Posts tagged as:

Claims vs. Behaviors

When I got an email last month from a reader who wanted me to know that some Wal-marts in Arizona had forbidden ceased to allow Girls Scout Troops to set up cookie selling booths in front of their stores, I didn’t believe it.

“What a dumb move,” I thought. “There’s no way this could be true. After all, in their very own press release Walmart claims that they support the Girl Scouts. They claim that nothing about their plans to sell knock-off Girl Scout Cookies should hurt the troops themselves. Plus, letting the Girl Scouts sell cookies in front of their stores is the very proof they offer when they claim that they support the Girl Scouts.

Am I naive, or what?  It turns out that this is no rumor.

Girl Scout Brownies Selling Cookies.jpgAt the Tega Cay Wal-mart, procedural violations by some groups have lead the management there to temporarily forbid fundraisers in front of their store. (Check out Jason Foster’s article in The Charlotte (South Carolina) ObserverOnlinefor all the details.)

Walmarts’ decision demonstrates that Walmart only supports the Girl Scouts when it’s convenient. Walmart’s claimed “support” of the Girl Scouts and other community groups is limited, tenuous and provisional.

Girl Scouts are now forbidden to sell their cookies in front of (at least one) Walmart.

It is certainly possible that the ‘real‘ reason for banning these non-profit fundraisers is that some groups haven’t followed Walmart’s rules. It’s also likely that Walmart’s rules and guidelines are largely sensible. The guidelines probably address safety concerns (e.g., setting the booths up in the right places) and encourage a welcoming sales style (e.g., not yelling at or accosting shoppers as they enter and exit the Walmart). However, the outcome of this decision is that several Girl Scout Troops are now unable to sell cookies in front of their local Wal-mart– the same Wal-mart that (by the way) recently launched generic versions of Girl Scout Cookie classics.

Is this ban on fundraisers targeted at the Girls Scouts per se? Is it in any way related to ThinMinty Gate and the Cookie War?

It doesn’t seem so, and yet…. as reported by Jason Foster in the Charlotte Observer:

Girl Scout troops in Fort Mill and Tega Cay have set up outside the store to raise money before, but it wasn’t immediately clear how much they would lose in sales if the Wal-Mart ban continues, said Katherine Lambert, executive vice president for the Hornets’ Nest Girl Scouts Council in Charlotte, which oversees Fort Mill and Tega Cay troops.

The policy appears to not be limited to the Tega Cay Wal-Mart store. Troops across the country are reporting recent difficulty in soliciting outside Wal-Mart, Lambert said.

“Through the grapevine, nationwide, there are some (troops) that are having success and some that are not,” Lambert said.

Regardless of the reason, regardless of the unilateral ban — what does this look like? It looks like Walmart is punishing the Girl Scouts. In the media as in larger life, perception is realityWal-mart is punishing the Girl Scouts.

Bad for Walmart’s Image

This action is going to hurt Walmart’s image. People use specific incidents to construe their understanding of an organization’s image, “who” an organization is. When people use this particular decision as data for considering Walmart’s corporate characteristics, to define “who” Walmart is, they will quite likely construe that Walmart’s first response is to punish those who don’t go along with it.

They will quite likely also construe that Walmart punishes unfairly, hurting both those who behaved well and those who behaved ‘badly’.

gscookies.jpgIn addition, they will quite likely construe that Walmart is not a “partner”of any community group. Rather, they will believe that any relationship that Walmart has with other organizations must be on Walmart’s terms, only.

Thus, these observers, stakeholders and customers many wonder:

Whatever happened to Walmart’s effort to be a Good Corporate Citizen?

A good corporate citizen would have worked proactively and enthusiastically to help the non-profits who weren’t following the rules.

Instead, Walmart has decided to punish not only the groups that broke their rules, but also the groups that followed the rules. As any kid will tell you, it’s not fair for all the other kids if you take the crayons away from everyone just because one kid left a few crayons on the floor. It’s not fair; it’s mean.

Bad for Walmart’s larger community

This decision by the Tega Cay Walmart management is bad for Walmart and even worse for community groups.

Girl Scouts, The Lions Club, the high school band, and any other community group that previously held fundraisers in the Walmart parking lot and is now banned will have to find another place to set up. These other places are limited, and few have the same kind of foot traffic as a Walmart on a Saturday.

For the Girl Scouts and others, being banned from Walmart means finding a less busy location. Less busy locations mean fewer sales. Fewer sales mean less revenue. Less revenue means less support for programs. By banning the Girl Scouts and other groups, Walmart has had a negative – not positive – impact on these groups’ ability to raise money. Walmart’s decision takes support away from these groups and their missions. Oops, looks like Walmart is contradicting its own claim to support the Girl Scouts.

Bad for Walmart’s Reputation

Based on my previous experiences writing about Walmart, Girl Scouts and “ThinMinty Gate”, I can confidently predict that this move by one store will get blown out of proportion in the “media” if/when it is picked up. The way this story gets shared will likely damage Walmart’s reputation.

Consider just the example of the headline of this post. I personally exercised some restraint when I wrote it. If I wanted to generate traffic to this blog or get the post picked up by folks who track Walmart, I’d have written something more dramatic, like “Walmart Bans Girl Scout Cookie Sales” or “Walmart Punishes Girl Scouts”. These headlines are ‘true’, even though they leave out the details that it’s a single store, that more than the Girl Scouts were banned, and that the ban is assumed to be temporary. None of those details will be in the first paragraph as this story travels. Nobody really cares about those details.

This single action confirms what many people already believe about Walmart.

Nobody wants to know the specifics, because the general impression confirms people’s predictions and fears: Walmart will retaliate against the Girls Scouts, treating the Girl Scouts as they treat every other competitor– as just another competitor to be “beaten” in “the marketplace”.

So much for Wal-mart’s effort to change its image and reputation. Actions seem to speak more loudly.

Sure, this is a dumb move by the Tega Cay Walmart management.  These Walmart managers may be competent, they may be well meaning, but they sure aren’t supporting their claims with their actions.

So now, what has a stronger impact on your feelings about Walmart? Walmart’s claims of good citizenship? Walmart’s old-fashioned press release? Or Walmart’s “everyday” behavior?


If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 3 comments }

8 Ways to be Authentic: Tyson Foods suggests how

by cv harquail on September 2, 2008

Tyson Food claims that, as part of its core values, it is “striving to be faith friendly”. But, if Tyson’s handling of the brouhaha over recognizing an Islamic holy day in the labor contract of its plant in Shelbyville, TN, is any indication, Tyson is having a hard time finding ways to demonstrate its values through its actions.

hypocrite

Tyson Food’s recent public actions seem to show, instead, that Tyson doesn’t really want to be authentic and/or that Tyson simply doesn’t know how to be faith-friendly.  (See my earlier post for a fuller description of the situation.)

I don’t think that I can convince Tyson to act more authentically, at least not until I can offer them some examples of actions that might demonstrate faith friendliness.  So, I put some creative energy against that task, and here’s what I came up with:

8 ways to be Authentic: How Tyson Foods can demonstrate faith friendliness

1. Respond respectfully to employees who ask for their religious holiday to be considered in their work schedules.

We’ll give this one to Tyson. We’ll assume that by including the holiday as a paid day off, Tyson was already being faith friendly.

2. Take responsibility for negotiating and agreeing to the contract that recognizes the holy day.

At the first sign of public relations trouble, Tyson denied its own responsibility for the contract. Tyson blamed the union for pressing the issue and ultimately faulted its own Islamic American employees for requesting the holiday in the first place. Instead of taking responsibility, Tyson behaved like a victim. To whit: (From MSNBC via HR Capitalist)

Tyson company spokeswoman Libby Lawson said by phone that, “This isn’t a religious accommodation, this is a contractual agreement. The majority asked for it.”

3. Describe the contract as a demonstration of the organization’s commitment to being faith friendly. Use the corporate response to the situation as a way to share with other stakeholders your understanding of what it means to be faith friendly.

The contract was not at all a demonstration of Tyson’s commitment to being faith friendly. If it had been, maybe Tyson would have responded differently, and defended its decision as an effort to be faith friendly. Instead, Tyson actually back-pedaled, rescinding the option of a negotiated Islamic holiday after this year. By back-pedaling, Tyson publicly withdrew its commitment to being faith friendly. Oops.

4. Stand fast against criticism of the faith-friendliness as a value and against criticism of your commitment to it.

Tyson never took the opportunity to discuss how its part in the contract was an effort to be faith friendly. Instead of responding to public pressure by engaging in a conversation– a conversation that might have educated, encouraged and inspired employees and other organizations, Tyson acted without a thoughtful explanation of its actions or reactions. In the absence of a thoughtful explanation of their behavior, Tyson’s actions made it look like the organization had buckled under public pressure.

Worse, because this public pressure was largely hateful, bigoted, and demonstrably not respectful of the diversity of faiths ( to put it mildly), Tyson’s action demonstrated an antipathy towards non-Christian religions, showing that it was not really committed to being faith friendly to anyone other than those who celebrate Christmas.

5. Talk about the example that Tyson can set for other organizations that want to become more faith friendly. Seize the leadership role.

Tyson missed the opportunity to model faith friendliness for other organizations, and missed its opportunity to exert positive influence. By repudiating the contract, being defensive and backing away without thoughtfully engaging the public in conversation, Tyson Foods actually showed other organizations how not to even try to be faith friendly.

5. Discuss and explore the opportunities that the contract and negotiation at one site offers for Tyson’s other locations.

Unfortunately, Tyson closed off any option to use this situation to experiment with how to extend faith friendly behavior across its other locations. By emphasizing that the conversation about the Islamic holy day was limited to the Shelbyville plant (as a way to constrain the public relations damage) Tyson constrained the way it was thinking about the situation. This cut off opportunities for Tyson to innovate around being faith friendly.

6. Seize the opportunity presented by this situation to learn more about, expand and enrich its own understanding  of “what it means to be” a faith friendly organization.

Tyson never took the opportunity to be self-reflective. It did not ’seek to understand’ what it was trying to accomplish for its Muslim employees, or for faith friendliness in general. It missed the chance to learn about what it means to be faith friendly, and about what being faith friendly requires from an organization.

7. Reflect on how well you put your faith-friendliness into practice and recognizes how you can do better the next time.

In addition to a chaplaincy program or a booklet of mealtime blessings, there are more ways that Tyson can be faith friendly. They need to spend more time thinking about how to put faith friendliness into action– using this situation as a learning opportunity is a great way to start.

For Tyson, this would mean looking back over the way it handled this situation, and taking note of what it could do differently when they next have the chance to demonstrate their identity.  This might mean, for Tyson, to look at the difference between the way it recognizes the religious holidays of its Christian employees versus its non-Christian employees. It might also mean using lessons from this situation to develop a vacation policy that met the needs of all employees, regardless of their faith, so that all groups receive equivalent treatment.

8. Extend gratitude towards the stakeholders who ask you to put your claims into action. Thank those who hold you accountable.

Tyson should have been grateful to the Islamic-American employees and the union, because together they created an opportunity for Tyson to put its faith friendliness into action. However, instead of being grateful, Tyson blamed the employees for even asking the organization to act in a faith friendly way.

Worse, by taking away the holiday that had been granted, Tyson punished its Islamic-American employees. It blamed them and made them look wrong and illegitimate for wanting to have their holy day as a day off. Even worse, by breaking their promise, Tyson suggested that its Islamic employees were silly to have counted on the organization to keep its promises to them.

But the harshest outcome of all?   By succumbing to the bigoted pressure from some of their public, Tyson demonstrated that ultimately, it too was biased against its Muslim employees.

Instead of show how to be faith friendly, Tyson showed how not to keep a commitment, how not to take responsibility, how not to learn, how not to be a good role model, and how not to act in good faith.

When you add it all up– and then give it the most generous interpretation– Tyson really made a mess of this opportunity to be faith friendly. Which makes me wonder, why does Tyson even bother to make this claim, if it is so unwilling and/or unable to support this claim through its actions?

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,

{ 0 comments }

Broken promises hurt twice as much

August 27, 2008

What hurts more:
(a) An offensive organizational action or
(b) an offensive action that displays inauthenticity?
I vote for (b). An offensive action that displays inauthenticity hurts more than an action that is simply offensive.  Why? Because an offensive inauthentic action represents a broken promise.
When an organization makes a claim to be a certain way, it [...]

Read the full article →