Refrain from singing in the choir of complaints

Marshall Goldsmith shared a stat based on some of his recent research:

Employees spend 15 hours a month bad-mouthing upper management or listening to someone else bad-mouthing upper management.

And, the companies are paying them to do it! (Safe to assume those conversations are taking place during work hours, right?)

Sure, companies are struggling to survive and thrive past the recession right now, and, sure, upper management may have made mistakes with how they handled the recession. However, that does not mean it is acceptable to blast them behind their backs. It may be tempting to join the choir of complaints levied about Management, but resist for the greater good.

Whose greater good? Yours!
Management most often learns who says what. One of the "choir members" will be sashaying up to Exec Corner any minute to tattle on the group. You risk losing Management's trust, as well as trust from the rest of the choir. After all, everyone knows if you bad-mouth to them, you'll bad-mouth about them.

Keeping your opinions to yourself also helps the greater good of the organization. If the company and/or customer are not going to benefit by what you have to say, it would be wise to resist the urge to say it.

In fact, Goldsmith offers these 4 questions to consider prior to disclosing your opinions:

1. Is what you want to say going to help the company?
2. Is it going to help your customers?
3. Will it help the person you are speaking to?
4. Will it help the person you are speaking about?

If the answers are No, No, No, No, don't say it!

Resist the impulse to reveal every thought that enters your brain. Resist the impulse to comment, or agree, with others' negativity. Resist the urge to blast Management behind their back. Such resistance will keep you out of the choir, but it just may help you join a better, more influential, group.

Corporate social responsibility: obligation or luxury?

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article titled "The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility." The article, written in collaboration with MIT Sloan Management Review, posits that corporations server the greater good only when their profits increase as a result. When profits would decrease by serving the greater good, corporate social responsibility is overlooked.

One example sited in the article is fast-food company menu changes. More fast-food restaurants serve salad and healthy options today, a change seemingly caused by concern about wellness and health. The restaurants' profits from the healthy options sour. Does the financial windfall diminish the good? If profits were negatively impacted by offering healthy options, would the restaurants take them off the menu?

In another example, the article discusses pollution and auto manufacturing. Greatly reducing pollution at auto plants would be expensive, thus reducing profits. Since executives are hired to increase profits, solving the costly pollution problem is not pursued. Would it be in the company's best interest to let profit suffer for the sake of cleaner air?

Would diminished profits help or hurt the companies overall? How would it affect the country?

In addition to the financial impact of being socially responsible, there is the motivation behind the good deeds.

Should motive be considered when considering who you want to do business with or work for?

Is McDonald's less sincere in its social responsibility initiatives just because they benefit from them? Should they be punished or praised because of the changes they've made?

As you decide who to do business with, where to work, what products to buy, think carefully about corporate social responsibility. There is a case for it and a case against it. What's your bottom line?

Corporate social responsibility: obligation or luxury? Vote in the upper right corner of the blog.

(For the entire article: Wall Street Journal The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility )