| Leading Companies Online Magazine
The Last Brick in the Foundation: A Culture of Mutual Respect
By Anthony I. Mathews, Beyster Institute Staff
  As we have discussed in the last several issues, some of the characteristics that we think ought to (and often do) separate employee ownership companies from others include:
Information — flowing freely in all directions
Autonomy — displayed as a community of members at all levels within the company who are empowered and accept responsibility to act individually for the benefit of the whole
Opportunity — which takes the form of a concern for the future of all community members and for providing them with the potential for all the growth they are inclined and able to experience.
These are not easy to create, nor are they easy to maintain. Experience has shown us that each brings to the employee ownership community both a strength and a vulnerability. In the long run, we think the record is clear that the balance falls far more on the side of the former than on the latter, but it would be silly to pretend this is not a challenging way to run a company.
With the coming retirement of all those (us) “baby boomers,” employee ownership is in a unique position to join public companies, closely held businesses, and other entrepreneurial business forms as a legitimate, permanent capital structure. Unlike the “private equity” craze that is currently sweeping the country looking for bargains, employee ownership is a capital organization method that can and does sustain itself and can and does compete successfully in the marketplace over an indefinite period of time. Of course, this is partly due to the numerous encouragements offered for this sort of ownership structure, but the advantages employee ownership companies will ultimately and permanently enjoy, we think, will largely be the result of how well they have incorporated these characteristics into their fabric.
With that, we arrive at perhaps the most important feature that sets apart the best employee ownership companies: Respect.
There is a lot of talk about employee and management relations that always seems to come down to incentive – the old carrot on a stick. Even the high-level executive equivalent – golden handcuffs – relies on a real threat to keep people pushing in the same direction.
So, how does respect fit into this equation? For that matter, what is respect and how does it play out in a work environment? More to our point, how does respect manifest itself in an employee ownership environment? And, most importantly, is it different in our world than in other company environments?
We think the answer to this last question is, "Absolutely!"
From an employee-owner's point of view, as I suggested in the first of these editorials some months ago, the issue of respect might be expressed as follows:
"If I'm an owner, I ought to have a right to express myself and expect that expression to be honored. It will not necessarily be implemented exactly, I know, but it is my right to be respected. That means my ideas are heard and considered and my contributions valued (not just acknowledged or noted)."
Reflecting on that statement, I think I sold the concept short. I implied that respect as a factor only goes one way (i.e., it is only a matter of respecting, even cherishing, the right of non-management employees to think and contribute to the effort). On more reflection, respect is really much more.
Respect, in its core, is the right to be treated like a mature member of a team. That includes not only the right to be heard, but the right to hear the truth as well, no matter what it is. And it also means being responsible for our own actions — accountable for our decisions and judged on our merits.
If it sounds like all the other characteristics — information, autonomy and opportunity — play right into this last characteristic, they do. They are inseparable threads of the employee ownership cloth, woven together in a continuous pattern of growth and sharing that is the hallmark of the best among us.
And that brings us to the end of these musings. These four factors constitute my take on some key behavioral underpinnings that do and should distinguish employee ownership companies. That is not to say that we can ignore the traditional reasons for corporations to exist. There is no substitute for profit when it conies to making a company successful, and there is no substitute for good business judgment when it comes to making profit.
Enlightened executives and sound business plans have, and will always have, a central place in the employee ownership community. But the implementation will, I hope, always reflect the fundamental distinctions of employee ownership companies - differences that reflect human dignity and an equitable distribution of the wealth and success we are all creating every day.
But what do I know?
©2007 The Beyster Institute and its authors and their entities. All rights reserved.
|
