Kennedy Service Bill

By Aaron Hurst on March 27, 2009 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that will radically increase federal investment in service. It is a historic moment for the service movement and for the country.

It was amazing to see such strong bipartisan support for this effort. Service is a universal issue.

The specific impact of this legislation is not yet clear, but it is clear that we will see many more young people volunteering in the near future through models like City Year. We will likely also see service become an increasingly large part of life after retirement through models like Experience Corps.

Kudos to Marc Freedman and Michael Brown for demonstrating the power of service through their innovations and boldness.

Service Nation Goes Local

By Aaron Hurst on March 26, 2009 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We attended a meeting yesterday hosted by the Gap at their New York offices to coordinate responses to the flood of New Yorkers wanting to volunteer. The growing numbers are in reaction to the likely passage of the Serve America Act and the already approved stimulus package, which included a big boost in funding for service and nonprofit organizations.

The meeting included representatives of the local corporate, philanthropic, nonprofit and government sectors who all have an interest in seeing New York takes advantage of this historic moment to help those in need during a tough time and to build lasting infrastructure better integrating service into the fabric of the city.

Kudos to the Gap for making this happen.  It would be great to see this leadership replicated in other cities that are facing the same issues and opportunities even if on a smaller scale.

Does Service Still Matter to HR Today?

By Aaron Hurst on March 5, 2009 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week the Taproot Foundation surveyed 450 business professionals about their attitudes toward corporate philanthropy and community service. The research covered a wide range of related issues including the challenge companies face when cutting jobs while simultaneously engaging in community investment.

We will be distributing the report publicly on Friday. This week I am sharing the results of key sections of that survey and sharing my read on the implications. Today's post, the final one in the series, covers how corporate service continues to be provide HR benefits.

Part 1: Can You Be Charitable While Doing Layoffs?
Part 2: Bailed Out Companies Bailing Out Nonprofits?
Part 3: Need For Corporate Leadership

Part 4: Does Service Still Matter to HR Today?

The business case for corporate philanthropy and community service is typically anchored in the benefits they provide to human resources. It is seen as a good way to attract talent, engage employees and avoid losing them. The research shows that in stable economic times professionals are attracted to good corporate citizens and that community investment does improve employee engagement and satisfaction.

Does this still hold true when unemployment has skyrocketed and more companies are cutting jobs than are hiring?

Based on our survey, we believe the answer is" Yes" but that the benefits of philanthropy and service have shifted.

75% of professionals said that they would be proud of their company for investing in the community right now.  On the other hand, they generally felt that it wasn't a greater driver for attracting new talent. Only 30% agreed with the statement that unemployed professionals are more likely than usual to take an employer's community investments into consideration when choosing a  job.

As a tool for employee engagement, only 10% felt that volunteer opportunities are NOT necessary to engage employees, because they are just lucky to have jobs right now that their need for continued engagement has diminished. It clearly remains important to achieve this end.

The likely reason for this came to light in response to another question. 73% reported that giving time and money helps them stay positive when things are not going their way.  Given the state of most companies and the abundance of stress, employees clearly need outlets to help them stay up beat.

During the next few years, companies should focus their business case less on recruitment, and instead, they should work on building programs and messaging that show how a company's giving and service efforts are things to take pride in. This provides a chance for companies to focus on something bigger than themselves and their day-to-day concerns.

If companies refocus in this way they are likely to see strong HR business benefits.

This is the final post in this four part series on Taproot Foundation's survey about corporate philanthropy and service during a recession.

Need for Corporate Leadership

By Aaron Hurst on March 4, 2009 1:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week the Taproot Foundation surveyed 450 business professionals about their attitudes toward corporate philanthropy and community service. The research covered a wide range of related issues including the challenge companies face when cutting jobs while simultaneously engaging in community investment.

We will be distributing the report publicly on Friday. This week I am sharing the results of key sections of that survey and sharing my read on the implications. Today's post covers the need for corporate leadership in giving.

Part 1: Can You Be Charitable While Doing Layoffs?
Part 2: Bailed Out Companies Bailing Out Nonprofits?

Part 3: Need for Corporate Leadership

As a leader of a corporation, do you appear to have your eye off the ball when talking about philanthropy and services during this economic climate? The current mantra in business trades seems to be around focus, cutting costs and survival. How does community investment fit into leadership given that backdrop?

There is a fear in executive offices these days to support community investment. Our respondents told these executives that they should focus their fears elsewhere because they won't be criticized for giving today.

Just 3% of professionals felt that a company giving time and money to charity right now is clearly blind to the realities of today's economic conditions. They actually believe that companies, which are engaged in the community project confidence. Only 17% disagreed with the notion that community investment today projects confidence that a company will weather this storm. In a market that is looking for signs of confidence, it appears that philanthropy is a good tool.

Not surprisingly then, only 14% of professionals disagreed with the notion that companies should avoid publicity or recognition right now.  The message--do it and tell the world about it.

Business professionals also felt that this is the time for executives to donate more of their personal assets. 68% of respondents said that those on top should be giving more now.

There is a clear role for corporate executives today--lead. Do this by maintaining your advocacy for corporate community investment and expanding your personal philanthropy and service to show how you live out your values. This is the authentic leadership we need today.

Tomorrow's post will explore how service matters to HR today.

Bailed Out Companies Bailing Out Nonprofits?

By Aaron Hurst on March 3, 2009 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last week the Taproot Foundation surveyed 450 business professionals about their attitudes toward corporate philanthropy and community service. The research covered a wide range of related issues including the challenge companies face when cutting jobs while simultaneously engaging in community investment.

We will be distributing the report publicly on Friday. This week I am sharing the results of key sections of that survey and sharing my read on the implications. Today's post covers professionals' perceptions of how companies being bailed out by the government should engage in giving.

Part 1:    Can You Be Charitable While Doing Layoffs?

Part 2:  Bailed Out Companies Bailing Out Nonprofits?

You are the CEO of AIG or General Motors and have just taken a multi-billion dollar loan from the American people. You have increased American debt. The public's confidence in your company and the business community in general has been undermined.

Politicians are asking these executives to cut their private planes and employee retreats.  They are signs of ego, arrogance and irresponsibility.

What about community service and philanthropy? Citigroup was recently criticized for paying $400 million for the naming rights to the Mets stadium. It was described as an ego investment for Citi executives and a bogus marketing expense. Would the same be used to describe a corporate sponsorship of an opera or concert series at the park?

Business professionals didn't see a conflict here. 63% felt that companies accepting government support should still be engaging in philanthropic activities.  60% also said that these activities would help re-build trust in a company.

I would like to believe that this response is tied to a belief that community investment is core to running an effective business. 71% of professionals said that giving and service are not just luxuries to be engaged in when a company is profitable.

Having community investment understood as a function of what it means to do business similar to marketing, HR, or finance would mark a major milestone in the maturation of corporate community investment programs.

What's the message to AIG and General Motors? Community investment should be part of your plan to dig out of the holes you dug for yourselves. It will drive business value and re-build trust in your brands.

Tomorrow's post will explore the role of corporate leadership for corporate philanthropy in a recession.

Can You Be Charitable While Doing Layoffs?

By Aaron Hurst on March 2, 2009 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week the Taproot Foundation surveyed 450 business professionals about their attitudes toward corporate philanthropy and community service. The research covered a wide range of related issues including the challenge companies face when cutting jobs while simultaneously engaging in community investment.

We will be distributing the report on Friday. This week I am sharing the results of key sections of that survey and sharing my sense of the implications. Today's post covers the deeply emotional issue surrounding job cuts.

Part 1: Can you be charitable while doing layoffs?

This is a very stressful and confusing time for professionals. On the one hand increasing numbers of people want to raise their hands to help society as they are inspired by bold new leadership in DC and feel a need to support the people they witness suffering in their community as a result of the economy. On the other hand, job cuts have left many feeling like they are at risk of being the next one who needs help from others to pay the bills and support their families.

It is inspiring to see that despite the immediate danger of unemployment, business professionals believe that companies should continue to give to their communities.

Only 26% of professionals surveyed said that it is wrong for a company to give money to charity while at the same time eliminating jobs. Only one percent more (27%) said that their company should retain their own job before it gives another penny to philanthropy. That is a powerful statement. In fact, 71% said that they would be proud of their company for engaging in community investment activities right now.

Some companies have expressed concern about the impact on employee morale of sponsoring volunteer activities during layoffs. Another concern is that the media or shareholders will perceive the organization as bloated if engaging in these activities. Respondents rejected these ideas. Only 10% said it would hurt employee morale and only 8% saw corporate service as a sign that an organization is not as lean as it needs to be.

That said, when asked whether they would be angry if a company didn't cancel a planned service event the week after one of their co-workers lost their job, the percentage almost doubles to 19%. To me this implies that when considered theoretically the vast majority of professionals see no problem with a company engaging in service during layoffs. However, when they think about the people they know and their workplace specifically their response rate alters, which demonstrates a sense of loyalty these professionals have toward their co-workers.

This same sentiment of loyalty was expressed in professionals response to whether companies' giving should take care of the people it let's go before it worries about helping others in the community. 39% of respondents agreed that companies should put first its employees and those let go.

These are important insights for companies creating new strategies for community investment during the recession. A company's philanthropic activities will be best received if the cuts they have made are perceived as having been done in an ethical manner in the first place. Then a company should honor those let go by having a giving strategy that includes supporting the community services the former employees will need to get back on their feet. Examples of such services could include supporting workforce development and safety net programs that provide food and housing for the unemployed.

Tomorrow's post will explore the relationship between corporate community investment and government bailouts.