Facebook's obvious disregard for stakeholders

Companies today seek to align their focus on all five of their stakeholders in order to position themselves for long-term competitive advantage.

Facebook, however, appears to be disinterested in stakeholder alignment.

You've already heard about, or have been involved in, Facebook's IPO debacle. Some fault for that fiasco rests outside of Facebook, but much of it rests inside. In mid-May, the stock was expected to trade at $38. It was higher than that for a short time on opening day but has been nowhere near $38 since. The stock has risen in the last two weeks, closing yesterday at $32.06, down 16% from IPO price. However, even as the stock trends upward, Facebook and its investment banks are being sued by dozens of shareholders who allege that financial forecasts for Facebook were cut prior to the IPO but the change was not publicized. 

Facebook contends it did nothing illegal with regard to changing its forecasts or how it announced the changes. Companies truly concerned with stakeholder alignment care when their stakeholders, including shareholders, are angry and feel cheated. Facebook has shown it does not care, as long as what it did was legal. Shareholders don't care much about the touchy-feely side of business, as long as they are making money. However, since they are obviously not making money, they will scrutinize (and sue!) Facebook until they are compensated and do not feel duped.

Duped investors are not the foundation of long-term success. 

On to the next action that shows Facebook's blatant disregard for its stakeholders...

Yesterday, Facebook changed its users/customers' email addresses to the ones Facebook created for them. In 2010, Facebook introduced its own email service but it was not widely used. Yesterday, without any notification to its users, Facebook changed users' profiles to have their Facebook-created-whether-you-want-it-or-not email address as the primary email on the account. They did not change the way they reach users, just the way users could reach each other.

Facebook's customers do not want another email account and they certainly do not want Facebook changing their accounts without notification. In response to the outrage yesterday, Facebook did not explain or even admit to altering the default account settings. Facebook has made similar changes to accounts without notification. They continue to show lack of respect for their customers.

What Facebook should recognize is: they need its stakeholders more than we need Facebook.

Investors can make money elsewhere and users can be in touch with friends on other sites, and most are. If Facebook continues to show disregard for its investors and users, two primary stakeholders, they will erode the trust necessary for long-term sustainability. If Facebook continues to dupe investors and users, another social site can take its place. Get ready, that's what is likely to happen.

Killing your customers is bad for business

Aftermath of the rental car crash in which two sisters died

More than two years ago, a story about two sisters killed because their Enterprise rental car had been recalled but had not been repaired was in the news. A jury awarded the girls' family $15 million. Enterprise, the nation's largest rental car company, suffered a brief blow to their public relations when the award was publicized but the death of the two girls did not prompt changes to rental car company practices.

They still rent and sell cars without fixing safety recalls. 

What kind of corporate culture exists within the rental companies that continue to rent unsafe cars? 

When companies are willing to risk the lives of their customers, the message is clear: your money is more valuable than your life. How long can companies who risk their customers' lives stay in business? How long will people continue doing business with companies that show such disrespect and lack of trustworthiness?

If they are willing to risk the lives of their customers, what do you think their internal corporate culture is like? It would be reasonable to infer lack of respect for employees is inherent in those cultures too.

This is an example of companies putting one stakeholder--investors--above the rest. Customers have died, yet significant changes have not taken place in the industry. 

There is something wrong with an industry that refuses to keep its customers safe. There is something wrong with companies who refuse to honor safety recalls until their customers find out about it. At some point, customer trust will be eroded beyond repair. Where will the industry be then? Which companies will remain?

Senator Boxer is asking the rental car companies to pledge "a permanent commitment to not rent out or sell any vehicles under safety recall until the defect has been remedied." Hertz agreed to sign the Senator's pledge but other companies have not. Enterprise has not, saying they already have such a practice in place (but it allows for the sale of unrepaired cars to be sold wholesale). No word yet on whether Avis or Dollar Thrifty will join the pledge.  (SOURCE: USAToday article)

Senator Boxer is drafting legislation to force the rental car companies to repair cars recalled for safety. That such legislation is needed is pitiful.

Customer lives don't matter to some of the companies, but their wallets do. 

What can you do?

1. Find out your rental car company's policy on safety recalls. If they do not honor the recalls, switch.
2. If your employer rents from one that does not honor recalls, switch. 
3. If you are responsible for your employer's selection of a rental car company, investigate this immediately. You may be inadvertently putting your coworkers at risk, and the company along with it. 
4. Spread the word about this issue to frequent traveling friends and colleagues. They might assume rental cars are repaired and would appreciate learning the truth.
5. If you work in one of the companies, address this internally. Assess the culture of distrust created and work to rebuild trust with your customers and employees. Realign the focus on all stakeholders, not just investors. Investors won't be happy when customers refuse to trust you, so realigning focus will benefit all stakeholders.

As an employee and customer, put your money where your trust is by showing the rental car companies that killing customers is bad for business.

If your company needs help with stakeholder alignment, please call Kelly Tyler. She will share a diagnostic tool to aid your effort and could save the company from losing customers, employees, and investors.

Wall Street's gibberish no longer tolerated

Wall Street companies who rely on public trust (and money!) better realize their acronyms, fancy words, and gibberish are no longer being tolerated. Their corporate cultures need to change.

The latest evidence that Wall Street corporate cultures are no longer being tolerated is the investigations and lawsuits launched after last week's Facebook IPO fiasco.

The public is interested to learn how Morgan Stanley made money off the deal by "short trades". The public is interested to learn how the banks involved kept lowered growth expectations from some investors, while at the same time promoting the stock to those same people. The public is interested to learn whether legal and ethical lines were crossed.

Facebook and Morgan Stanley are the latest companies facing scrutiny. Others include Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, which have been in the news for less than stellar reasons this year.

Gone are the days when high-powered men in suits could seemingly pat the public on the head and tell it to run along like a little child. The public wants answers and is not going to tolerate the patronizing arrogance of Wall Street any longer.

With so much money rolling in, why should Wall Street firms care what the public wants?

Because the public includes investors and customers.

The public includes the Baby Boom generation who wants to invest in companies they believe in and Gen Y who wants to work for companies they believe in. Also, the public is slowly starting to recognize the importance of long-term sustainability over a short-term snapshot. We're not impressed with one good quarter now and then. 

Narrowly skipping along the thin line of ethical behavior is not going to cut it for the public any longer.

The firms that align their behavior with all of their stakeholders, not just their stockholders, will not need to worry about the pressures from the public. They will speak in plain terms people understand because they don't need to hide behind gibberish.

Corporations walk their talk and kick leaders to the curb

Now that Values are openly displayed on web sites, touted in advertisements, and posted on walls throughout corporate America, discrepancies between Values and behavior are noticed. Lately, it seems corporations are taking notice of their values and are trying to behave consistently.

Whether they like it or not, the web sites, advertisements, and posters are prompting many companies to be All-In.

Consider three current examples:

1. JPMorgan Chase admitted late last week that it experienced a $2 billion loss caused by, in its own words, sloppiness and bad judgment.

One PR model often followed in similar embarrassing, costly circumstances is to deny, downplay, then barely acknowledge and reluctantly fire a few people (a la Goldman Sachs). In response to its exorbitant losses, 

JPMorgan Chase went public before news leaked nationwide, started the CEO apology tour quickly, and accepted resignations or fired people involved. Their behavior is interesting because their Values Statement reads:  Our values are reflected in the way that we conduct our business and in the first-class results that we consistently achieve for our clients.

2. Best Buy's CEO, Brian Dunn, resigned in April for undisclosed personal reasons (All-In blog post). The reasons were disclosed yesterday: he had an extremely close relationship with a female coworker, and it affected the workplace. In light of that disclosure, Best Buy's Chairman resigned yesterday because he knew about the relationship. On its web site, one of Best Buy's values is to "Show respect, humility and integrity." At least in the midst of disrespect and lack of integrity, the company is showing some of both this week.

3. Yahoo's CEO, Scott Thompson, was lambasted the ten days, including here, for lying on his resume for years. When the lie became public ten days ago, the former CEO downplayed the lie and only acknowledged the distraction it had become for the employees. However, others took the lie more seriously. The executive who led the hiring process of Thompson, who began work at Yahoo in January, was let go, along with others. Yahoo's values include: We are committed to winning with integrity.The CEO was not committed to the same thing, and he is out.

 Clearly, living by their internal values has been difficult, embarrassing, and humbling for JPMorgan Chase, Best Buy, and Yahoo. Even when they are not perfect, all of their stakeholders can see they are trying to behave the way their values determine. Now when the executives of those companies ask for first-class conduct, respect, and integrity, they are role models for their corporate culture because they are walking the talk, and web sited, advertisements, and posters

Sprint's Hesse makes a rare move

This blog called out Sprint's CEO, Dan Hesse, on March 27, 2012 for being overcompensated. As a former employee, current customer, and current stockholder, I was appalled at exorbitant Hesse's salary increase in light of the company's financial losses. Apparently I was not alone.

Yesterday, Mr. Hesse sent a letter to the company detailing that he will forgo $3.25 million over the next two years. In a startling move that made me gasp for air, he also is going to return nearly $350k received last year. The adjustments are related to the accounting of the iPhone. (For specifics, read the article in today's Kansas City Star.)

Congratulations, Mr. Hesse. I applaud you for listening to your shareholders and for doing the right thing for your employees as it relates to their bonuses. 

How a CEO's padded resume impacts its corporate culture

Late last night, it became public that Yahoo's CEO Scott Thompson padded his resume by claiming to have a Bachelor's degree in accounting and computer science from Stonehill College. Stonehill, a small Roman Catholic college in Massachusetts, also confirmed to CNNMoney that Thompson's only degree is in accounting. (SOURCE: CNNMONEY.COM)

The lie has been on Thompson's bio on Yahoo's site and on past employer's sites including Pay Pal and Ebay. It is a lie Thompson kept up for years, but let's assume none of the employers deliberately perpetuated his lie. 

Now that Yahoo knows about the lie, it's first response was something along the lines of, "Well, he's a great worker, so his degree doesn't matter. If he turns the company around, his degree won't matter."

First of all, it is highly doubtful they would have a similar response when finding out a project manager's resume included a lie of that nature.

Secondly, Yahoo is supposed to be an expert in searches, Considering they missed this big lie on their own CEO's resume, just how good are they at searches anyway? The company's failure to uncover the truth about their own CEO leads to a reasonable assumption that they are not good at what they do. 

Third, Yahoo has had internal issues and performance issues for a long time and this error, along with the response, is no surprise to anyone who follows the company. The company is hanging on by a thread and desperate times call for desperate measures (like not confirming easily whether a new executive is a liar).

Fourth, Yahoo missing the facts about Thompson's degree and the fact that he does not have a Computer Science education are less relevant today than the fact that he lied for years about it. Of course he's learned enough about computer science over the years to make up for the lack of degree in that area. And, perhaps it is reasonable for a major corporation not to verify degrees (although none I know of let that slide these days). What is intolerable is the lie and the perpetuation of the lie. If Yahoo overlooks the long-term lie, it sends the message that it's a company not to trust.

When a company makes an error like this and responds so cavalierly, its customers, investors, and employees notice. So far, the leaders are saying the lie is okay, and the message is being heard loud and clear by all of its stakeholders. The culture of distrust will make it even harder for Thompson to turn Yahoo around now.

(Article source:  Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson caught padding his resume)


What do you think? Does the lie matter?

Starbucks CEO takes the lead in stakeholder alignment

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, made news late last year when he instigated a ban of campaign donations in this $6 billion campaign year. More than 150 CEOs joined Schultz in declining to donate to incumbents during the current campaign year.

Now, Schultz is working to put Americans back to work. He was on the CBS morning show to give a glimpse of the new program and Starbucks's actions to create more jobs.

Schultz describes the Create Jobs for USA Fund, Starbucks internal job creation actions, and the impact of aligned stakeholder focus on investors. (Hint: it's good!)

Later today, Google Offers and Banana Republic revealed their efforts in the Create Jobs for USA Fund. Schultz may be one of the leaders on the forefront of the stakeholder alignment movement. Where are you and your company leaders on that front? 

CEO salaries should be related to performance, not Wall Street

It makes sense that the biggest paychecks would go to those who make the biggest decisions which impact the most people, especially when the decisions impact the long-term competitive position and viability of the company.

It does not make sense that those same decision-makers are rewarded gigantic raises ten times the regular employees' raises when the decisions result in 25% greater loss from one year to the next.

If an employee's performance yielded similar results, she would be fired. It does not make sense that CEOs with poor results get rewarded outlandish pay increases instead.

The latest was published in the Kansas City Star today with this headline: Sprint’s Hesse gets 31 percent pay boost as Overland Park carrier’s losses continue (article)

The article says Hesse's decisions led to a 25% bigger loss this year than last, and his decisions are not helping turn the company around. However, the stock price has gained 22% this year. It trades below $3. It shouldn't take much for it to get a 22% increase.

Is Hesse's raise tied to the stock price or to the company's overall performance?

It appears this is another example in which the CEO's performance is not measured or rewarded in the same manner as others'.

Why not? Furthermore, why would CEOs whose performance at one company fails be highly sought after at other companies? That makes no sense but it a topic for a different day.

Sprint is the largest private employer in Kansas City, so its CEO getting a significant raise makes news around town. So many people in the area have worked for Sprint, it almost always comes up in conversation. Sprint has laid off so many people over the years, they're one of the biggest causes of the regions growing entrepreneurs. They also are well known for their culture of mediocrity. In fact, the culture of mediocrity is so commonly known, some employers will not hire former Sprint employees because of it.

When the CEO's decisions have led to greater losses year after year, and no end is in sight, it is unreasonable to reward him. It is certainly unreasonable to reward him with millions of dollars while his fellow employees get no raises, layoffs, and bad reputations. Sure, Hesse won't have to work again, but if he wants to, he will land another highly lucrative gig. His Sprint coworkers, however, have difficulty landing great jobs in Kansas City because of the culture he fosters.

That is wrong and Hesse and his peers should have the integrity to hold themselves accountable for it.

Apparently, the only people who will hire employees with reputations of mediocrity and poor performance are Boards of Directors. If the CEOs and Boards won't hold themselves to a high standard of excellent performance, the employees and customers need to.

If Sprint were to cultivate a culture of integrity and excellence, Hesse could actually earn the salary and bonuses with integrity.

It is time for CEO pay to be aligned with company performance as it relates to all of its stakeholders, not just its stockholders. It is time for CEO pay to be based on results instead of short-term stock price fluctuations. It is time for CEO pay to be earned with integrity.

On a personal note...
I began my career with a division of Sprint, the publishing division. We published the phone directories, and, we loved it! The company made money, hired great people, grew at a reasonable pace, and fostered a culture of excellence. Many of us remain connected today, with annual reunions in the summer and around the holidays. I share that in the interest of full disclosure and also to show that not all Sprint is bad. Well, Sprint sold that division a while ago when it needed cash. But, it was great until then. I am a former employee who loved working for the division I was with, current customer who has had superb service, and stockholder who is unimpressed with a 22% increase.

_______________________
What do you think?
Are you ready for CEOs' pay to be tied to performance?

Has Google lost its credibility?

Google has been held up as the darling of corporate culture and employee engagement during the last five years, often to the point of annoying corporate leaders who can't install slides, fancy phone pods, and free cafeterias for their employees. Sure, they love their people as much as Google does, but without emulating Google, they felt like amateurs when it comes to employee engagement.

My company does not emphasize employee engagement over other stakeholders for that reason, among others.

Google, with their generous free time for brainstorming, time off for volunteering, on-site hair salon and daycare, attracted the best and brightest technically savvy employees as it grew. Now, the culture is different. They still have the premier perks, but they have been losing talented people.

Apparently their emphasis on employee engagement has veered. 

Was it overshadowed by emphasizing customers and customer service instead? According to agency investigations, no.

US and international agencies have been investigating Google for installing cookies on some customers' computers and phones, even when customers set the devices to block cookies. The Wall Street Journal contacted Google about the practice last month and reports that Google has now stopped it. (SOURCE:  Google in New Privacy Probes, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012)

Google went behind its customers backs to sneak access where they were not welcome. Clearly, they are not focused on customer relationships. It seems they are not focused on employee relationships any more either.

Has the advertising dollar taken over? Google is trading up at the moment, but unless it aligns its focus on all stakeholders instead of just one, investors, the stock will not remain where it is over the long-term.


_________________________________
What do you think?
Has Google lost its credibility?

The BBQ joint is doing something right

When customers enter Kansas City's Gates Bar-B-Que restaurants, they are greeted with a loud, "Hi, may I help you?" From behind the counter, employees holler their desire to help as soon as customers arrive, and they don't stop until the dining order is provided.

Honestly, it can be a little intimidating to new customers--in the way Starbucks orders are intimidating at first. It also can be annoying because the greetings ring loudly every time someone enters, so if you are dining, you can still hear it.

The goodness of the greeting far outweighs the negatives.

At least at Gates, customers know they are welcome. They know the employees are eager to take their order and prepare their meals. How often do you feel the opposite?

How often do you wonder if the employees are actually told to leave their brains at home and simply follow a procedure manual upon arrival at work? Many seem to have the attitude, "I'd love this job if it weren't for the customers!"

I'd rather hear, "Hi, may I help you?" a million times than feel like I'm annoying just by showing up.

When companies take care of their customers, we're likely to return. Thus, taking care of one stakeholder, the customer, benefits all stakeholders. Employees have jobs, suppliers get business, investors get a return, and local communities get a thriving contributor (hopefully).

The BBQ joint is doing something right alright: they are eager to please their customers with service, and their food is great too.

What do you think? Share your thoughts...