and they can convince others.. and eventually shit gets accomplished.

This is the toughest route, and it is the route where people are often lost, mission creep sets in, and organizations fold.

For me,and I am different than the organization, the hardest balance has always been between the first and the second.  I am building, and managing, a mission that is for the first where the organization creates an energy without the need for external support, but there are times where receiving an external stimulus just makes the day go by easier.

It is a post that for me was quite interesting, and reading what Fastow has to say is intellectually interesting as I remember that time clearly, and I read the books that came out after. For me, it was a time where I was horrified (as an MBA student) that executives would not only systematically take advantage of the market gaps (remeber the 2000 energy crisis in California), but would destroy business and lives like no other firm in the history.

They represented personal greed, to the max, and had zero interest in a legacy beyond that.

A feeling that was actually supported by this piece, even though Fastow is supposed to be confessing his sins, repenting, etc. In fact, what I saw is a person who is still unable to grasp why things really happened, or what his responsibility was for what happened. for him, it was the “system” and his “advisors”, and I hope the students understand that and call him out for it.

Anyway, some of the key phrases for me were:

to Fastow, greed, insecurity, ego, and corporate culture all played a part. But the key was his proclivity to rationalize his actions through a narrow application of “the rules.”

and

He began the presentation by admitting he committed fraud and taking full responsibility for his actions. He made a heartfelt detailed apology and expressed remorse for having hurt so many people. He admitted making technical violations and taking wrongful actions that, while approved, were misleading. He said he knew what he was doing was wrong. But he rationalized those actions in his mind at the time, because the result was higher leverage, a higher return on equity, and a higher stock price. Further, he convinced himself that his actions were acceptable because they had been signed off by the firm’s lawyers, accountants, and board and were disclosed in the financial reports. He told himself his actions were systemic, it is the way the game is played.

and more interestingly

Fastow suggested that to avoid falling into an ethical trap he should have asked himself the right questions: Am I only following the rules or am I following the principles? If this were a private partnership, would I do the same deal?

The glaring issue that Fastow conveniently left out was his role in shaping the advice that he was receiving from his advisers. If, they had been truly third party independent and been in a position where he could not cajole the outcome, then perhaps he would be right. Perhaps you need the gut checks. But, the fact is that he (and others inside Enron) were very active in helping their advisers shape the deals so that they would fit through the legal structures that existed. And when that didn’t work, there were threats made to find someone with the imagination who could make it work.

All possible because this was an executive set without ethical boundaries, or moral consideration, for what it was they were actually doing. At no time did this team think about the possibility that they could ruin the lives of employees, investors, or customers. Which ultimately brought down Enron, and everyone in and around it.

To which I will end with this. At no time was the Enron team acting responsibly, not even to themselves. Their actions, without moral or ethical considerations left them exposed to making decisions that were nothing more than high risk bets.

And one would have thought with 6 years to think about it, Fastow would have had the ability to work it out. It wasn’t about his advisers. It was about him, and what he valued.

1. Clarity of Purpose
2. Tangibility of Issue
3. A strong kickoff -
4. Regionally/  Issued Focused
5. Getting off campus
6. Team Cohesion
7. External Support

It was a list that I felt applied well to much of the client work I have done in the past, and when considering how and when organizations fail to make transitions, or even come to a basic agreement, I can usually look towards one of these items on the list and see a failure.

So, as your organization is looking to take on the responsibility, and develop a program that will have a positive impact, look to see if you have all of the above.  Because if you don’t, it is going to be awfully hard to get the organization, and those who lead it, to act.

Ten+ plus experience in the development of marketing and strategic communications plans, implementation of marketing programs and measurement of results in markets in Asia-Pacific. Corporate, Journalism, Public Relations or Advertising Agency experience preferred.Knowledge of non-profit sector and/or public policy issues helpful.

Which led me to wonder whether or not NGOs were setting themselves up for failure by hiring people with “Knowledge of non-profit sector and/or public policy issues helpful”.

Call me old fashioned, but I have always found the best sales people to be those who knew the issues, had passion for the issues, and knew how to position the issue.  These are the people that can be trusted to stay for more than 18 months, while others feel they have done “their part” for the world, and are (in my eyes) the people who deserve to receive access to the limited training and development opportunities that exist in this field

Shortly, I will begin putting together a blog list to follow.

@Dan Little – Philosopher of social science; politics and social justice in China, southeast Asia
@David Levy – Modern, ethical and effective leadership for China-based manufacturing organizations.
@Heather K Mak – Carefully curated industry news/musings from a manager
@Perrine Bouhana – Sustainability consultant working at international PR firm
@Jeff Ballinger – Researching/writing abt trade union rights, int’l law applied to workers, restitution and Human Trafficking
@Emily D’Ath - Background in sustainability, aid & CSR. Committed to improving digital & communications standards in NGO & NPO sectors.
@Kara Chan – human rights, ESG, Corporate Governance, China labor issues, sustainability
@Brian Ho -China Director of CSR Asia
@Li Qiang – China Labor Watch
@Natalie Lowe – The stylish communicator in China who digs CSR initiatives, Habitat for Humanity, clean tech, personal branding, fashion & simply the art of communication
@David Levy – Modern, ethical and effective leadership for China-based manufacturing organizations
@yluobo – CSR Analyst / from Beijing, China
@Joseph Fong – Head of Asia – The Centre for Corporate Public Affairs
@Hans W. Vriens – Managing Partner at Vriens & Partners a boutique firm specializing in Political, Economic Analysis and Government Relations in Asia Pacific
@Elizabeth Keck – Retail…Sustainability…China…And love to travel
@Jerome Tseng – A CSR professional in Taiwan. Former SG of the CSR Taiwan. Working on a book about responsible capitalism (in Chinese)
@Vincent Pan - Executive Director, Chinese for Affirmative Action

Related Organizations – These accounts are of the organizations themselves, for profit and non
@clntranslations – China Labor News Translations is a free collection of English translations of mainland Chinese reports and commentaries labor issues. New translations monthly.
@China Labor Bureau – China Labour Bulletin is dedicated to promoting and defending workers’ rights in China
@ethicaltrade – The Ethical Trading Initiative is an alliance of companies, trade unions and voluntary organisations partnering to improve workers’ lives worldwide
@Responsible Sourcing - The Responsible Sourcing Network (RSN) advances global supply chains that are accountable to the people and natural habitats they touch.
@ChinaBreaking - Finessing Ethical Commodity Product Inputs & Contract deals to & from China
@SustAbility covering CSR, biz, innovation, food, china, and anything consumer facing.
@Global Food Safety Forum – not-for-profit industry association that promotes food safety for all companies operating in China.

A very interesting interview of Michael Porter focuses on his recent work (thoughts) on how firms going forward are going to have to rethink how they formulate strategies.

Creating shared value, Porter effectively states that firms will have look at their value proposition, look at quality, and look at their role as members of society.  That instead of operating through models that extract, they will need to share.  It is a revolution of CSR, which he believes has sees coming to the end of its useful life, and will force core changes to firms.

The one question that I kept asking was what about the role of expectations. Particularly those of markets and investors.

Are these stakeholders ready for “fair” profit, and “fair” products, that cost more and spin off lower profit margins?  Or are these groups happy with the current relationship where the externalities of production are kept outside the retail cost formula, and the maximum amount of profits are made (for investors)?

For me, this is a question that is important as ultimately for these initiatives to continue being supported, a realignment of expectations will need to occur.  Expectations that align in a way that supports the firm’s changeover.

Without that, the conditions supporting the “business as usual” extractive model will persist.

One of the conversations that I find myself in, and write about as well, is the ability of tangibility to catalyze change. that instead of focusing efforts on issues like “climate Chnage” and saving the polar bears, it is important to look locally at the source to fix problems before their byproducts (methane, CO2, lead, etc) are able to do their damage.  So, when reading through the recent Business Insider piece China’s Enormous Three Gorges Dam Could End Up Being A Huge Mistake, I came upon a slide that I though put this into perspective well.

It was a story that was focused on the wider issues of the dam, the moment of people, building up of silt, its role in recent droughts, but it was on slide 15 (of 18) where I my interest peaked:

Over 265 billion gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the Yangtze annually, which now collects in the reservoir instead of being flushed downstream and out into the ocean. However, the government insists the new sewage treatment plants have this under control, according to NPR.

Looking at the picture that accompanied the slide, and looking at picture on Google, two things are clear.  Trash is collecting at the dam, and their new sewage plants are not enough.

Quoting the NPR article Concerns Rise with Water of Three Gorges Dam:

Residents on the Jialing River, a tributary of the Yangtze River near the city of Chongqing, have been campaigning for years against a local chemical plant that they say is illegally polluting. Qu Guoxiao says he has watched many co-workers die of cancer in the 30 years he has worked at, and lived near, the plant. He adds that the pollution aggravates his own asthma.

So, what once was a problem that would float away and have no local impact has effectively turned into a local problem.  An interest reversal as it places the responsibility squarely at the feet of those who have the most power to do something about it.

Then take a few minutes to integrate the various Collective Responsibility social mediums into your accounts… and if you are not sure about which mediums are worth your time (social media can get a bit overwhelming), I ave provided a description of the content that you will be exposed to through the various mediums.

The most basic way to connect to our connect, the Collective Responsibility RSS Feed will alert you whenever a new posting is loaded to the site, and depending on the reader you are using, may even send the content to you. Of course, you’ll still need to come to the site to post your comments!

The official Twitter account for Collective Responsibility, twitter followers will receive regular links to interesting articles that I find, or interesting quips that I come up with, on a daily basis

Our LinkedIn page has nearly 300 professionals who are actively discussing the issues that China is facing, and on a good week there are 3-4 discussions/ posts for members. It is a place to meet peers, ask for opinions/ resources, identify experts, or announce events/ jobs that you have.

New to the list is Google+.  I am just getting started here, and I am following about 70 people who I recognize in the areas of CSR, sustainability, and social entrepreneurship.  With regard tot he content that I will place on there, it will likely be similar to what you will find through LinkedIn and the RSS feed, but I am hoping for more lively debates as well.

Following nearly all of my 30+ yearly presentations, I will load my presentation materials onto Slideshare for followers to flip through. Currently there are almost 20 different presentations on areas of CSR, sustainability, responsible leadership, and social entrepreneurship in China. As well as, several articles that I have written on the above topics for Supply Chain Asia magazine

With over 75 interviews and reports in our Youtube library, readers who are looking to see and hear local and international opinions on the issues that China faces will find this resource addictive. We have worked on it for a few years, and included within the library are street interviews, interviews with NGO and corporate leaders, and recordings of events in Shanghai and Beijing. Coming up, we are working on several projects that will also add in academic perspectives, as well as recordings of my presentations.

Facebook – Our newest addition to the Collective Responsibility social media platform, through this Facebook page we will look to offer a more social environment whereby people can engage in the issues.

So, with that, we invite you to join the channels that you feel will bring you the best content, in the most convenient channel.

Watching the Foxconn pays its low-level workers in Shenzhen the legal minimum wage at 900 yuan/month. Ma Liquan, a former Foxconn worker informed China Central Television (CCTV, 11 May 2010): “After deducting mandatory social securities, we earn only some 800 yuan a month. No one seems to force us….and yet we’ve no choice but to do overtime work.”

Set against the Harvard Business Review Case study Foxconn Technology Case (A), where the authors speak about a survey that was conducted to understand the lifestyle of Foxconn employees on the line:

Twenty Universities from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan conducted a survey of 1,736 workers from 12 Foxconn factories in nine cites in late 2010 [... where they found ... ] the average monthly living costs of a typical Foxconn worker was about 160USD, an extremely low level of standard of living.  While the workers could sustain their own lives, they had little hope of accumulating enough money to obtain a mortgage or handle any potential health problems.

and while Foxconn previously was forced to Raise Base Salary of New Employees in 2010, and did so again in 2011, and once again last month… at the current promisory level of 286USD per month, line workers are still going to stuggle making ends meet because inflation in CHina for the last 2 years has been rampant.