The University of Arizona announced today Monday that it is forming an institute on Civility. The honorary chairmen of the National Institute for Civil Discourse will be former Presidents’ Bill Clinton and George W Bush. The director said they “would focus on political disagreements from the grass roots all the way to the top.”
Civility has been part of the conversation in the US after the horrific shootings in Arizona that killed six people and injured 13 others, including a Democrat representative Gabriella Giffords. Our nation’s political discourse became the hot button because of its mounting incendiary tone on Capitol Hill, on the airwaves, in our schools and in our media, online and offline.
Our research last spring on Civility in America was perfectly timed and captured the declining level of discouse that was gaining speed in many of our institutions and across the nation. The Institute is a smart idea for re-setting the tone and galvanizing advocates to support better interaction.
Wanted to update everyone on some interesting research on advocacy we recently did on how social media can be employed to further corporate responsibility. We (KRC Research and the Social Impact team at Weber Shandwick) found that crowdsourcing plays a vital role in helping companies drive engagement for their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Wikipedia describes crowdsourcing as an “open call to an undefined group of people…to solve complex problems and contribute with the most relevant and fresh ideas.” The survey was conducted among corporate executives in large-sized companies with responsibility for philanthropic, social responsibility or community relations. They are advocates themselves because these jobs require strong conviction about what is important and what is the right thing to do to meet corporate business goals.
The research found that a sizable 44% of companies have used crowdsourcing. In addition, an overwhelming majority (95%) of those who have used crowdsourcing found it invaluable to the organization’s pro-social or CSR efforts.
What particularly stood out for me was the reasons why these advocating executives say crowdsourcing is valuable for CSR programming. They said that it surfaces new perspectives and diverse opinions (36%), builds engagement and relationships with key audiences (25%), invites clients and customers from nontraditional sources to contribute ideas and opinions (22%) and it brings new energy into the process of generating ideas and content (16%).
The latter is particularly important to all advocacy programs — igniting the process by energizing people. It seems that the “energy” component is what really makes the difference so I was glad to see it among the top reasons mentioned why crowdsourcing helps drive corporate CSR. Where would advocacy be without advocates’ energy to mobilize these efforts to build a better planet? It should be at the heart of all corporate efforts. The question is how to find that energy and capitalize on it. How do you ignite it to drive mobilization? Energizing people is an important ingredient of true advocacy and worth deeper thought. Maybe a good topic in itself for crowdsourcing. Hmmmm.
An interesting article surfaced last week on a wholly new corporate position — Chief Good Officers (CGOs). The article mentioned our recent research on the impact of crowdsoucing on corporate social responsibility. The CGO would be the newest evolution of the CSR Officer. The idea is that this person would straddle the CSR position with marketing/advertising that aims to attract customers. The CGO would create “brand purpose” and drive action to the company’s causes by bringing them to life. “This is the chef who blends financial and social bottom lines into a tasty dish that is as engaging as it is impactful for consumers.” I think that the CGO is an alternative version of the CAO–the chief advocacy officer. So be it.
We take social advocacy seriously. Our Social Impact team just surveyed with KRC Research over 200 executives responsible for CSR type activities to learn how they were managing some of their challenges today. What did we learn?
We learned how important impact actually is. Having an impact on critical issues is the number one reason why corporations invest in philanthropic or socially responsible activities, according to the executives surveyed. A second reason given for CSR-funding is the opportunity to see an organization’s values in action (25%). I think that is a good reason. Interestingly, having an impact on critical issues (30%) outranked several more business-oriented motivations, such as building customer loyalty (15%), differentiating the company from competitors (6%) and engaging and retaining employees (4%).
The latter finding somewhat surprised me because it underscores the need for companies to better measure the link between CSR and employee satisfaction. Social advocacy deserves to be higher up on executives’ agendas as a primary benefit of good social responsibility. Employees can be a company’s best advocates if they understand how CSR drives growth, attracts talent and retains the best. In this anti-business environment, it is important to make the CSR case at home (the office) and in the community.
In our research lately, we’ve seen how important employee satisfaction is to how corporate communications officers are measured. Communicating about the value of CSR to employees and communities deserves greater attention in order to reduce some of the anti-business perception that seems to linger. CSR is the gift that keeps giving if companies would only focus more on communicating it well.
Just read about employee advocates in a report (Do Your Employees Advocate for Your Company?) from Forrester. I am a big believer in understanding how to get employees onboard as advocates. I think it is where future success truly lies. How to do it is another story.
The survey (which I believe is only available to subscribers) was among 5, 519 technology end users in Canada, France, Germany, the UK and the US. They used the well-known NPS (Net Promoter Score developed at Bain) to ask employees how likely they would be to recommend their employer’s products/services to a friend or relative and how likely they would be to recommend their company as an employer? Without a doubt, employee advocates are critical to spreading positive word of mouth, attracting the best talent and building reputation. The headline about the results say it all, “The Sorry State of Employee Advocacy.” Here are a few nuggets:
Employees in North America and Europe scored-23% on the employee advocacy index developed for recommending their company’s products and services. Particularly interesting to me was that detractors or what we at Weber Shandwick call “badvocates” made up 49% of the respondents on this question, 24% were neutral and 27% were advocates or promoters. Essentially, the badvocates were nearly twice as prominent in their answers compared to advocates.
For the second NPS question about recommending the company as a good place to work to a friend or family member, the employee advocacy score was -16%, with 43% detractors, 29% neutrals and 27% advocates. Badvocates still overwhelm the discussion about one’s company as an employer. That is alot of conversation to compensate for.
These findings do not speak well of employees’ endorsement of the companies they work for and the goods they produce. Of course, this is not a representative sample because they are information workers. However, I suspect that if the research was conducted among a broader population, the results could be as bad or even worse. The economy certainly is a factor but in truth, greater attention needs to be paid internally for advocacy to take root. This is a good starting point for understanding employee advocacy however.
In an earlier post, Leslie Gaines-Ross introduced Civility in America, a study jointly conducted by Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate and KRC Research. With the issue of incivility growing in the media (mentions in global media nearly doubled in less than five years), we thought it would be a good idea to pull some important facts out from the study about how incivility impacts business.
First, the situation today…
As the economy recovers and companies look for fresh and meaningful ways to connect with consumers, executives need to address a problem in America today: Consumers see a growing trend of incivility in society coupled with low levels of respect for big business. An integral component of reputation recovery includes reinforcing – through deeds and communications - a commitment to improving civility.
The past few years have not been kind. Most Americans (71%) believe that the financial crisis and recession made the level of civility in America worse. Only 20% feel that civility was not impacted by the tough economic times and even fewer (9%) report an improvement in civility since the crisis.
Nearly half of Americans believe incivility is prevalent among company CEOs (49%) and four in 10 believe incivility is prevalent inside companies and workplaces (40%).
In a previous Weber Shandwick and KRC Research survey, only 14% of U.S. executives rated CEOs positively and in an AP-National Constitution Center Poll, only 8% of American adults reported having confidence in major companies.
Americans Hold Businesses Accountable for Incivility
Consumers don’t simply complain about incivility, they react to it in ways that could influence the success of a brand. A full three-quarters of them believe people should boycott products from uncivil companies. Consumers report that they have indeed punished companies for uncivil behavior in a variety of ways…
Americans who have ever…
Total Americans
Decided not to watch a television program or listen to a radio program any longer because you were uncomfortable with its lack of civility or its tone of conversation
63%
Decided not to buy from a company again because someone from that company was uncivil in the way they treated you
56%
Reevaluated your opinion of a company because its tone or conduct was uncivil
55%
Advised friends, family or co-workers not to buy certain products or services because you felt a company or its representative was rude or uncivil
49%
Canceled a subscription to a newspaper or magazine because you thought it was uncivil
18%
Corporate America is Expected to Make a Difference
The majority of Americans (79%) hold businesses highly accountable for improving the state of civility. Among the ways in which companies can improve their civility reputation…
Set a civil example. Nine in ten Americans (91%) agree that business leaders should set an example and always behave with civility.
Address uncivil behavior inside the workplace. Eight in 10 Americans (82%) believe companies should have zero tolerance policies for incivility.
Hold the marketing chain accountable. Three-quarters of Americans (75%) feel that companies should pull advertising on shows or websites that include uncivil behavior and nearly two-thirds (63%) agree that companies with uncivil advertising should be fined.
Next week we’ll share more focused research from the study.
In The New York Times yesterday, an article on the 2010 campaign in the US spoke about voter disengagement and how most people say it is because of the high unemployment rate, government spending, the deficit and our disaffection with politicians. However Matt Bai says that is not the whole story and after talking to some marketing consultants who spoke with independent voters, different issues are factoring into the mindset of Americans facing electoral choices.
“The dominant theme of the discussion, in which jobs and taxes came up only in passing, seemed to be the larger breakdown of civil society — the disappearance of common courtesy, the relentless stream of data from digital devices, the proliferation of lawsuits and the insidious influence of media on their children. One woman described a food fight at the middle school that left a mess school employees were obliged to clean up, presumably because the children couldn’t be subjected to physical labor. A man complained about drivers who had grown increasingly hostile and inconsiderate on the roads, which drew nods of assent all around. Another described the Internet as just plain ‘bad.’”
I bring this up because the breakdown in civil society was the topic of our in-depth investigation into Civility in America that we undertook several months ago with Powell Tate and KRC Research. We found that an overwhelming majority of Americans view the erosion of civility in human interaction today as a major problem. Among the many signs pointing to this steady decline were the daily occurrences of cyber bullying, online “flaming” and nasty blog comments, the venomous bickering taking place on some reality TV shows and between TV news personalities and their guests, and the mean-spirited mudslinging among politicians and their loyal supporters. Weber Shandwick Chairman Jack Leslie said, “Freedom of expression is the bedrock of our society. Conflicting points of view are always welcome but too much incivility in the public squarecan turn people away from voicing their opinions.”
The tone of civility is clearly causing Americans to tune out from the most fundamental elements of our democracy — government and politics, news coverage and reporting, and opinion pieces and editorials in newspapers and magazines. We have the facts to back this up. Sadly, the top reason for what people can do about this growing uncivil nations was for parents should teach their children the importance of civility from an early age. This made me think of the young people who have recently made news after taking their lives over cyberbullying or reputation-crushing events.
Weber Shandwick provides several strategies that can be taken to combat the the rise of incivility that is causing people to tune out. Take a look. We saw it coming.Advocates for a more civil society need to speak up and make changes. Here is one place to start – CiviliNation.
The summer has been distracting with vacations and glorious hot days. Our postings have not been as frequent but we still muse about advocacy all the time. Thanks for your patience and followship.
Thinking about advocates, in an article in the recent McKinsey Quarterly on leading business and technology trends, advocacy of course came up. In the article, they mention that 70% of executives said that their comapnies created value through Web communities, the ultimate advocacy network.
One example given was from Intuit which is worth mentioning here. Intuit hosts customer support groups for its financial and tax return products where more experienced customers provide advice and support to those in need of help. These Intuit advocates build their reputation credibility by noting the number of questions they answer and the number of thank yous they get from those they help.
Thought this was a great way of using advocates to help build loyalty to products and generate good vibes. McKinsey has the numbers to prove it. They found that when customer communities of advocates handle an issue, the per-contact cost can be as low as 10% of the cost to resolve the issue through traditional call centers. That’s a good ROI for advocacy.
Have you heard of the Giving Pledge? I had not heard of it and there is good reason–I am not wealthy. The Giving Pledge is a new organization whereby wealthy (uber-wealthy) Americans pledge to donate 50% or more of their fortune to philantrophy. Warren Buffet just signed his pledge to donate his wealth and others are being encouraged to join this noteworthy movement of advocates for philanthrocates (a new word I just made up). There will even be a “Great Givers” annual meeting where the wealthy will gather to discuss how to best make use of their wealth giving. A very worthwhile cause to aid the world solve some of the most intractable problems and help people in greater need. Thank goodness there are people with a head on their shoulders. Here is how it is explained on the website.
The Giving Pledge is an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations of their choice either during their lifetime or after their death.
Each person who chooses to pledge will make this statement publicly, along with a letter explaining their decision to pledge. At an annual event, those who take the pledge will come together to share ideas and learn from each other.
The Pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations.
While the Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires, the idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of Americans who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.
Do you have a dog or cat in need of grooming? If so, here is an opportunity to advocate for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill clean-up efforts. Consider taking your pet to a groomer who will donate your pet’s fur to Matter of Trust, a San Francisco nonprofit organization that has established a process for collecting animal fur and human hair to create nylon “booms” that naturally absorb oil from the water. Last week retailer PETCO began shipping donations of pet fur from its grooming salons to aid in creating these booms to soak up and remove oil from Gulf of Mexico waters. Once fur shipments arrive in the Gulf Coast region, volunteers gather to assemble the booms and prepare for their deployment. The booms are made by stuffing donated nylon stockings with hair and fur. With nearly 1,000 grooming salons pitching in, PETCO expected to ship up to a ton of donated fur per day hoping to reach 5 tons through this past weekend.
As a pet owner, I say it’s about time my pets begin contributing to society! Joking aside, this is a truly unique and worthwhile program. Get your four-legged friends to advocate for the wildlife in the Gulf who so gravely face endangerment.
You are currently browsing the allaboutadvocacy.com weblog archives for the Company/Organization Advocacy category.
About
All About Advocacy is a blog written by and for people who believe in the accelerating power of Advocates in society today.
Contributors include a wide range of Weber Shandwick Advocates (plus any other Advocacy fans like yourself) who share their unique perspectives about this new shift in communications.
We encourage comments from our readers! That’s what advocacy is all about!
For further information about this blog go to the About page. For author biogs please go to the Contributing Advocates page.
Disclaimer
Everything posted in this blog represents personal opinion of the individual authors. It does not necessarily represent the views of Weber Shandwick or its clients.
The University of Arizona announced today Monday that it is forming an institute on Civility. The honorary chairmen of the National Institute for Civil Discourse will be former Presidents’ Bill Clinton and George W Bush. The director said they “would focus on political disagreements from the grass roots all the way to the top.”
An interesting 
We take social advocacy seriously. Our
Just read about employee advocates in a report (
The summer has been distracting with vacations and glorious hot days. Our postings have not been as frequent but we still muse about advocacy all the time. Thanks for your patience and followship.
Have you heard of the 
