How can your organization claim to be making the world better, when your business model depends on making the world worse?

This question about corporate social responsibility efforts has bugged me for decades — pretty much since I learned what capitalism was.

The question came up again for me Tuesday during the conversation at the hopping Social Media Week 11 NYC event Let Them Eat Tweets: Online Organizing for Real World Change. The conversation centered on the panelists’ experiences with using social media (and online engagement in general) to influence offline/real world behavior towards change.

The conversation didn’t conclude with a definitive answer, and I’ve found no third position between pragmatism and idealism. But I do have a new perspective on the problem/solution that is somewhat comforting, that I want to share and get your thoughts on.

“Social Change” can be driven by many players — not all of them are players with a simple, inherently positive impact on the world.

In an ideal world, no organization would create more damage than it could correct, use more resources than it could renew, or influence the world in anything but a net positive way. In an ideal world, organizations would not feel the conflict between the business they are in and the social good they want to support in the world.

In the real world, we find many organizations taking from society with one hand, and giving back to society with the other. [Note that not all organizations in this position are for-profit businesses. However...] Many corporations have this kind of relationship between their business and their corporate social responsibility efforts. When your organization is in this position, it has a rather compromised role in social change.

The Let Them Eat Tweets panel had representatives from five very kinds of organizations, each with its own change agency role. The panelists included a social media-for-good consulting firm principle, a political performance artist, a non-profit’s social media marketer, a corporation’s public relations/outreach manager, and a global governmental communications/public affairs director.

Each of the panelists had a different perspective on the value of corporate involvement in social change– seeing corporations as clients, as enemies, as funder-philanthropists, as direct and positive forces, and as one of many partners in a global effort. The audience participants also ranged from pro-corporate to anti-business, with some of us straddling that divide on a daily basis.

Raising the Challenge

A participant challenged the corporate representative, from MTV, with a sincere question (which I paraphrase):

How could MTV, a corporation that thrived on increasing consumerism, superficial celebrity, hyper-sexualization, etc. claim to be doing any real ‘good’ in the world with their social media campaigns against relationship violence, sexually-transmitted diseases testing, and rocking the vote?

In essence the participant asked– How can you claim to be making the world better, when your business model depends on making the world worse?

That’s the kind of question that usually either stops the conversation dead or starts a fight. The participant audience moved to take sides, but the MTV representative stepped in to keep the conversation open. He acknowledged the participant’s position as one worth discussing and not dismissing, and he asked the participant to consider whether his characterization (taken perhaps at one moment in time, or built on a simplified perception of the organization) really reflected “the richness of MTVs programming and activism”. So far, so good. He went on to explain that MTV was really making a difference — a measurable difference — in young adults’ social behavior. MTV’s social media-based change initiatives were achieving real results. MTV was using online social media to influence offline behavior for social good.

I’m not quite sure what was said next, because I got too busy writing down my own thoughts. [You can watch the session online here.] I have so ‘been there’ myself, asking organization members how they can reconcile the damage they do in and with their businesses with the contributions they make, and how they can tip the balance towards the positive side.

We believe that the best kinds of CSR are related to the identity of the organization – Good CSR extends the values of the organization, benefits from the organization’s core competencies, and/or supports and serves the organization’s customers. This is CSR that is “aligned” and “authentic”.

We also wish that want organizations to just focus their CSR on cleaning up the problems that they themselves create. Sometimes, corporations  can and will blend CSR and ‘process improvement’ because it ultimately helps the bottom line. Then, it’s a win-win-win. The CSR fixes the system so that the damage that the organization itself creates is reduced, or eliminated. This is efficient, sensible, and ideal.

Most of the time, though, we can’t get organizations to do this, and we don’t really try to. We don’t think we can convince corporations to promote social change that directly conflicts with their business model. We’re pragmatic.

Really, who are we kidding to think that oil companies will help us reduce our dependence on oil?

If we put all our energies towards trying to get corporations to bite the hands they feed on, change will take a really long time, because so few organizations will be willing to do this. So, with regard to MTV, as long as Viacom’s business is sustained by advertising, we’re unlikely to get a senior employee of MTV to decide to put MTV’s CSR efforts into reducing consumerism.

Does that mean that MTV’s efforts are hypocritical? Or inauthentic? Or worthy of our disdain?

I don’t think an organization’s efforts are hypocritical, even when they focus on fixing problems they aren’t causing, if they are fixing problems where they can uniquely make a difference.

In this particular case, MTV has the voice, the attention, the engagement, and the tools to reach their audience and to influence their audiences’ behavior. And, in this case, the corporation is using these capacities for good.

I don’t think an organization’s efforts are inauthentic, even when they focus on fixing problems they aren’t causing, if they are addressing the same social issues inside their organization as they are outside with their audience.

At MTV, for example, their CSR could be authentic if they held employee workshops on cyberbullying. And, MTV could send employees information about sexual health, encourage everyone to get tested for STDs, and give them everyone who earned one a Foursquare badge.

[I didn't get details from the MTV rep, but he did tell me that they push their initiatives inside MTV to their own employees as well as to their audience.]

Anticipating the mention of “the real world” and the value of a pragmatic approach, the audience participant quoted Henry David Thoreau:

For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.

That’s a powerful image, and it does describe the real world ratio of pragmatic/incremental vs. idealistic/profound social change approaches. We know that striking at the root is more efficient, and if we could get every organization to change its business model to eliminate the damage that it causes, we’d do that.

At the same time, though, I’ve spent enough time in my garden to know that if you hack away at the leaves of an invasive plant for long enough, with purpose, intention and precision, you can eventually kill it prune it into a size and shape that adds to the garden rather than damages the garden.

Pragmatic can seem boring. Mine isn’t a very heroic image, all of us out there with our hedge clippers whacking away at invasive branches. But pragmatic action, purposeful, deliberate and precise, actually can — and will– make a difference.

See also:
Authentic CSR: Should Dawn publicize its involvement in Oiled Bird Rescue?
Balancing Profit and Purpose at Whole Foods: Red Fish Blue Fish
When Will “Social Business” Become Social Change Business?
MAC’s Apology for Juarez Makeup Line: Effective and Authentic
Want Authenticity? Design Homophobia Out of the Organization

[One of the special joys of blogging and tweeting about progressive movements in organizations and leadership is the relationships we make as we find kindred souls. These kindred souls are often tucked into niches other than our own, but because their approaches share the our fundamental values and because they are working with a shared purpose, we discover them as allies and friends.

Fran Melmed, who writes the blog free-range [communication], is one of those kindred souls. In one of our econversations about work+life+meaning, striving to be authentic to our full selves, and making a difference in the world, Fran offered to put pen to paper to try and capture that acute set of contradictions. I’m delighted to share it with you all as a guest post from Fran.]

The Stress of Not Having It All

Welcome to my confessional: I’m feeling the stress of not having it all.

What should be amusing about this is that I don’t even believe in the notion of having it all. But let me tell you, I’m not amused. I know that I don’t have it. And I want it.

A little background

About two years ago, my kids hit their tweens and were no longer the suction cups they once were. At the same time, I began hitting my stride in my chosen line of work: helping companies better engage their employees and their families in healthier living. Should be cause for celebration, right? Wahoo! My kids are growing up; they don’t need me. Away I go, soaring ever higher into the never-never land of wondrous, satisfying work.

Not so fast. Many moons ago, I made the personal decision to contain my career while I had kids in the house. (It’s based on my emotional baggage, to be sure, so don’t take this as my way of saying my choice is the choice.) When I became a mother while working at Hewitt, I worked part-time and then full-time, but flextime. When I left Hewitt, I started my own company to maintain, if not expand, the work-life balance Hewitt so generously supported.

I’m ready. Depression.*

And it’s wonderful. I have all that I want…except. Except for the ambitious, competitive and adventurous career side of me that aspires to growing my independent consulting firm tenfold. To implanting myself on the speaker circuit. Or taking that tantalizing mega-job at a start-up that’s nailing health engagement. Of my own choosing, these exciting paths beckon but are barred. I can’t have it all.

And so I feel like a part of me is untended and underdeveloped. I feel torn and stressed. And sometimes angry. After speaking with several friends, I realized I’m not alone. Our backgrounds and our choices may differ, as does what we’re missing or pining for. But to a person, we all felt the frustration of not having it all.

A false choice

Generally speaking, the notion of having it all is something women have embraced because for too long we couldn’t even have what we wanted, let alone it all. Perhaps, initially, having it all meant having the right to choose, as would have benefited my mother, who was told by her father that he’d financially support only nursing or education studies—studies suitable for a woman destined for marriage. With time, having it all became the Holy Grail, and just as elusive and mystical.

I think it’s time women recognize that we’re never going to have it all. We’re not going to have it all if we do fewer dishes. We’re not going to have it all when men wipe more babies’ bottoms than we do. And we’re not going to have it all when we storm the C-suite, like they stormed the Bastille, and rout the place.

I think it’s time men recognize that they, too, are never going to have it all. Not when a man pushing a baby in a swing at the neighborhood playground gathers no accolades. Not when more companies “man up” and supply paternity leave, either.

None of us—men or women—are going to have it all. Because we can’t. The entire concept is a farce—a snow job.

Is it the terminology or the elusiveness?

Every one of us has to make decisions that deny us elsewhere. Sometimes we’re forced to. Sometimes we choose to. Every one of us longs to have it all. Most of us know that it’s an impossibility. So, why does having it all have such a stranglehold on our consciousness?

Since communication is what I do, I can’t help but examine whether it’s the terminology. Are we stressed by the choice of words: “have it all”? Does our continued use of the phrase lead us to believe it is, in fact, possible and we’re the only ones who haven’t cracked the code? Or is the allure of having it all so strong that it blinds our reasoning?

And because employee health is what I encourage, I have to ask how not having it all plays into our work performance, our feelings of engagement and our health?

I’m left with more questions than answers.

Notes:
* If you saw The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, this phrase needs no explanation. If not, watch this.
You might also enjoy this post by Fran: no predictions, no resolutions. only courage.
See also: Work-Life Initiatives Are the Foundation of Authentic Organizations

Images: Blue + green from dichohecho , photo11_7A – Green + Blue from dichohecho, Green and blue from Raoul Pop

There are apologies that are superficial and apologies that reflect genuine remorse.  There are apologies that demonstrate regret and apologies that initiate restitution.

And then, there is the apology that MAC Cosmetics has offered for its offensive Juarez Makeup Collection.

[Note, added later: Be *sure* to read the followup post:  MAC’s Apology for Juarez Makeup Line: Effective and Authentic]

I fear that MAC’s is only a cosmetic apology, one that fails to demonstrate an understanding of what went wrong, and fails to take real initiative to turn the situation towards something good.

MAC’s apology may represent fauxial awareness, not genuine social awareness.

A quick recap of the MAC – Rodarte – Juarez Situation:

MAC Cosmetics has teamed up with the tiny fashion house Rodarte to create and release a makeup collection to coordinate with Rodarte’s fall fashion line. Rodarte (otherwise known as the two Mulleavy Sisters) took their inspiration for this collection from the bleak physical landscape of the Mexican city of Juarez.

Interestingly, Juarez is not a town known for its physical beauty, but for its epic levels of misogynist violence against women.

How could any company considered to be socially aware do something so dumb?

To assess this, I’m looking not only at the way MAC has managed this Juarez situation, but also MAC’s larger history and reputation of corporate social awareness.

MAC Cosmetic’s Social Awareness

MAC has always been kind of a CSA darling in the fashion world. MAC was one of the first cosmetics companies to establish a recycling program (Back to M-A-C), to assure cruelty-free products, to openly embrace racial, age and gender diversity, and, it must be said, the first company to use African American drag queen as a spokesmodel.

MAC is probably best know for its pioneering role in supporting HIV/AIDS education and services. Support for HIV/AIDS programs was initiated by the company’s founders, and institutionalized in 1994, when the company established The M·A·C AIDS Fund, “the heart and soul of M·A·C Cosmetics. To date, MAC has raised $139 million (U.S.) exclusively through the sale of M·A·C’s VIVA GLAM lipstick and lipgloss, donating 100 percent of the sale price to fight HIV/AIDS.”

MAC has rightly earned tremendous goodwill for what is certainly an authentic commitment to HIV/AIDS. Now, though, I’m wondering if MAC has gotten perhaps too much credit for overall social awareness, and has been coasting on this positive reputation rather than remaining mindful of its relationship to social issues. I’m concerned that, MAC might have become, not socially aware, but fauxially aware.

Fauxial Awareness®

Faux-ial Awareness (fo-shall) is the social equivalent of greenwashing.

[Please note: in response to Stowe Boyd pointing out that this joke is easy to miss, let me be clear that I'm not actually trying to trademark the term. I would, though, like people to remember the concept and be aware when organizations engage in this kind of deception. Thanks @StoweBoyd for the heads up.  11.30.10]

Organizations are fauxially aware when they have superficial campaigns to address social issues but demonstrate in their behavior that they are totally blind to the complexities and realities of these issues.

If MAC were truly a socially aware company, they would not have made the mistake of naming a new makeup collection after the city where over 500 women have been murdered, the most violent city outside of a war zone. Somebody, somewhere in the organization, would have recognized that connecting beauty products to a town defined by violence was not hip, not cool, and beyond a bad idea. Somebody would have recognized how profoundly this choice would offend MAC’s core customers — women.

It may be that MAC’s attention to HIV/AIDS has kept it from paying attention to other social issues. Their lack of awareness may reflect an inability to extrapolate from one commitment an understanding that can be applied to recognize injustice in other social domains. If this were the case, then we could expect that MAC’s AIDS commitment has failed to generate a fundamental understanding within the company that could be applied to other situations. Maybe they can’t extend their consciousness in one area to consciousness in other areas.

(Note, other fashion companies like Kenneth Cole do maintain a broad and consistent social awareness and outreach effort.)

Maybe what it comes down to is something more deeply rooted in fashion as an industry. Fashion as an industry has long been based in violence against women. And if ‘violence’ is too strong a word for you (even if you include footbinding and corsets) then we can use oppression. Perhaps it is too difficult to disentangle specific examples of misogyny from the whole ensemble of oppressions of women, and address specific issues while keeping the fashion industry’s fantasies about itself alive. Maybe after blurring the line between beauty and conformity for so long, it’s just hard to see even something as blatant as 500+ femicides.

What does it say about MAC that they can be such a prominent supporter of AIDS activism, and be completely oblivious to the issues of women, particularly surrounding this hotspot? It’s not like the femicides in Juarez are some kind of secret.

Glossing over Femicide

MAC has an ongoing, designed in commitment to HIV. It has a consistent funding source, a related non-profit organization, an annual launch with associated PR, and systems around choosing a celebrity person and promoting that person’s involvement. This infrastructure represents an authentic commitment to the HIV issue by the company.

Contrast this with MAC’s offer to make up for this Juarez mistake– a one time contribution, changing the product names, and issuing an apology. Does that really reflect an understanding of what went wrong, and what should be changed?

On the plus side, MAC listened and responded. On the negative side, MAC hasn’t (yet) shown an understanding how how it let this happen, what that says about MAC as a company, and what MAC needs to learn.

I’m hoping that there will be more to this story, since it is only just now getting picked up by well-known blogs outside the world of fashion and in the marketing community. I’ll keep you posted if there is more news, and when I’m better able to wrap my mind abound the authenticity issues.

In the meantime, it’s worth reflecting on what it really takes for an organization to be socially aware.

As commenter Alex wrote in response to Temptalia’s great post:

Thanks to Brand Channel for bringing this issue to mainstream marketers’ attention, to ColorLines for showcasing this as an issue critical to racial justice, and to Temptalia for hosting a serious conversation among fashionistas about the issue.

See Also:
Brand Channel’s Abe Sauer: MAC and Rodarte Accept Name Blame
ColorLines: The Beauty Bloggers Who Blew MAC and Rodarte’s Juarez Cover
Temptalia: MAC Rodarte Collection for Fall 2010 + Official Statements
British Beauty Blogger: MAC, Rodarte and the Women of Juarez ( full of good links)

Image: Rodarte for MAC, from MAC

Procter & Gamble and its Dawn Dishwashing Liquid are the targets of criticism and cynicism for their efforts to help the International Bird Rescue Research Center save birds who have been wounded by BP’s Oil Spill.

While I’m quick to criticize any organization that promotes its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) efforts when all they care about is pumping up their public image and thus their bottom line, the link between Dawn and Bird Rescue deserves a more considered look.

“Businesses should keep quiet about their good works.”

We expect organizations to be relatively modest and self-effacing when they talk about Corporate Social Responsibility efforts. Modesty makes sense because stakeholders often assume that for-profit organizations are “committed” to these causes only because the business can see a link between these commitments and the bottom line. The less a business says, the more it seems like their CSR actions are as important as their claims.

Thus, when businesses themselves publicize their CSR efforts, folks are quick to assume that these CSR efforts “inauthentic”.

Pink ribbons and endorsement badges can sully the perceived authenticity of many CSR efforts. Even worse than ‘everyday’ self-promotions are efforts that literally capitalize on current crises to get  more publicity for their efforts. We resent businesses that try to profit from someone else’s pain.

In this light, Dawn’s current sales campaign, advertisements and other efforts to publicize its link to oiled bird rescue look pretty slimy. Their promotion of Oiled Bird Rescue efforts seems opportunistic, not authentic.

However, before we question the authenticity of Dawn’s efforts, we need to consider the whole range of reasons why Dawn is involved in bird rescue.

Profit, Purpose and Product Motivations for CSR

• Profit Motivations: Many CSR efforts begin when the business wants to improve its public image. The business expects that CSR efforts will be noticed, that being noticed will create good reputation and goodwill, and that good reputation will contribute to the business’s financial success. Many CSR efforts are evaluated specifically for their ROI, as businesses treat these initiatives as just another marketing expense.

• Purpose Motivations: It’s also often true that a business’s social commitments are prompted by someone’s desire to make a difference, or the organization’s collective concern about an issue. Businesses and their members actually do care about social issues. They find meaning and inspiration in their corporate efforts to contribute to social causes beyond their business.

• Product Motivations: Less frequently, but often enough to matter, there can be a direct link between what the organization does or makes, and what a social problem needs. This link invites the organization to get involved and make a commitment, because they uniquely can contribute. They either have the product that’s needed or the process skills that will make a difference.

Profit, Purpose and Product motivations can exist separately, with only one or two active in a business’s commitments. However, in practice, different employees are motivated by different elements of the rationale for the business’s involvement. Some employees of an organization might care more about the purpose while other employees care more about the profit. This mixing of motives makes the question of whether the commitment is authentic (that is, linked to the organization’s purpose and identity) more problematic.

Product Motivation: Authentic link between Dawn Dishwashing Liquid and Bird Rescue

Dawn Dishwashing Liquid, a Procter & Gamble product (see disclaimer), has been connected to wild bird rescue for over 30 years. Their relationship began through a Product Motivation.

It turns out that Dawn Dishwashing Liquid is the mildest and most effective cleanser to use when treating avian victims of oil spills. The International Bird Rescue Research Center discovered Dawn’s effectiveness after several years of trial, error and experimentation with other solvents. Using Dawn is now part of bird rescue ‘best practice’.

Dawn’s Wildlife Rescue Promotion

Because of this long-standing commitment to Oiled Bird Rescue, Dawn launched a special sales promotion to support their CSR efforts. The promotion began in June 2009 (as in, 12 months ago). The promotion included specially labeled Dawn bottles, a website, and some television advertising to promote Dawn’s program for donating $1 for every bottle code activated on line.

If you’ve bought Dawn in the last several months, you may have noticed the labels with picture of some cute, charismatic birds and animals.

[There is a reason that wildlife organizations use pictures of adorable baby seals, penguins and baby cranes on their marketing materials. These charismatic fauna and fowls draw out our emotions -- and help us care about the animals' welfare.]

Dawn’s store based promotion is supported by a television spot showing Dawn being used to clean oiled birds. This campaign was nearing its end when the BP oil well blew.

Here’s the Dawn advert, made in May 2009:

Now, many weeks later, BP’s toxic oil is reaching the shorelines, spoiling habitats. It is also threatening the lives of the same endangered species that are rescued by the IBRRC. While Dawn could not have predicted the surge in attention to soiled animals, nor the spike in their number, nor the ongoing severity of the problem, Dawn was in position to help.

Criticizing Dawn’s Efforts as InAuthentic

Some folks have begun to criticize Dawn for taking advantage of the Oil Spill to promote their commitment to bird rescue and thus to pump up the brand’s public image (overall, to influence the bottom line). These critics are focusing on the Profit Motivation for CSR.

Should Dawn expand its efforts in spite of criticism about its Profit Motivation?

Marketing experts don’t agree whether Dawn should pump up its advertising and expand its promotional campaign. Some suggest that being any more public would be, well, vulgar. Others say that Dawn should be using this situation to promote its CSR involvement more aggressively.

It is an exquisitely fine line between being public and transparent about your contributions to help in a crisis, and tooting your own horn. From what I see online at least, Dawn is still on the appropriate side of this line.

• The IBRRC facebook page isn’t all about Dawn, but instead covers the full range of topics, concerns and news related to the endangered wildlife
• P& G’s website does announce Dawn’s involvement, on a page that is already over a month old (so it’s not like they’re working that angle).
• P&G is not shipping Dawn bottles with last-minute hang tags announcing their role in wildlife rescue.
• Similarly, we haven’t seen full page ads in the New York Times, touting how Dawn is making a difference.

However, evaluating the situation on the bases of Profit Motivation alone is not enough.

Is Dawn’s Authenticity Saved by the Product Motivation?

The Product Motivation for Dawn’s involvement continues. The IBRRC has not found anything more effective and more mild than dawn for removing the oil from birdfeathers. Dawn, used with increasingly sensitive handling strategies, is helping to improve the recovery rates of birds that have been brought to the Rescue Centers.

The product motivation, coupled with the long-standing history of Dawn’s relationship to the IBRRC, ought to be enough to demonstrate Dawn’s authentic commitment to the cause.

Why Dawn should emphasize its Purpose Motivation

If Dawn and P&G could find ways to limit (or ignore) accusations of having only a profit motivation, it might make sense to promote their efforts to help rescue oil soaked birds. Why? Because these promotions will help to fulfill the underlying purpose of Dawn’s commitment– rescuing and protecting wildlife.

Dawn’s Purpose Motivation would suggest that

(1) more advertising,
(2) an extension of the fund raising, and
(3) even additional initiatives

make sense.

Each of these might raise people’s awareness of the effects of the oil spill and the possibilities for some recovery.

Raising the public pr9ofile of their involvement might serve Dawn’s larger purpose more broadly. Being public about Dawn’s involvement might help to draw attention to the plight of the birds, get more people contributing to bird rescue, and encourage citizens to advocate for environmental protections and alternative energy.

Frankly, showing more images of damaged and dead birds, as well as damaged and rescued birds, can bring home the gravity of the spill in a way that aerial photos of the oil plume or piles of sludge on the beaches can’t.

Purpose appeals to us as people, not as “customers”

Something odd and important happens when businesses move past their profit motivation and even past the logical product motivation and instead emphasize the purpose of their CSR commitments.

When businesses emphasize their purpose motivations, and when we also care about the purpose, a different “we” is activated. We think of ourselves not as customers who want clean dishes, but as people who want clean waters. We see Dawn not as a product we might buy, but instead as a partner in getting something better to happen.

Authentic Concern and Authentic Action

The ecological crisis of the Oil Spill is real. The damage to these waterfowl and wildlife is serious and it is extensive. This cause wasn’t invented by a marketing department, and our interest in it is neither borrowed nor manufactured. Our concern is authentic.

Nobody at Dawn or at P&G is glad that this spill has given them an opportunity to shine. Maybe it’s fortuitous that Dawn’s current wildlife marketing campaign has not yet ended. And maybe it’s providential that Dawn has an advertisement already made that is a perfect fit for the new situation. But using their tools and this situation to promote Oiled Bird Rescue and wildlife welfare is not  exploitative, and it is authentic.

Considering the profit, the product and the purpose motivations involved in Dawn’s CSR effort, I think that Dawn should amp up its advertising. Dawn should make these adjustments:

• Keep the product placement discreet. Put the bottle of Dawn more n the background of the bird washing video.
• Publicize ways that people can get involved in oiled bird rescue and habitat rescue.
• Work to educate people about bird rescue efforts in the Gulf using transparent communication tools like their Facebook page.
• Expand your support for Oiled Bird Rescue. Donate more money, not only to cleaning but also to research on what happens to the birds, how to protect the birds, what more we can do.
• Examine your own product production, marketing, distribution, and disposal — and work to make all of these less dependent on petroleum and overall more sustainable.

People are concerned about the birds and other wildlife, yet they are unclear about the actual procedures, outcomes, effectiveness and even the ethics of Bird Rescue. Any additional information that Dawn can offer to help people learn more about what is being done and can be done will get people intellectually and emotionally involved. All of these efforts should focus on the larger purpose behind the International Bird Rescue Research Center: rescuing and also proactively protecting wildlife.

Practical vs. Symbolic Influence

As a practical response to an environmental and social tragedy the size of the BP Oil Spill, efforts to rescue Oiled Birds are a drop in a bucket. They will make only a small reduction in the overall damage.

Symbolically, however, the commitment to retrieve, wash, and try to rehabilitate injured birds is very significant.

Washing these oiled, injured birds is an act of contrition, a demonstration of concern, and an expression of hope.

Given the many layers of motivation and meaning behind Dawn’s involvement in Oiled Bird Rescue, I’m willing to look beyond my own cynicism to view any increase in Dawns’ efforts to promote their cause in a more generous and hopeful way.

Do you think other consumers will cut Dawn some slack? How about you?

See Also:

GrrlScientist, on ScienceBlogs, “Oiled SeaBirds: To Kill Or Not To Kill? What Is Ethical?”
Megan Strand, on InCouraged, “Dawn’s Wildlife Rescue: Totally Slick or Too Slippery?”
Jonathan Salem Baskin’s “Do Everything, Say Nothing”
Jack Neff, in Ad Age, “Dawn’s Wildlife Rescue Efforts Shine in Gulf Coast Oil Spill”

Disclaimer: I worked at Procter & Gamble for 6 years, in the Hard Surface Cleaners and Bar Soap Divisions.

Photos:
Dawn Bottle by JudyHefland on Twitpic
Oiled Pelican by Greg Saulmon, The Republican
Others from Dawn & IBRRC websites

[I can't really find a link between these ideas and concepts of authenticity, but I had to write this anyway. So go easy on me with this one…]

My recent visit to Pompeii offered me a great example of an organization that isn’t working.

Cultural Organizations Must Work on Two Dimensions

Every organization has to work on two dimensions– it has to create a decent “product”, and it has to sustain itself well.  Cultural institutions have to produce ‘culture’ that meets certain aesthetic, expressive and pedagogic values, and these organizations have to reflect these values as they get things done. Cultural institutions have a unique kind of authenticity challenge.

Whenever I go to a cultural institution — a museum, a performance, an historic site — I experience them on each of these distinct dimensions. First, I experience their product/ions as a guest, patron, consumer, enthusiast and/or student. I expect that the goal of any cultural institution is to influence its patrons, to move them or change them or educate them, and so I open myself to this experience.

I’m there to absorb whatever it is that the cultural institution exists to share with me. I read the program notes, I use the acoustiguides, and I ask questions on the docents’ tours. I stay awake during the second act.

But, and often to my family’s dismay, I also experience cultural institutions as having central aesthetic, pedagogic and expressive expectations regarding the ways that they get things done. I experience cultural institutions not only as a patron, but also as an organizational analyst.

Given my penchant for “sticking my nose into your business“, I always want to understand the organization that surrounds, supports, and creates the cultural experience. I want to know how they do what they do, what works, how they express their caring, how they manage competing pressures, stakeholder and publics. I think about how their café or gift shop extends the institution’s mission. I chat with the docents, the guides, and even the other patrons. (This is what usually causes my family’s dismay.)

I want to figure out how the cultural institutions do what they do, and why. I want to understand how they ‘work’.

“Pompeii”, as a cultural organization, does not work.

As I mentioned in my previous post on the re-branding of Pompeii, my family recently visited Venice, Rome, and Pompeii during spring break. As a mom and a tourist, the trip was all about learning and enjoying. As an organizational analyst, the trip was all about — well, let me just say, it was interesting.

At Pompeii, I was disappointed disturbed by what I experienced as an almost complete absence of curatorial effort.

Curatorial effort includes two things:

(1) caring for and protecting the ‘culture’ that is being shared, and
(2) presenting the ‘culture’ in a way that helps to shape the visitors’ experience so that they do more than look, buy a snack, and complain that their feet hurt.

At Pompeii, I saw little curatorial effort, either of the caring kind or the presenting kind. (Note caveats at end of post.)

The Absence of Care

Pompeii is a world historical treasure, but it doesn’t seem to be treated that way. At Pompeii, I saw no guards, no security equipment, few if any cordons, barriers, or covers to protect the frescoes or mosaics. I saw no signs to indicate how not to treat the site.

Instead, in the absence of obvious efforts by the “organization” behind Pompeii, what I saw were people grinding out their cigarette butts on the 2200-year-old mosaic thresholds, students scraping their backpacks against the frescoes on the walls of the ruins as they roughhoused during a class trip, and visitors pushing aside makeshift barriers so that they could step up to the frescoed walls, take flash pictures, and actually touch the paintings themselves.

There was graffiti scraped onto a few walls. Trash, cigarette butts, and chewing gum randomly littered the ruins themselves. Perhaps the most disheartening thing that I saw were candy wrappers that had been thrown behind the plexiglass wall around the row of plaster casts of dead citizens, tucked away in the corner of the garden.

[I wanted guards like the ones at the Palazzo Ducale in Venice, who shushed the noisy family into submissive whispering, and blocked the camera lens of that guy who insisted on using his flash- his flash! - to take photos of tapestries. ]

The disrespect broke my heart.

The Absence of Curation

Given that Pompeii is a “world heritage cultural site”  I expected that there would be a lot going on at Pompeii. Ranging from day-to-day life in the Roman Empire, the events of Mt. Vesuvius, the discovery of the site itself, and the social & physical science of the excavations themselves, there is a lot to learn here.

Moreover, we were visiting during the annual Cultural Heritage Week, so I anticipated some special events, like maybe extra tours or special signage.

What we found instead was city that felt as advertised: dead.

Pompeii, laid out before us, was inert. Passive. Empty. Silent.

Despite admission being free this week, there were few visitors, and no guided tours (either public or private).

There were no historic interpreters, no displays of interiors, no artifacts, no museum-like displays, no 3-D models of what the city might have looked like, no diagrams of neighborhoods, no placards or descriptive signage.

Nothing. Nada. Niente.

Armed with a map presented only in one language (Italian) the average visitor was looking at a bunch of stone foundations, a few frescoes, a street grid, and the very impressive chariot ruts on the paved streets. Once again, it was the acoustiguide and my kids who saved the day with a few interesting details.

What was Pompeii there to create?

I couldn’t tell if the curatorial strategy was “old-fashioned” or “postmodern”.

If the strategy was old-fashioned, I guess I was supposed to have used my Baedecker to educate myself (just like in A Room With A View). My bad.

If the curatorial strategy was supposed to be postmodern, I should have inferred whatever I wanted from the metathemes that I discerned.

Then again, the curatorial non-presence might have been due to the site’s organization being completely and horribly underfunded. If that were the case, I’d have expected an explanation and a donation box.

But really, what I missed was on-site, interactive explanation. I missed someone or something that could address the range of questions that we had.  I wished for available WiFi so that we could Google.it. *

There were so many themes, so many possible tours, so many places you could have put a nice little sign, so many opportunities for volunteer docents… I have a few friends who are curators/museum professionals, and I wondered how they might analyze the Pompeii experience… was there something that I lacked, as a tourist, that the site was expecting?

I admit that my expectations of curatorial effort have been shaped by visits to Mount Vernon, Williamsburg, and hometown favorite Monticello. These privately owned sites are well cared for, well curated, interactive, educational, & interesting.

I found myself wandering around, wondering:

What kind of organization needs to be here, to take care of Pompeii and to curate an experience that would influence visitors, teach them, move them, change them or inspire them?

I was open to the experience, but I wanted to experience something in addition to the emptiness.

Some Caveats:

• Maybe I was expecting something that was/is “too American” or “too bourgeois” to be found in Italy.
• Maybe the government just doesn’t have the funding.
• Maybe there is no private foundation that would support Pompeii.
• Maybe there are no retirees willing to serve as docents.
• Maybe we were there on a bad day.
• Maybe I was inadequately observant, and I missed something.

I would still count the visit to Pompeii as a highlight of our trip… oddly enough … because the emptiness really pushed me as a parent to initiate a conversation among our family about what we could learn and what we could appreciate, given the limits of what we were able to see.

* (Get the joke? We were in Italy, so “.it”. My girls thought that was funny.)

Stereotypes about non-profit and for-profit firms explain why organic wine can’t command higher prices.

Today’s Freakonomics column picks up on UCLA research reported earlier this week by Matt McDermot at Treehugger.com.

The researchers, Magali Delmas and Laura E. Grant, demonstrated that organic wine cannot command as high a price as conventional (non-organic) wine. This despite the fact that these organic wines get higher ratings than conventional wines from Wine Spectator magazine.

The researchers suggest, and Freakomics reports, that this lower price is due to lingering memories of “hippie wine”, first generation organic wine made by… hippies.

But it’s not old memories of ‘hippie wine’ that cast doubt on the quality of organic wine. Instead, it is the extra ‘purpose’ of these organic vineyards that leads customers to stereotype the vineyards as well-meaning but less competent, and their organic wine as not quite up to sniff.

The real reason organic wine can’t get a higher price

Here’s my hypothesis:

Customers don’t think that vineyards that produce organic wine are as competent as typical vineyards, because organic vineyards are more like for-purpose businesses than for-profit businesses.

Consider that customers stereotype organizations based on their categorical identities. We expect commercial banks to act one way, investment banks to act another way, and hedge funds to act yet other ways. The type of organization leads us to expect types of behaviors and types of competencies.

That we expect different skill sets from different organizations due to their different types has been demonstrated time and again in corporate reputation research. Recently, marketing scholars have examined what customers expect from for-profit organizations and not-for-profit (aka for-purpose) organizations.

Non-Profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter

Customers stereotype for-profit organizations as competent, and not-for-profit/ for-purpose organizations as warm. Competent organizations and warm organizations, while not exactly opposites, create two different kinds of products. Competent organizations create products that work, and warm organizations create products that are well-meaning.

Now, consider how organic wine producers and conventional wine producers might differ. Organic wineries have a social & ecological purpose in addition to their wine making & profit making goals. In contrast, for profit vineyards care only to make good wine and good profits.

Organize vineyards are more like for-purpose organizations, and for-profit vineyards are more like, well, for-profit organizations.

Perhaps customers stereotype the organic vineyards as being caring but not quite as competent as for-profit vineyards?

Consumers take product cues from the organization’s type

Since buying an unfamiliar bottle of wine is a crapshoot, unless you are an oneophile or a fan of @GaryVee — you use your cues about the vineyard (and okay, whether there are animals on the label) to make your choice.

If you are concerned about the quality of the wine relative to the price, you choose on perceived vineyard competency. Thus, you are willing to less for the organic wine, since it is probably more well-meaning than well-made.

What if it’s being ‘for purpose’ that gets in the way of selling at full prices?

See these related posts:
Can a for-profit business organization that also pursues a social purpose be authentic?
Honey is really bee vomit: Why we should label “NonProfit” Organizations “For-Purpose” Organizations
B Corporation Identity: An Opportunity for Organizational Authenticity

Exclamation Points: An Authenticity Issue

Last week, I got a bit of crap from I was chided by one of my colleagues for sending a 4-line email with three (three!!) exclamation points. This colleague also pointed out that I occasionally sprinkle my tweets with exclamation points.

This is a problem. These exclamation points, s/he explained, are simply “not professional”.

“Not professional.”

Those are fighting words, are they not?

We who write about business, critique organizations, advocate social change, etc. are supposed to be professional, whether we’re using e-mail, or Twitter, or any other medium. Otherwise, you all “they” don’t take us seriously.

[Note, in just the last week, my tweets have included the terms "Foucault", "Saussure", and "capitalism-enhancing". But apparently those words don't detract from my professionalism. ]

Do exclamation points really dilute my authority as an expert?

Tarnish my PhD?

Make me seem more like a mom blogger than a business blogger?

I know that we have gendered definitions of what it means to be “professional”. Women are held to different standards than are men when it comes to demonstrating our professionalism, because people have different expectations of men and women. So, I can appreciate that there may be some behaviors that are ‘unprofessional’, and might seem even more “unprofessional” when they come from women. Or me.

But are exclamation points one of these unprofessional behaviors?

For me, it’s important to be authentic in my communication – to be as direct, as clear, and as “me” as possible. Frankly, I am occasionally bemused by my own use of exclamation points, emoticons, emotional words inside brackets, cr*&sed out cuss words, and some occasional lolspeak [ e.g., I can haz paradimz!]. But yo, that’s how I roll. For real.

[Still, despite my fondness for Hello Kitty, I am not a smiley-face kind of gal. Not really. So I do see the contradiction there.]

But what is really going on with the critique of my use of exclamation points?

Let’s look at the research on gender and exclamation points!

[Of COURSE there is research on this! I found it in November when I was researching how we create social presence online through social media! And since I bookmarked it, I can go straight back there!]

Past research has reported that females use exclamation points more frequently than do males.

Such research often characterizes exclamation points as “markers of excitability,” a term that suggests instability and emotional randomness [emphasis mine] …

The present study uses a 16-category coding frame in a content analysis of 200 exclamations posted to two electronic discussion groups… The results indicate that exclamation points rarely function as markers of excitability in these professional forums, but may function as markers of friendly interaction, a finding with implications for understanding gender styles in email and other forms of computer-mediated communication. — Waseleski, C. (2006)

Hmm…past research suggests that exclamation points suggest instability and emotional randomness.

And they are used more often by men than women.

I start to see the problem… Instability and emotional randomness are obviously not professional characteristics — and these characteristics are particularly damning for female professionals.

But what did this research actually find?

• • Females use exclamations significantly more than do males

• • People use exclamation points to express thanks and friendliness (32%), and to emphasize facts (29%) more often than they do to reflect excitability (9%)

• • “Thanking, whether of the friendly or effusive type, was also a predominantly female behavior (in this study). These findings are consistent with Herring’s (1994) observation that female online discourse style is characterized by “supportiveness,” which includes “expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community building activities that make other participants feel accepted and welcome” (p. 4). “

The results of this study do not support the notion that exclamation points function solely or even primarily as markers of excitability.

So apparently our generalized perception of how exclamation points are used online is different from what the data actually tell us what we think exclamation points from women are saying is different from what women who use exclamation points are actually trying to say.     Looks like we have to listen to what women are actually saying.

Thus, I conclude that while exclamation points are often seen as ‘markers of excitability’ when used by women, in fact:

Exclamation points are tools for communicating thanks, friendliness and warmth!

I refuse to equate appreciativeness, friendliness and warmth with being “unprofessional”. So there!!.

If you get a tweet from me with an exclamation point, just imagine it as this:     or this:   <3

I can’t wait for Waseleski’s study of emoticons!

Waseleski, C. (2006). Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer-mediated communication: An analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic discussion lists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 6. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/waseleski.html

Image from Trenton Garden of Sculpture by bobjagendorf on Flickr
A print of “Exclamation Point” by AndreaDaquino can be purchased on his site.

I have been struggling to write a (scholarly) book chapter on Corporate Reputation, social media and authenticity. As I have been writing myself around and around the issue(s), there is one thing that I cannot get my finger on, and that is:

Why does having interacted with an organization through social media make us feel more partial towards that organization?

Why are we more likely to like and even to defend an organization, once we have interacted online with that organization’s representative?

I’ve been playing with ideas about social presence, about scripted vs. context-specific interaction, about individual connections vs. ‘corporate’ ones, but I know that I haven’t found the psychological mechanism(s) yet.

It could be that I’m looking in the wrong places (e.g., CMI (computer mediated interaction) vs. social psychology’s Contact Hypothesis), or that I don’t have the right language, or maybe that the research has not actually been conducted.

But I do know that the phenomenon is real.

For example, earlier this week Robbin Phillips wrote a lovely post, Keeping Promises, at the BrainsOnFire blog, where she describes how her connection with Scott Monty leads her to protect Ford’s reputation.

Something about “knowing” someone at Ford has made me a sincere fan. I’ve even found myself defending them on occasion, in one on one conversations and even to large groups. I have just grown – well — fond of them.

Robbin attributes her feelings about “Ford” as an organization to her feelings about @ScottMonty as a person… recognizing that Ford has managed to “humanize the brand” by using a very personable person and skilled communicator and natural Zen-PR guy) to represent them.

While I do think that Robbin’s reaction is unique to her and her connection with Scott, I also think that there is something more general and more common in the phenomenon…

Could it be that:

1. The person-to-representative connection just like the connection between touching an object and creating a preference for it? (1)
2. Ford has shown something about itself as an organization by choosing Scott as a particular/specific person? (org identity reflected in choice)
3. Ford has shown something about itself as an organization by ‘allowing’ the social media folks (like Scott and his team) the freedom to interact as they see fit? (org identity reflected in process choice)
4. People transfer to Ford the qualities of what they feel about Scott (simple attribute transfer)?
   As Colby Gergen says “I trust Ford because they are associated with Scott, not the other way around.” Is it that social media give us a person first, rather than a ‘corporation’, making it easier to transfer feelings about a person to the organization than it otherwise would be to transfer feelings about an organization to a person?

I’ve seen a lot of words bandied about that describe this phenomenon, but not any proposed ‘mechanisms’—

I’d love your thoughts on what makes us like and maybe even defend organizations once we have interacted with their representatives online… What do you think explains this?

(1) Wolf, Arkes & Muhanna (2008) The power of touch: An examination of the effect of duration of physical contact on the valuation of objects. Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (6): 476-482.

Gentle Touch by cindy47452 on Flickr
Touch Me by jjjohn on Flickr

My esteemed colleague and fellow Michigan PhD alum, Aneil Mishra, is a well-known expert on the ‘softer’ organizational affects of downsizing and layoffs: morale, commitment and trust. Writing today about furloughs at GM on his blog Total Trust, Aneil mentions that

"In our research on downsizing, we’ve found that across-the-board cost cutting like this (specifically, pay reductions) rarely achieves its intended goal of actually reducing costs. That’s because such measures have a significant negative impact on employee morale, among other negative outcomes."

For reasons that became clear to me a little later, this comment stopped me in my tracks. I wondered: Have I been advocating alternatives to layoffs, like voluntary pay reductions, that actually don’t reduce costs any better than layoffs themselves?

Are we really stuck between two options, Layoffs and Alternatives to Layoffs, where both options fail to reduce costs and instead depress morale and commitment — and thus obstruct productivity and innovation? What’s a leader to do? What have we missed?

Then, reflecting on Paul Levy at Beth Israel Hospital, Diane Hessen’s post about "Return on Openness" and my own experience in the Ivorydale Soap Plant with high-commitment/high-involvement work systems, I remembered:

It’s not what you do, but how you do it. More specifically, it may not be ‘layoffs’ or ‘pay reductions’ per se that fail to reduce costs, or depress morale. Rather, it may be how these decisions are made and implemented in each organization that generates these less-than-desirable outcomes.

Said another way– Which is preferable: Layoffs or Alternatives to Layoffs ?

Neither?! W hat’s preferable is a democratic, transparent, high-involvement, decision-making process for creating a cost-cutting, ‘right-sizing’ strategy.

Because I think of Aneil’s research as being focused on situations where layoffs and downsizing were inevitable , I hadn’t considered how Aneil and his colleagues’ findings might offer insights about getting the cost and commitment benefits that alternatives to layoffs are supposed to bring. Although their research doesn’t address situations where alternatives to layoffs are chosen, the steps for increasing commitment while reducing costs are the same:

Consider: Mishra & Spreitzer (1998) argue that if employees:

1.  Feel they can can trust top management,

2.  See the outcomes of the process as being just (i.e., using a fair process, sharing the burden fairly, having a reasonable rationale), and

3.  Feel empowered to address the additional problems created by the solution they agree to (such as adding new roles to current jobs, or managing different work schedules),

=> Employees will respond to downsizing/layoffs in a "hopeful" way.

"Hopeful Responses" are active (not passive) and constructive (not destructive).

When members respond in a hopeful way, they are excited about the future in spite of the present difficulty, they are optimistic, they focus on solving problems rather than complaining, they take initiative, and they become "active advocates" within the organization. They are more able to cope with the complexities of downsizing (both psychologically and operationally), because they experience a sense of ownership and take responsibility for making the plan work.

It’s all about "cost plus…"

… A focus on cost PLUS a process that centers on democracy, transparency and involvement. Whether the choice is layoffs, pay reductions, furloughs or reduced work weeks, it is the process that cuts costs while sustaining morale and commitment– or not.

So a little reminder to myself

– I need to advocate strategic alternatives to layoffs decided upon through transparent, democratic organizational processes.
– Advocate both a goal and a process. Don’t assume that a goal that seems to disrespect employees (e.g., layoffs) is always achieved through process that disrespect employees.

Layoffs chosen through democratic, transparent processes, rather than by executive fiat, can actually sustain morale and generate commitment.

Similarly, don’t assume that goals that appear to respect employees are always achieved through process that respect employees.

Alternatives to layoffs decided by executive fiat may save jobs, but alternatives to layoffs chosen though transparent and democratic processes preserve and sustain organizations.

Success depends not only on desirable, humane goals (avoiding layoffs) but also on desirable and humane strategies (transparency and democracy) for choosing these alternatives.

The takeaway?

It’s not just alternatives to layoffs, but also cost cutting strategies that involve, empower, and trust organization members, that lead to increased productivity and innovation, and to cost-savings in times of crisis.

For more detail, see : Explaining How Survivors Respond to Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign, Academy of Management Review (1998) Aneil Mishra and Gretchen Spreitzer

We’re delighted to feature a guest post from Mignon van Halderen, an expert on Organizational Reputation Management. Mignon is Assistant Professor at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University. At RSM, Mignon works in the Corporate Communication Centre where she combines teaching and applied research projects within the fields of Reputation Management and Corporate Communication.

We talk a lot about authenticity.

I overheard a conversation between two communication experts during a diner en pensant. One said to the other: Authenticity is one of the most important things in our field. The other firmly agreed, taking a sip of his wine and leaning back in his chair. I waited for his reply, but I was disappointed. He added nothing more to the conversation.

Is that it? I thought. Aren’t you going to probe how difficult it is to be authentic? “Or tell us how you think organizations can build authenticity, apart from just saying we try to practice what we preach in everything we do?

“Can’t you give me just one clue why authenticity is important in your specific organizational context and how you cope with it?

The importance of organizational authenticity seems nowadays so much to be taken for granted that it is used unqualifiedly in every piece of communication advice that I find. And that is where I start to worry.

When the principle of authenticity is advocated carelessly, authenticity as a goal for organizations risks becoming generic, hollow and without any meaning at all. I believe that at that point, the principle of authenticity itself starts to become inauthentic.

Because I want to be more thoughtful about the ways we discuss authenticity, I was glad to find this blog. Simply defined, Organizational Authenticity is achieved when organizations align their identity, image and actions. If companies can show that these three fit together in a healthy way, people find them authentic or ‘real’.

So what makes authenticity so powerful? For one reason, if an organization is believed to be authentic, people create more trust and liking toward the company. Moreover, employees find more meaning and confidence in the organization that they work for.

Another reason behind the power of authenticity, I believe, lies in the fact that authentic organizations allow us to recognize and believe their personality. And because we, as humans, are ourselves personalities, we have a strong inherent need to connect with other personalities. Therefore, exemplary authentic companies are often those organizations that succeed in expressing their personality. In doing so, they emotionally appeal to us.

However, creating and maintaining authenticity seems a completely different challenge (or opportunity) for different types of companies. Let’s consider three companies: Jack Cards on the one hand, and Exxon and BP on the other. Each company has a different approach and faces different challenges in creating authenticity.

Jack Cards: An Authentic Organization

Jack Card s is a start-up company of two of my friends in Boston. Their company is (to me) an excellent example of authenticity. The two Australian founders, both experiencing the difficult distance between themselves and their Aussi friends, came up with an idea : to connect personalities with personalities by combining the authenticity of good-old-classic greeting cards with the internet’s potential.

As emphasized by their slogan “Connecting Thoughtfully, Jack Cards helps customers to maintain a personal touch with friends in an easy way. Jack Cards not only reminds its clients of friends & family’s important events, but also makes it easy for their clients to connect with friends and family by sending a classic greeting card. You just sign up on their website (free), add the important events of friends & family (birthdays, graduations, retirement) and choose one of the distinctive design cards that Jack Cards offers. Just before each important date, Jack Cards sends the card to your home address (stamped and ready to mail). The only thing that is left for you is to write a personal note and post it in the nearest post box.

Authentic? Yes, because the service that Jack Cards provides is personal, human & traditional.

But even better, Jack Card s links what it says it values with how it executes its service. Jack Cards is Connecting Thoughtfully with its clients, who then connect thoughtfully with their friends and family. As one client raved:

I’m so excited that you’ve started this service – it’s already saved me tons of time and has ensured that my loved ones get the creative, beautiful cards that they deserve. It’s a perfect blend of technology and personal touch!

Jack cards offers beautiful designs t hat fit a lot of different personal tastes. It is easy to find cards that fit your personality and the personality of the friend getting the card.

So, we could say that authenticity is for Jack Cards an opportunity to create competitive advantage. After all, authenticity is the product that Jack Cards sells. Authenticity is its unique selling point and the two founders clearly know how to keep their authentic selling point….yes, authentic!

But let’s also look at the two other companies, Exxon and BP, whose products seem much less authentic – at least in terms of personality – but from whom we as society still expect authenticity .

Exxon and BP: Authentic? Liked and Trusted?

Exxon has clearly faced a lot of disappointment and anger from different stakeholders. But, oddly enough, its identity (being an oil farmer) has been perfectly aligned with Exxon’s explicit statements of who it is, as well as Exxon’s strong focus on drilling oil instead of developing alternative energy. Indeed, Exxon’s previous CEO has been notorious for his bold honesty about Exxon’s lack of interest in alternative energy. Even the current CEO stresses that Exxon doesn’t see much future in renewable energy sources. No gaps in Exxon’s identity, image and actions here. Pretty authentic, we could say.

Exxon authentic because it is acting on its core belief that investing in alternative energies is not a clever strategy to address global warming.

Yet, aside from satisfying its investors, Exxon’s authentic message has not really paid off in terms leading external stakeholders to like Exxon or to trust Exxon.

Why hasn’t Exxon’s authenticity lead stakeholders to trust or to like the company?

Because Exxon’s stakeholders expect more than just authenticity.

In addition to seeing Exxon be who it says it is, stakeholders also wish to see that Exxon operates in line with societal expectations, such as taking care of global warming by focusing on alternative energies.

BP’s approach to building an authentic reputation has been completely different from that of Exxon. BP was the first company to claim that it linked its identity to society’s growing concerns of global warming. BP introduced the Beyond Petroleum campaign and came a long way with showing that it walked the talk. A brilliant move, I would say. Authentic and responsive to society at the same time! But sadly, BP suffered two crises in 2004, a severe pipeline corrosion in Alaska and a refinery explosion in Texas. BP’s reputation for being concerned about the environment was harmed by both crises, and the authenticity of BP’s reputation was harmed.

• So, what should companies like BP and Exxon do to create and maintain authentic reputations so that they are not only authentic but also liked and trusted?

• How can BP and Exxon manage their reputations without losing sight of certain realities, such as the fact that technology is not yet advanced enough for them to provide their stakeholders with alternative energy right away?