“The guy was too authentic to do his job!”
The employee in question worked for an organization that created “lifestyle” products for the action sports market. He worked as an editor and was responsible for updating the organization’s website every morning.
The organization positioned itself as having authentic insight into the action sports community, because its employees actively participated in the sports’ community and had personal relationships with many high-profile athletes. The organization liked to compare itself to big conglomerates (like Nike) who would swoop in to sell their products but who were not authentically part of the world of action sports.
One Monday, the employee’s manager tried to contact him to solve an immediate problem. The manager finally heard from the employee several hours later. The employee told him that he had decided to go on a week-long trip with some high-profile skaters.
A week-long skating trip? He hadn’t noted this as vacation time, and he hadn’t told anyone in advance that he would be gone. Moreover, while the employee claimed he could continue to get his work done while he was away skating, this wasn’t realistic. His job really did require full-time attention.
What was going on here?
From the manager’s perspective, the employee was just not doing his job. He was off having fun on company time, at a cost to the organization’s daily operation. But, the employee believed he was acting in a way that reflected skateboard culture — keeping it loose, keeping it real, and keeping on skating. He’d just gone off when the opportunity presented itself. He knew he’d have a great time, that he’d learn a new trick or two, and most importantly that he would develop his relationships with these celebrity skaters.
Was the employee doing his job, or not?
Certainly, the organization benefited from the employee’s personal relationships with celebrity skaters and from the fact that he (as well as several other employees) were active participants in the community. The relationships gave employees (and thus the organization) access to the celebrities. And, the employees’ visible participation in the skating community lent the organization “street cred”.
The employees activities were a key source of the organization’s authenticity.
What’s more, employees’ participation allowed them to see new trends, to get product ideas, and to interact with influential members of the community. Instead of hiring fancy anthropologists or market researchers, the organization was relying on the first hand knowledge of the employee-participants themselves. It was drawing its authenticity from employees’ personal relationships, personal credibility and personal expertise.
Connecting to the user community through employees can be an effective strategy for staying authentic, but… When the authenticity of the organization relies on its employees’ voluntary participation in a non-work community, the organization’s links to the community will be intermittent, serendipitous, accidental, and unpredictable. The organization’s link to the source of its authenticity is vulnerable.
Organizations have to structure this interaction intentionally. They have to make participating in the user community part of their employees’ jobs, they have to compensate employees for participating, and they have to sustain a balance between community activities and the day to day business of the organization. This needs to be accomplished not by accident but by design.
The organization should structure these authenticating activities into employees’ jobs and into the design of the organization itself. For example, the organization could:
- Sponsor employees to participate in community activities
- Sponsor events where the community shares information with the organization
- Create roles through which community members could occasionally contribute ideas to the organization (e.g., advisory boards, product testers, creative contests)
- Join with the community on a joint project that benefits a shared interest.
When these activities are part of employees’ official jobs, the organization not only protects but also enables its authentic connection to the community.
Designing in these activities solves an additional problem of potentially exploiting their employees. Now, instead of taking advantage of the expertise and relationships that employees developed in their free, non-work time, the organization recognizes, supports and compensates employees for the authenticity-related work that they do.
For organizations who draw their authenticity from a connection with and participation in any kind of outside community, there will always be tensions between being part of the community and part of a (business) organization that serves that community. The more aware an organization is of these tensions, the more they can structure in whatever activities they and their employees need to remain authentic. This way, their connection to the source of their authenticity is more reliable, more consistent, and yes, more authentic.
I am an organizational identity and reputation scholar with a PhD in leadership & organizations. I research, write, teach and consult with organizations about the relationships between organizational identity, actions, and purpose. See the 
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
It depends on the industry but I think there is genuine credibility to a company whose employees participate in the activities which their compnay makes products for. My favorite job ever was my first full time job out of college. I worked in a bicycle store. I had rode on my college cycling team. All the employees in the store rode some kind of bicycle on a regular basis. We organized a variety of community rides. When customers came into the store we often helped them plan how to use their purchase rather early in their buying process and we could better focus on how to give them what they needed to be happy, becaue we understood from our own experiences. I think this idea applies to a lot more than bicycles.
Involving employees in “authenticating activities” is a great way to demonstrate the company’s belief in their products / services. The company can balance the tension of allowing employees being part of the business and being part of the community by setting boundaries. Google, for example, is known as an innovative company. It allocates 20% of its employees’ work time in research and development. This explicit policy differentiates itself from other companies by 1) demonstrating to the community that it is committed in innovation and 2) setting guidelines for employees to follow. Setting boundaries to these authenticating activities creates a win/win situation for both the company and the employee.
I think for “counter-culture” companies – who want to foster an anti-corporate image – the best solution is to keep touch with the market through sponsorships instead of relying on thier own internal employees to identify the trends. Like the old saying – the drug dealer who is addicted to thier own product will soon be out of business. Trying to sell an anti-corporate lifestyle will eventually fail if you are dependant on anti-corporate empoyees.
I completely agree that this can work well with a few simple boundaries, and if the company has a specific structure for utilizing that authenticity. In this case, let’s say that the company did ’sponsor’ or endorse the trip, how do they measure what knowledge, or benefit the company received from that activity? Perhaps by new endorsements received, by the website content itself, or maybe even customer response. Benefits can certainly be gained, but let’s make sure we know when, and if, they are gained.
I disagree with Chris. When you are a “counter culture” company, you are going to have to develop credibility within the target community through your employees, as they are the face of the company. Relying on coperate sponsorships to maintain contact with the market will not develop the credibility needed to be taken seriously in the community.
It would be as if Nike suddenly tried to start selling surf boards and said “Hey, try our boards. No one at our company actually surfs but we’re sponsoring a lot of high profile surfing events . What? What do you mean you are not suppose to wear a suit at the beach? This is how we rock it in the Hamptons.”
For a company that is highly depended its credibilty with the community, as in the example above, the organization is going to have to develop set of guidelines that will allow their employees to taken advantage of oportunities as they happen and still be able to function as a responsible member of the company.
Being an active and visible participant in one’s industry and / or field of study is a critical component in understanding and engaging with the end user’s of one’s product or service. This is certainly the most critical part of my role as a media relations manager as I liaise on a daily basis with key trade and business reporters and other stakeholders about the products , services and capabilities of my organization. Active engagement and participation lends credibility to not only your authenticity as an individual but also as an authentic ambassador of your company or organization. For example, participating in certain organizations that are in one’s field of practice (i.e. program management, financial planning or business communications) or relevant to a particular skill (i.e. civil engineering or radio broadcasting) helps to lend additional creditability to individuals by further developing those skills and becoming a more “authentic” practitioner. I am sure many organizations and companies, like my own, foster these relationships by not only building the relationship component with reporters and key stakeholders into my particular job scope but also providing opportunities through sponsorship and other activities such as trade shows where I can socialize with my key customers (journalists) in a professional, yet more laid back setting. Importantly, there are guidelines in place to ensure we maintain our company’s robust ethical standards (e.g. limits on meals and entertaining, etc.)
Being authentic doesn’t mean losing your own sensibility, identity or sense of “what’s right”. The company is responsible for the systems/activities it creates and sponsors and ultimately the boundaries that surround “authenticating” actions. But, employees should be thoughtful of perceptions that may be created as a result of their activities – both within and outside the company. Ultimately, we are individuals making choices…. hopefully sound choices.
We struggle with being authentic and true to the customer within the Recoveries Department at Capital One everyday. In some cases, we even struggle with calling our charged off debtors “customers” as their debt has been written off and their cards have been deactivated. However, it is our duty to ensure that the customer is still treated fairly in Recoveries and that we attempt to recoup our losses in a reputable, authentic fashion.
I think it is great to be active in the community with potential and current customers; however, I think it has to be planned. A company needs to be in control of its image and its connections and you cannot have a rogue employee out doing things of which you are not aware. I am not stating however that the employee cannot have freedome to make certain decisions while networking – they should but they should also ensure that they keep their employer in the loop of their where abouts and intentions.
Many healthcare organizations will have their physicians and other ancillary staff give informational talks to the public on basic subjects (e.g., diabetes, “knee surgery,” etc.) (examples from Inova are here: http://www.inova.org/health-info-and-classes/pdfs/healthsource-calendar.pdf). As the article recommends, it gives explicit organizational approval to an activity that appears to be only indirectly supportive of the business.
I wonder, however, if this dynamic is highly industry-dependent. How would employees from Bain tangibly express authenticity? Or Ernst + Young? Or State Farm (without simply being everybody’s “good neighbor”?
As I go down the list I’m beginning to see a middle ground that I’m comfortable with… as long as the employee is being responsible with regards to making a decision per what role they have to perform within the company. There is a difference b/t “my company pays for me skate-boarding, how sweet is that?” and “I’m going skate-boarding not only b/c I enjoy it, but also because my job is to identify trends, gather market research, and talk / learn from the target audience, etc.”
With the example at the start of the article – it’s got to judged on a person-by-person basis, and how seriously they’re taking their job. At the very least, the manager should be laying out guard-rails to define what’s acceptable and not acceptable at the beginning (example – “you need to let me know if you’re not coming into work, and why.”)
My company has always done a fantastic job of reaching out the community around our headquarters. In recent years, we have seen the benefit of reaching out to the communities surrounding the hospitals we service. Of interest to me is the underserved communities in DC and Baltimore. We have conducted outreach programs to promote EF (Ejection Fraction) and SCA (Sudden Cardiac Arrest) awareness in predominately African American and Hispanic communities. This effort promoted awarness and also engaged many of our minority employees on a deeper, more personal level.
I agree with Tamica that involvement does need to be planned. The problems seem to occur when the culture you are attempting to integrate is inherently unplanned. Planning community service activities and events is nice, but my guess is the firm will remain one-step-removed from the core culture, which in the case of skating, for example, is probably inherently more organic and spontaneous.
Involving in comunity activties leads to know more about your customers depends upon your line of business. For example I am working for DHS or government as a consultant. I am not sure how my involvement in community activities help my consulting company.
As a small business owner, I struggle with limiting my market based on my own areas of expertise. As a former fighter pilot, many potential clients take on stereo-typical views of what I am, and what my company will be like. Encouraging a broader view about this has been a struggle – trying to take the good of the stereo-type while leaving out the bad.
At the same time, I try to align my charitable works, like Lori, with my customers and my own background – disabled veterans. I really feel like this helps to articulate to my employees and customers who we desire to serve. Moreover, this helps provide emotional background to our mission.
My project thesis in my undergrad program (Environmental Engineering) in India, required me to identify the “Diseases related to solid waste handling”. To fulfill my endeavor, I decided to spend an entire day with a few “Pourakarmikas” or Solid Waste Handles. This included starting work after several shots of the Indian equivalent of “Moonshine” – “Packet” or “arrack” as they called it. My thesis concluded that the nature of solid waste handling had more far reaching emotional, social and health impacts. The authentic insight was not only troubling but helped my project be recognized by my school. Authentic insight is very useful but is available at a price. In my case it resulted in poor attendance and performance in some other subjects.