By Daniel Butcher
While many leaders of elite organizations pride themselves on their belief in class-blind meritocracy, many biases favor candidates from wealthy, upper-class backgrounds, undermines efforts to hire, retain, and promote the best and brightest professionals, regardless of how much privilege they come from.
That’s according to Academy of Management Scholar Sean Martin of the University of Virginia, who said that several notable research studies have shown that recruitment practices in elite firms prioritize applicants from wealthy families and that an applicants’ social-class background plays an important role in determining interview invitations.
While an ideal of capitalism is meritocracy (that individual effort and ability—not family lineage—is what matters most), research has found that hiring managers at high-paying organizations routinely discriminate based on candidates’ social class, favoring male applicants from higher-class backgrounds.
“There’s really great research by Lauren Rivera that showed that when people send out resumes that are largely the same but with just a couple of different cues here and there to indicate that one of these folks was from a higher-class background and one was from a lower-class background, the folks from a higher class background were more likely to be invited in for a job interview or to receive a response from these elite organizations, even though the lower-class candidates had achieved the same things and were just as qualified for the role,” Martin said.
“That creates this issue of inequity, in that people who’ve been on the up and up, who’ve traveled more distance to get to the same place as people who might have always been in a more privileged position are still meeting this filter that weeds them out,” he said. “That differential access to opportunity not only undercuts a lot of what national cultures espouse wanting to be, but also undercuts a lot of the values that leaders at the top of organizations claim to have of caring more about who can do the job well—they say, ‘We have a flat organization; we aren’t built on hierarchy.’
“These kinds of egalitarian ideals are often undercut by a biased recruitment trend, so, if you want people who are going to speak up and view things in a more communal, less narcissistic, self-oriented way, hire social climbers, as research shows that people who’ve been upwardly mobile tend to be less entitled than people who’ve always been in a privileged position—try to find out: what are some markers on people’s resumes that give you that evidence of upward mobility?”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Pay Transparency Can Push Reward Inequities Under the Table
By Daniel Butcher
Performance-based pay—including merit-based salary increases and bonuses—can be complicated by pay transparency rules that make the details known to coworkers, according to Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University.
A reaction to that can lead to pay compression—when wages for low-skilled or low-performing workers and wages for high-skilled or high-performing workers move closer together—or an increase in requests for deals with special perks, also called idiosyncratic deals or i-deals. I-deals are non-standard work arrangements that individual employees negotiate to get remote work or flexibility, training opportunities, special assignments, and even performance benchmarks that would trigger bonuses. I-deals are often used to reward high-performing candidates and employees who have specialized skills in the hopes of retaining them long-term.
“You can imagine, if you’re a star performer and your bonus or merit-based raise is lower than it’s been before, you’re likely to think about leaving that organization and going to work somewhere else—and that’s exactly what some economists have found, that where we have pay compression, the star performers actually pick up and leave,” Bamberger said. “I recently published a paper that also shows the same thing, that pay compression very quickly leads to star performers’ departure.”
So what can organizations’ leaders do?
“What we find is that employees don’t necessarily push for more money; they make their requests for other types of rewards, primarily benefits as part of what we call idiosyncratic deals, things like the number of days per week that they can work from home or the number of weeks per year that they can work from Hawaii,” Bamberger said. “There’s a large body of literature on i-deals in management, and they include various types of benefits packages.
“What we find using data from about 120 organizations in China is that where pay is more transparent, the differentials in the pay of higher and lower performers are more compressed,” he said. “Perhaps because such a situation could drive higher performers to look for alternative employment, when pay was more transparent, employers rewarded the higher performers in other, less observable ways using these idiosyncratic deals. If fact, higher performers asked for these types of deals, and in 50% of cases where they ask for it, they got it.
“What’s actually happening is that transparency is shifting the pay differential from where it can be seen, annual raises and bonuses, to those types of rewards where it’s not transparent, that is, idiosyncratic deals.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Two Factors that Determine Young Professionals’ Drinking Levels
By Daniel Butcher
Early-career professionals often drink as much alcohol as they did in college or even more after graduation, especially if they’re working in a sales role with a boss or mentor who drinks a lot, research shows. But young workers in roles that make them feel empowered and who are surrounded by supportive coworkers who tend to drink alcohol in moderation are more likely to deal with socialization and stress in healthy ways and avoid problem drinking.
That’s according to Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University, who said supportive peer relationships with abstainers or moderate drinkers can be influential, as can jobs that provide a higher level of psychological empowerment.
“A combination of the two—peer support and empowerment—make it so that people aren’t as stressed out by being given roles and tasks that they may not be able to handle, because underlying a lot of what’s involved with this drinking are two main motivations,” Bamberger said. “One is a normative social motivation to go out and drink to become socially integrated in their workplace.
“The second is a stress motivation: ‘This is how I coped with stress in college; I went out to drink, and now I do the same thing at work,’” he said. “One of the critical things that we show in our research studies is that if managers can find alternative ways of coping with stress, actually being proactive in terms of trying to address some of the stressors that newcomers face at work, like uncertainty, they may be able to speed up that maturing out process that can lead to reduced levels of alcohol consumption among early-career professionals.
“Support from peers and psychological empowerment were keys to success in that.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Binge Drinking Decreases After College, Right? Not So Fast…
By Daniel Butcher
Contrary to popular belief, university students don’t get drinking out of their systems during their college years before entering the workforce. Studies show drinking levels increase after graduation and peak in the mid-20s.
Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that especially for some client-facing roles such as sales, on-the-job pressures and social situations often lead to increased alcohol consumption among young professionals.
“The common perception is that people’s drinking is at its highest levels for young adults, at least when they’re in college, and then as soon as they get out of college, they take on employment; they start their career, and their drinking very quickly declines,” Bamberger said. “However, there’s been some indication already for the past 10 years that that may not be the case.
“In fact, the data on young adults shows that, particularly among college students and twenty-somethings, the peak levels of alcohol use and misuse are actually at around ages 25 and 26, and they’re continuously rising after graduation,” he said. “It’s not like people graduate from college and mature out of their drinking—the party continues.”
Bamberger and colleagues have studied different profiles of alcohol drinkers. Their research findings don’t always align with popular narratives about booze consumption.
“We’ve looked at how people drink alcoholic beverages, how frequently and when they drink, and there are certain patterns that are more problematic than others,” Bamberger said. “First of all, where individuals engage in heavy episodic drinking, like binge drinking, and they do it more frequently, and they do it not necessarily only on a weekend but during the week as well, that’s a very risky pattern.
“And then you have more in the middle of the range, moderate traits and patterns, and then you have patterns like only drinking socially or only on special occasions, and you have abstainers, but and most college students do drink—most are not abstainers,” he said.
“We have these three patterns among people who drink, and when we look at the likelihood of people shifting from a really risky pattern of heavy drinking to a more moderate pattern, or from a moderate pattern to light drinking, what we find is that these patterns are in fact rather sticky.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Young Heavy Drinkers in Non-STEM Jobs Earn More Money
By Daniel Butcher
There is no meaningful correlation between levels of alcohol consumption and compensation among early-career professionals working in roles focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). But heavy drinking is associated with higher pay for non-STEM professionals who are recent college graduates.
Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that he and colleagues have researched levels of alcohol consumption and compensation of STEM professionals versus those working in non-STEM fields.
“We were looking at the link between consumption patterns and income growth in the initial years of employment after graduating from college, and surprisingly, what we found is a positive relationship between drinking and income growth in non-STEM roles,” Bamberger said.
“The findings are actually capturing the dynamic that, if you’re not in a STEM job and you want to move up in the organization, you need to engage in these social practices that often revolve around alcohol, and the more you do that, the higher your growth in income is going to be,” he said.
That finding is—at least in part—tied to the prevalence of non-STEM professionals working in sales, marketing, distribution, customer-service, and business-development roles who routinely partake in adult beverages while meeting with clients and prospects.
“A lot of non-STEM people are engaging in marketing and sales and support in building and maintaining relationships with customers,” Bamberger said. “In STEM roles, they’re working in a lab or in front of a computer terminal coding, so there’s less of a role for alcohol as a basis for increasing your salary—drinking is not going to do a hell of a lot for your career if your role isn’t client-facing, right?
“But early-career non-STEM salespeople who drink on the job with clients may be more likely to get promoted and rewarded financially,” he said. “That was the logic behind the research, and that’s what we actually found.”
However, there’s an obvious caveat. Bamberger noted that recent research shows that daily alcohol intake—even in moderate amounts—increases drinkers’ risk of health issues.
“There have been a couple of studies that have come out recently that that directly contradict the line that’s been pushed a lot by a lot of the alcoholic-beverages companies, which is that having some wine with your meal every day is going to prolong your life—it’s healthy,” Bamberger said.
“You’re best off not drinking any alcohol whatsoever, not so much because of its implications on mental health, but rather largely because of its implications with respect to alcohol as a carcinogen, specifically as a leading cause of esophageal cancer,” he said.
“Many younger employees nowadays recognize the risks in drinking; a lot of young people are actually picking up on those problematic implications of drinking alcohol even at the lowest levels and understanding that health risk.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Sharing Info, Workloads, Positive Feeback Boosts Productivity
By Daniel Butcher
Leaders who can install processes for effective, timely information-sharing, fair workload distribution, and civil communication—including positive feedback—foster the best collaboration and productivity among team members.
Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that lackluster productivity is often a result of poor information-sharing and workload-sharing behaviors.
“Team processes are hard; people can’t always pick up the signals that they need to,” Bamberger said. “For example, if they have a piece of information that someone else needs, when should they pass it on to this other person? A nurse has a test result; when should she pass it on to the to the team leader or attending physician?
“If she passes it on too early, she’s going to disrupt what they’re doing, which clearly affects their performance, but if she passes it on too late, it could be deadly, so timing and synchrony of such tasks are crucial,” he said.
Incivility and rudeness also undermine productivity, while civility and kindness tend to boost it.
“In research on medical teams, we demonstrated that when people experience gratitude at work it can often, but not always, have beneficial implications,” Bamberger said. “A lot depends on the source of the gratitude and the nature of the task at hand.
“In one experiment, we had the three teams: a control condition, one that viewed a video before they started the day from a senior neonatologist talking about how grateful he is to everybody in the field for doing the wonderful work they do to save these babies, which had nothing in terms of a productivity boost, but then we had a third group where we had a mother of a preemie talk about how grateful she was to the medical team that saved her child, and that had massive positive effects,” he said.
“We demonstrate what that does to the team interaction through the implications based on a theory in cognitive science called [Fredrickson’s]broaden-and-build, which explains how positive emotions have beneficial effects on people’s ability to be flexible in their thinking, to absorb more information, and things like that.”
Bamberger and colleagues also demonstrate that the effects were much stronger when a mother expressed gratitude than when a senior colleague did.
Sharing positive customer feedback
Business leaders and managers can leverage these insights to improve their effectiveness.
“They can demonstrate gratitude themselves; it does make intuitive sense that if managers and leaders behave with civility and politeness, then that may set an example for the rank-and-file employees to do the same, but they can encourage customers and clients or patients to say ‘thank you’ directly,” Bamberger said. “If you like the way a flight attendant treated you on a flight, you’re supposed to write the company, but what if you were actually put in direct contact with the flight attendant and were able to express the gratitude directly?
“Our evidence suggests that that’s going to have a much stronger effect than a manager saying, ‘You got three positive letters this week,’” he said. “Setting up systems for customers to directly express positive feedback has the potential to significantly boost employee morale and performance.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Rudeness Doesn’t Motivate Workers—Quite the Opposite
By Daniel Butcher
Some business leaders and managers resort to barbs or even shouting to motivate staff members, but research shows that a coercive leadership style is counterproductive. In fact, civility leads to improved team cohesion and performance, while rudeness hurts workers’ performance.
Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that several research papers on the subject explore the implications that emotion-laden events in organizations have on interpersonal relations and team dynamics. In a nutshell, rudeness creates a huge distraction that undermines productivity.
“For example, why can’t you text and drive at the same time? When you’re driving, the reason you don’t text is because—aside from it being against the law—you’re distracted,” Bamberger said. “It’s a complex process to text—it takes your attention, so you have limited cognitive resources, and driving is also complex.
“Whatever goes to the texting is not available for driving, and the result could be death,” he said.
What’s the connection between texting while driving and leadership style, as well as interactions between coworkers? Rudeness and even mild incivility are actually highly emotional events that occur frequently in the workplace.
“Many, many employees experience rudeness at work, and it’s rather ambiguous,” Bamberger said. “It’s not like being bullied or attacked physically, but in response to rudeness, you’ve got to try to figure out what is threatening to some degree, but you don’t know how threatening it is.
“And precisely because of that, and largely unconsciously, your brain is engaging and trying to determine the degree of threat,” he said. “That’s not a mindset that’s conducive to analysis, attention to detail, or any type of thought-demanding work.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Help Employees Enter Training with a Motivated Mindset
By Daniel Butcher
For employee training sessions to be effective, it’s crucial for employees to be briefed on the objectives and the benefits of actively participating with a positive mindset.
Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that before scheduling an employee training session, leaders should think through the pre-training process carefully.
“Usually, in the pre-training environment, employees get something that says, ‘You have to go through training,’ but it doesn’t tell them why they’re going through it, how to prepare for it, or how it’s going to help them and make them more effective employees,” Quinetta said.
“That really is important for people’s motivation to learn, to be able to say, ‘This training is going to be valuable to you; if you’re going to take four hours out of your busy day, this is how that’s going to benefit you—here are the benefits that you’re going to realize,’” she said.
“At least say, ‘There are the learning goals; here are some things you should get out of this training,’ because then they start to focus a bit more on what they should be getting out of this four-hour training period, or whatever the time period may be.”
It’s a best practice to let employees know that their lack of knowledge of a particular subject won’t be held against them, and that they should feel free to speak their minds and make mistakes. Make it clear that leaders don’t expect perfection but do want employees to participate actively and seek opportunities for learning.
“In the training event itself, we give certain suggestions for how to make the training more engaging, reflective, and useful to people; for example, a lot of training does not allow mistakes or errors,” Roberson said. “For one organization, all employees were required to go through online sexual harassment training , and in the post-training assessment if you push the wrong thing, it just says, ‘No, that’s wrong,’ and it just allowed people to get through the training as long as they got whatever percentage correct that they needed in order for the organization to be compliant.
“But instead, why not experiment with behaviors give participants an opportunity to experiment with different scenarios and ask, ‘How would you address this scenario?’ and let them have a safe space to actually wrestle with that?” she said. “Because then when they get out into the real world, they feel confident that whatever situations arrive, they’re able to deal with them.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Can Performance Be Managed Upward?
By Daniel Butcher
Employees evaluating managers’ performance, not just vice versa, also can benefit organizations.
That’s according to Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of at the George Washington University School of Business and author of Performance Management for Dummies, who cited Dell Inc., where everyone—from entry-level employees to the top management team—completes an annual employee engagement survey called “Tell Dell” with questions about performance and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Dell leaders use the survey data to hold personnel—including leaders—accountable.
“Before they get promoted upward, every Dell manager needs to have really good ratings from their subordinates or direct reports, so it’s not just the supervisor evaluating the performance of their employees, but also the employees evaluating the performance of leadership and their supervisors—it goes both ways, upward and downward,” Aguinis said.
An even more extreme experiment in a new way to do performance management is “radical transparency,” which Ray Dalio, founder of hedge fund giant Bridgewater Associates, initiated more than three decades ago. He’d been looking for ways to improve the company’s performance and establish a culture of openness and independent thought. The organization has encouraged employees to review their direct manager or supervisor and even senior executives honestly, even harshly—real-time performance evaluations often deliver “radical truth.”
While Dalio found success with this approach, it’s not for everyone, as it can ruffle feathers and make people uncomfortable. Radical transparency means that leaders—and everyone else at the company—open themselves up to oversight and critiques. They must have thick skin and open minds to listen with humility to the feedback that lower-ranking employees give them and respond to it in ways that are productive, without getting defensive or seeking retribution. They also have to deliver brutally honest feedback to their direct reports in ways that improve their performance and morale rather than discouraging them.
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Seven Steps to Improve Staff’s Time-Management Skills
By Daniel Butcher
Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington University School of Business, one of the most influential management researchers, said that performance management—when organizations’ managers and leaders do it properly—is critical for organizations because it drives decisions about who gets a bonus, who gets promoted, who gets demoted, and who gets transferred or cut. He offered the following tips for business leaders to help build “time management-friendly” organizational cultures:
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Prioritizing Social Missions Can Boost Profits
By Daniel Butcher
Social enterprises, companies started to achieve profits through social and environmental goals, offer companies an incubator in complex decision-making.
Corporate leaders experience ongoing tensions between the financial and social/environmental goals, framing these opposing pressures as an ongoing trade off. But Academy of Management Scholar Wendy Smith of the University of Delaware noted that such tradeoffs are “limited at best and detrimental at worst.” Her research on social enterprises offers an alternative. Leaders can draw on these tensions to enable strategic novelty, complexity, and creativity.
For example, Smith studied Digital Divide Data (DDD), a high-tech digitization company that seeks to stop the cycle of poverty through jobs and training. With offices in Cambodia, Laos, and Kenya, as well as across the United States, this successful 25-year-old company has improved the lives of more than 7,000 people.
“DDD continues to be a model social enterprise achieving a social mission through business means. They hire people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, train them, provide them with jobs and enable them to earn multiple times the national average,” Smith said. “When DDD started, they were so committed to their social mission that they almost went financially bankrupt.
“Their board of directors helped to bring them back; directors included people who had a real financial background as well as people with a development-aid background, so that they could lean into both and make sure they weren’t going too far out of bounds,” she said. “Some organizations err in saying, ‘We’re so committed to the social mission that we have no money,’ while others say, ‘We’re so committed to the financial bottom line that we’re not achieving our mission or we’re not helping enough people and making the positive social impact that we want to.’ Over time DDD learned to avoid that either/or trap.
“[Cofounder and CEO] Jeremy Hockenstein reframed their core strategic questions. Instead of asking whether they should focus on the social mission or the bottom line, they asked how they could achieve both goals.”
Doing so did require making difficult decisions. However, Smith notes that these decisions are micro-oscillations or what she calls being consistently inconsistent. Leaders make a commitment to achieve multiple, competing goals over time, yet make small tweaks to how they allocate their resources and organize their team.
For example, as Smith described, DDD leadership team would sometimes make decisions that were benefit their social mission, and sometimes making decisions that would benefit their financial bottom line, but they weren’t overextending to one extreme to the point that they would completely lose sight of the other.
“Such oscillating decision-making is like walking a tightrope,” Smith said. “The tightrope-walker is never fully balanced but rather constantly making small tweaks to balance over time.
“However, they are not falling too far to either side that they fall off the tightrope,” she said.
To avoid making decisions that went too far in either direction, Smith’s research found that DDD held clear guardrails. They had roles, goals, and external stakeholder relationships that ensured that they did not get too focused on either the bottom line or the social mission to the detriment of the other. DDD’s leadership practices offer insights for corporate leaders to navigate complex, competing strategies in their businesses.
“DDD leaders made strategic decisions, but with clear guardrails or boundaries so that they didn’t go too far out of bounds,” Smith said. “Having these guardrails in place help them to keep on track with both their social mission and their business goals to enable this kind of ongoing experimentation and change that they needed to be able to be paradoxical in their thinking—lean away from either/or decision making and into the both/and mindset.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts