ResearchGate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles

for this publication at: https:/ fuw.researchgate net/publication /229636440

Combatting cynicism in the workplace

Article in National Productivity Review - January 2007
oot 2jnprao

cmamions ReADs
54 2449

2authors, including
Phillp H.Mirvis
Babson College
183 PUBLICATIONS 10,965 CTATIONS
SEEPROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip H. Mirvis on 27 December 2017
The user hasrequested enhancement
of the downloaded e
Combatting Cynicism In The Workplace
Mirvis, Philip H.; Kanter, DonaldL.
National Productivity Review; Autumn 1989; 8, 4; ABIINFORM Global
pg. 377

Combatting Cynicism in the Workplace

PriLie H. Mirvis aND DoNALD L. KANTER

‘What is on the minds and in the hearts of managers and workers today?
In talking with managers about the problems that they face dealing with
employees and in reviewing the results of a national survey we conducted
on the American worker’s attitudes about life and work, one bold theme
emerges: Self-interest and opportunism mark today’s wised-up employee.
Loyalty to the company has given way to looking out for oneself. Suspicion
of management is on the rise. Trust is on the wane.
How does this theme play out in terms of workplace productivity? A
forty-four-year-old vice-president in charge of manufacturing fora middle-
size firm made these comments about his people problems:

Thereare two kinds of peopleon the line. There are the old-timers who pretty
muchstick to themselves. They don’t say a hell of alot and work at their own
pace and in their own way no matter what we try to do to improve efficiency
in the plant. It doesn’t matter what equipment we bring in, or what kind of
experts we use to show them how to operate better; they seem to resist any
change of any kind at all.

The other group are the young fellows and women. Most of them just wanna
put in time. They couldn’t care less about what we do or what we say. They
ignore directives and are far more interested in getting a long weekend than
in joining any kind of a group effort to improve productivity.

I've read the books about Japanese manufacturing and many of the things
American companies are doing to be more competitive. None of that stuff
seems 1o work in this plant. I'll tell you, people better wake up, cause we're
going to become more productive with or without them.

The nonchalance and resistance to change that this vice-president

encountered were based in the suspicious and cynical mind-sets of his
employees. His plant workers believed that productivity improvements
would benefit management, not them, and would lead to layoffs and

Philip H. Mirvis is an organizational psychologist with a private research and consulting

practice in the Washington, DC, area.
Donald L. Kanter is a professor of marketing ai the School of Management, Boston
University.
This article is based on portions of their recent book, The Cynical Americans (Jossey-Bass,
$22.95).
National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 377

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PriLip H. Mirvis AND DoNALD L. KANTER

dislocations, with the brunt of the pain bome by the seemingly expendable
blue-collar workers. The boss, a voracious reader of modem manage-
ment tracts, failed to understand why his people did not trust him or his
motives.
For many years, his predecessors had treated employees as ““hands” and
never solicited their suggestions or stimulated their initiative. On the
contrary, blue-collar operatives were told when to work, how to work, and
how much to produce, and there were to be no questions asked. Manage-
ment had scarcely invested in plant and equipment and had made only the
most basic investments in human capital. Over time, long-term employees
came to feel that management did not care about them. Consequently, many
old hands regarded the new boss as a “BSer” who would eventually go the
way of his predecessors.
The younger workers—part of the M*A*S*H generation that thumbs
its nose at authority—had a bigger chip on their shoulders. They saw the
new boss as a self-promoter who was only out to make himself look good.
They, 100, had seen bosses come and go and took perverse pride in driving
them out. No wonder the vice president was frustrated.
Undaunted, the VP pressed ahead and introduced several new produc-
tivity improvement techniques—all of which backfired. Outside consult-
ants, charged with fact-finding and with preparing a for-your-eyes-only
report to management, were viewed with suspicion by the work force. A
how-to-do-it slide-show, filled with glossy photos and computer graphics,
was greeted with indifference and derision. Motivational memoranda and
brochures sent to supervisors were dropped into the “round file” without
examination. Engineers and technicians began to circulate an underground
newsletter joking about management’s “program of the month.”
Thereafter, the boss’s thetoric took on a tougher, more threatening tone.
He vowed to make the organization “lean and mean” and the word went out
to plant management that it was time to “crack down” on young malingerers
and put the heat on older “deadwood.” As a consequence, managers began
to finger-point and backbite. Dedicated workers began to lose confidence
in the company and to fear for their jobs. The cynical set had an “I told you
so” field day.

REAPING WHAT YOU SOW

The perception of employees at this and many other plants today is one
of threat and mistrust. Productivity improvement in many companies is
associated solely with large-scale automation, outsourcing, and down-
sizing. Workers over fifty throughout heavy industry who feel they are
“‘under the microscope™ busy themselves with “keeping their noses clean.”
They are worried that their skills are obsolete and their worries are
exacerbated by management’s Darwinian thinking and failure to commu-
nicate otherwise. Those under thirty who have not yet developed a full

378 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

rangeof manufacturing skills wonder whether they will be let go inthe name
of increased efficiency.
Although the problem-plagued plant described above did not have to
institute layoffs or early retirements, it did not have much success with any
of its productivity-raising schemes. What went wrong? The manufacturing
vice president was looking for old-fashioned loyalty and easy-to-arouse
team spirit. He should have known that unreciprocated loyalty is a thing of
the past and that today’s young workers won’tbe taken in by slick programs
and the associated rah-rah.
The new boss never offered clear and convincing facts and figures to
explain why productivity levels were creating competitive problems. Nor
did he show how productivity improvements would translate into more
secure jobs and better incomes. How could he expect his workers to respond
with enthusiasm when all he talked about was efficiency for the sake of the
plant—and his own glory? His pleas for heightened commitment fell on
deaf ears because he made the mistake of bringing in outside experts to
study the situation and then asked them to make their findings known only
to management,
This made the workers feel that management did not value
theirexperience and skills and could not trust them to take part in the change
process.
Naturally, the altemative is to involve supervisors and workers in any
change process, to provide them with the training and support they need to
upgrade current skills or develop new ones, and to guarantee them continu-
ing employment and/or a share of productivity improvement gains. None
of that was attempted here. Instead, the message was “do it or you’re dead.”
Such cynical and one-sided manipulation invites contempt, arouses passive
and sometimes aggressive resistance, and creates a self-fulfilling and self-
defeating cycle of mistrust between managers and workers that dooms any
productivity improvement effort.
In this instance, plant people coped with the perceived threat by acting
as “their own best friend” and, in their eyes, protecting themselves and their
dignity. While the manufacturing executive felt victimized by these atti-
tudes, he was part and parcel of the problem. As a manager, he was a
purveyor, as well as a recipient, of cynicism at work.

CYNICISM AT WORK
Cynicism is gripping the United States work force. According to our
national survey of 649 workers, some 43 percent can be classified as
cynical. These cynics see selfishness and guile at the base of human
nature. They agree that people will tell a lie if they can gain by it, that
people pre tend to care about one another more than they really do, and
that people may claim to be honest and moral but act otherwise when
money is at stake. Overall, cynics mistrust the motives of other people;
assume that others are wholly self-interested and self-serving; and,

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 379

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PuiLip H. MRvis AND DoNALD L. KANTER

consequently, adopt a cold, calculating view of life that many equate with
“realism.”
Such cynical attitudes about life have a corrosive effect on people’s
behavior in the workplace. They lead to expediency and politicking among
hard-hitting, self-serving cynics, and to rumor-mongering and disaffection
among the hard-bitten, self-protective types. Time is spent in self-promo-
tion and flank-protection rather than in productive problem solving. Enthu-
siasm and espritde corps give way to second-guessing and one-upmanship.
Finally, and perhaps most serious of all, cynicism leads to a generalized
mistrust of authority, to disparagement of management communications
and directions, and ultimately to denigration of the leadership and mission
of the enterprise.

Cynics’ Attitudes about Their Management

The data on work attitudes in our national survey show that cynics: don’t
have much trust in management or faith in their coworkers; don’t find their
pay to be fairor think they have a fair shot at advancement; and don’t believe
that management listens to them or values what they do on their jobs.
Cynics have far more jaundiced attitudes about their work than the rest of
the work force, who either have a wary (16 percent) or upbeat (41 percent)
outlook on life.
Cynicism, it should be added, is something very different from skepti-
cism, which can be a sensible and healthy response to life and work in
today’s world. Skeptics may doubt some or most of what is said to them,
but are amenable to proof and demonstration. Cynics, on the otherhand, are
so convinced that their fellow man is only out for numberone, is selfish, and
will do anything to gain an advantage, that they cannot be open-minded
about anything.
Much has been said about the momentous decline in people’s work
attitudes over the past three decades. It has been attributed to the decline in
the work ethic and the rise of the “me” generation, to the growing disparity
between the haves and have nots, between the well-educated and the lesser-
skilled, and to the relatively good fortunes of high-tech operators (few in
number) versus that of service deliverers (of whom there are many more in
the work force). Our study showed that people’s beliefs in the work ethic,
their education level and socio-economic status, and their occupations are,
indeed, related to their attitudes about their jobs. In general, those who are
less committed to work and less privileged, and who work in lower-status
jobs, have less job satisfaction than the more committed and privileged
members of the white-collar work force. But no matter what their work
ethic and material circumstance, cynics have an especially jaundiced
attitude about management’s credibility, trustworthiness, and even-
handedness.
Our analyses showed cynicism to be the number-one predictor of

380 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 COMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

people’s trust in management and in coworkers, and an important predictor

of how they view their companies. To put it succinctly, cynics believe that
management lies, that the company cheats them, that coworkers cannot be
trusted, and that they had better look out for themselves. Companies must
contend with this attitude, not much investigated by pollsters and research-
ers, if they are to regain loyalty, reinstill spirit, and obtain the commitment
and follow-through needed to improve productivity and cope with change.

Cynics’ Profile in the Work Force

Cynics can be found in the office or the factory, in all occupations, and
wearing every color of collar. Our survey showed cynicism to be most
prominent among blue-collar workers in the manufacturing sector and
among those employed in lower-paying service jobs in both govemnment
and the private sector. More clerical and office workers are cynical than are
upbeat; and management is not immune: Some 40 percent of the managers
and supervisors surveyed also have a cynical outlook on life.
On the qualitative side, people differ in putting their cynicism into
practice. On the managerial level, cynics have few compunctions about
exploiting the vulnerabilities and preying upon the weaknesses of others.
Cynics in command posts, for example, are skilled in controlling informa-
tion and exercising power through operatives. In their mind, they “made it
the hard way,” and anyone who has not is weak, naive, inept, or just plain
stupid. This attitude makes them aloof and unfeeling in the eyes of
employees, and fearsome to the yes-men, fixers, and manipulators charged
with doing their bidding. Their cynicism appears to overrule their con-
science in favor of expediency and self-aggrandizement.
By comparison, cynics in staff positions ruthlessly use corporate rules
and procedures to build and maintain their empires. They treat people as
though they were machines and gain their psychic rewards from such small
victories as catching an adversary “out of channels.” When it comes to
productivity programs, they publicly follow the party line but privately
throw up roadblocks, insist that everything operate through circumscribed
procedures, and protect sacred bureaucratic traditions.
Articulate players, another type of managerial cynic, are open and vocal
about “how the game is played.” They pride themselves on their ability to
“see through” company politics and thrive on “inside dope” and *“‘making
the big score.” Each of these cynical managers wields cynicism like a
sword. They use it to gain advantage and to signal their strength and savvy
to competitors.
People who neither command nor climb are more inclined to embrace
cynicism to emotionally protect themselves from what they imagine to be
the slings and arrows of hustlers and higher-ups. Cynics whose aspirations
have not been met or who have been disappointed by their own lack of
accomplishment blame the “system” for their disappointments and failings.
National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 381

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PuiLir H. Mirvis AND DoNALD L. KANTER

Many of these cynics have been “squeezed” by a lack of credentials and

opportunity into mind-numbing and ego-deflating jobs. They practice what
political economist Thorsten Veblen called the “politics of envy,” scoffing
at the urgings of managers and putting down the accomplishments of their
more successful peers.
Other cynics in the work force are more bitter and. vengeful. They
sing the anthem of Johnny Paycheck—*“Take this job and shove it"—
and take an “us versus them” attitude toward management. Finally, there
are the obstinate stoics. They are generally older and more passive cynics,
who are neither frustrated nor angry, but who are unresponsive to new
ideas and vigilant about being “taken” by upstart superiors and so-called
experts.
Each of these cynical types has developed a series of adaptive responses
to help cope with aseemingly hostile and untrustworthy world. Many in the
lower rungs of organizations wear their cynicism as a shield to protect what
they believe to be their interests and to preserve their self-image.

THE CYNICAL COMPANY AND MANAGER

Many managers today operate in company cultures that create, rein-
force, and sustain cynicism. Although it is not common for company
cultures to be characterized as cynical, such a descriptor should be added to
the corporate culture vocabulary.
Our research uncovered several aspects of company cultures that sanc-
tion behavior among executives that leads to resentment, disillusionment,
and active or passive cynicism among workers. For example, giving
employees the impression that the business is being run only for the bottom
line implies that everything is subordinate to profit and that pride in craft,
teamwork, and long-range success are just so much claptrap. There are also
managers who communicate in a way that makes people conclude that the
business is really run for management’s benefit or, more piously, for the
benefitof the owners and shareholders. These managers seem to go out of
their way to signal that no other values are important and that employees do
not count for much. Such an attitude leads to a workplace environment
dominated by a feeling of temporariness, an absence of a lasting vision of
what the company and its products ought to be. Of course, this makes for
anxiety and concern, not only about job security but also about the
continuity of leadership. There is also the feeling, stemming from strident
preoccupation with fiscal considerations, that employees can and will be
sacrificed to the tyranny of the bottom line. All this adds to the general
perception that the workplace is very much like the real world, where
nobody cares about the average person.
Managerial tolerance of shoddy products and services can also contrib-
ute toemployees’ cynicism. Managers who exhort employees to cut comers
on product quality or service create, in the short run, contempt and distrust;

382 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

in the long run, they defeat the value of the brand or franchise in the eyes
of its actual and potential customers.
Many managers also create cynicism among their employees by exploit-
ingand intimidating them. Some use the received wisdom of ‘Machiavelli—
that it is better to be feared than loved—to justify throwing their weight
around. These are more than Theory X-type managers. They are managers
who want to be known as ruthless and feel that their employees will operate
more productively in fear than in comfort. Accordingly, they sometimes
“take hostages” to demonstrate just how tough they are willing t0 be.
We call the operative value in companies that support and sustain
exploitation and intimidation cynical realism. Managers who operate in
such companies are expected to be tough and cunning. They live by the so-
called law of the jungle. Thus, they often encourage employees to backstab
their peers and backbite whenever possible. Wittingly ornot, they may even
hire two people to do similar jobs and try to play them off against each other.
Regular jungle play creates a self-interested, cynical work force, of course,
and leaves the impression that managers are cold and cruel. Over time, the
managers will assimilate these traits into their own self-serving style and
philosophy.

COPING WITH CYNICISM AT WORK

A glance at a daily newspaper reveals that cynicism is active and visible
in Washington and on Wall Street, noticeable and growing in Middle
America, and depressingly palpable in big cities and among the rural poor.
Against this backdrop, is it possible to counter workplace cynicism and
manage our way back to credibility? A first step in coping with cynicism
is to recognize that it exists in the work force and that one of its sources is
the workplace. The receipt for breeding cynicism in companies is simple:
Hype up people’s hopes, disappoint them, and then take advantage of them
until they become disillusioned. This formula is well-known to young
workers, many of whom are overeducated for and understimulated by jobs
that promised them more. And it is brewed in many companies where
managers play on employees’ high expectations and then fail to deliver.
To turn things around, companies and managers have to reverse the
cynical formula. This means getting in touch with what people want and
expect from a job and establishing, with them, a realistic and reciprocal
agreement. It also means understanding the sources of cynicism within the
workplace and managing people so that secrecy, social distance, and one-
sidedness are minimized, and openness, closeness, and two-way trust are
achieved. Finally, it means communicating fully and honestly with the
work force—managers and employees. Companies have to practice what
they preach and deal straight with people to counter cynics and elicit
commitment.
The task isnot easy. Cynicism is fed by many sources—govemment, the

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 383

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Priip H. Mirvis AND DONALD L. KANTER

media, and schools, to name a few—and turning it around in the workplace

is notenough. But work is a good place to start, and many companies have
taken the challenge to heart.

Meeting Discontent Head On

In the early 1980s, Caterpillar Tractor faced the problem of growing
disillusionment among the younger segment of its work force. Women and
minorities, empowered by the civil rights and women’s movements, also
complained of being disenfranchised in the company. None of these
groups’ expectations was being met. To be fair, Caterpillar never system-
atically oversold the company to employees. It did not have to: Decades
of providing people with rising wages, secure work, generous benefits, and
a chance to get ahead made Cat a model employer in Peoria, Illinois, and
elsewhere. Then an economic downtumn and unexpected strike by the local
UAW pitted management against worker and colleagues against one
another. A growing chorus intoned that Cat had lost touch with its people.
Proposals for productivity improvement were met with chary resistance.
The labor strike lingered—hung up on “noneconomic issues.” Plainly, Cat
had to strike a new kind of deal with its people, one that recognized growing
cynicism in the ranks.
And so, the company undertook a worldwide effort to redefine expecta-
tions—of employees and the organization. Several task forces, staffed by
management and employees, surveyed blue-collar, technical, professional,
and managerial personnel plus distributors, to delineate people’s expecta-
tions and what Cat would have to do to meet them. Focus groups were held
with minorities and women, and management got an earful. A Human
Resource Strategy Conference involved 10,000 people in fact-finding and
served to assert the rights and responsibilities of both the company and its
employees.
Recommendations to upgrade training, conduct and publish the results
of attitude surveys, involve employees in more job-related decisions, and
improve managers’ communication skills were adopted and implemented.
The UAW became a partner in the formulation of Cat’s strategies for
introducing technological change. Slowly and surely, Cat regained its
reputation as a model employer among its work force.
‘What can be leamed from Cat’s efforts to regain the trust of its
work force? First, management found employees ready and able to talk
cogently about their expectations and the needs of the business. It was
initially feared that employees would have a “wish list” completely di-
vorced from the competitive realities facing the firm—or worse, that
employees would expect the company to meet all of their demands once
they had the chance to air them. Instead, it was found that most people had
reasonable expectations and appreciated the chance to talk about them-
selves, their aspirations, and their views of the company.

384 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Second, the way the study was organized respected the diversity of the
Cat work force. A widespread concem that focusing on the expectations of
subgroups of employees would prove divisive and lead to interest group
lobbying proved unfounded. Instead, the company found that employees
had a broad common agenda and that, for the most part, the special needs
of subgroups did not conflict with common aims.
Third, the way the study was conducted enabled large numbers of people
totake part ina companywide assessment of expectations and in developing
a broad-based action agenda. This made the process visible and credible
and made the company’s intent clear to its employees. Furthermore, the
overall emphasis was on fact-finding rather than soft-soaping, on under-
standing rather than posturing, and on open, two-way exchange rather than
making it seem that management knew all the right answers.

SETTING REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

It is, of course, difficult to change existing attitudes and redefine a
Tongstanding company culture. We believe that companies can take steps
to prevent the disaffection and discontent experienced at Caterpillar by
inoculating employees as they enter the work force with what we term
realistic idealism, as opposed to the cynical realism promulgated in many
firms. This means giving people a realistic picture of what they can and
cannot expect of the company and what is expected of them. The most
credible and effective way we have observed to ensure that people have
realistic expectations is by communicating honestly. This can be done by
taking the following three steps.
1. Give People a Realistic Job Preview. The development of realistic
expectations starts when people are hired. Several studies have shown that
it pays to give people a clear and straightforward preview of their jobs. One
study focused on a telephone company that was experiencing low morale
and high tumover among operators. The study found that the company’s
recruiting pitch included a color film showing operators handling emer-
gency phone calls, chatting away with interesting and sexy-sounding
callers, and using the latest and most advanced technology. In practice,
however, operators were required to turn emergencies over to their super-
visors; their calls were monitored and time limited; and their equipment was
cumbersome and dated.
An obvious solution was to redesign the jobs, give operators more
discretion, and modemize the equipment—a solution implemented in other
parts of the phone company. In this case, however, such efforts were not
feasible. Management, therefore, decided to give recruits a truthful picture
of the job—its advantages and disadvantages. Current employees prepared
the orientation film, realistically depicting the tedium and pacing of the
work along with the attendant responsibilities, and noting the chance it gave
operators to serve the calling public. Information about pay, job security,

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 385

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PurLip H. Mirvis AND DonNALD L. KANTER

peer camaraderie, and working conditions was presented openly, and

recruits had the chance to talk with veterans about what life would be like
on the job. The phone company discovered that the formal educational
attainments of new hires dropped in the months that followed. But
performance of the less credentialed hires exceeded expectations and
turnover was reduced significantly.
‘What can be done to keep veteran employees’ expectations in line with
realities? Studies suggest that most people adjust their expectations over
time and develop a more reasonable picture of their opportunities and
prospects. To ensure that employees maintain an informed picture, compa-
nies should regularly post information on rates of promotion and publish
statistics on the use and effectiveness of their job posting programs. This
gives people a clearer picture of opportunities and helps them formulate
more realistic career plans.
2. Make Employees Responsible for Their Work Environment. In
keeping with the theme of informed realism, many companies are also
passing down the responsibility for making day-to-day decisions to their
employees. In traditional organizations, basic decisions about pay, bene-
fits, and promotions—not to mention work hours, job assignments, and
performance standards—are solely the responsibility of management. This
sharp division of responsibility reinforces the old compact that the company
provides and the employee works. Companies cannot or will not provide
as much today as they did in the past, and working people have the
intelligence and interest to take more responsibility for managing their own
working conditions.
For example, several U.S. manufacturing plants have initiated skill-
based pay, which compensates people for leaming specific job skills. Itis
up to employees to regulate their pay within the confines of an overall plan.
As workers acquire more skills in the operation of, say, a factory, their base
pay increases. This, in tum, gives companies a more flexible work force.
This new compact gives working people more control over their rewards
and the chance to see their training pay off.
The motto of Graphic Controls Corporation, a Buffalo manufacturer, is
“extraordinary results from ordinary people.” Here employees negotiate
their personal and professional goals with supervisors and are given a
budget and the resources to reach them as a matter of course. Employees
have a say in the selection of their supervisors, in the design of their jobs,
and even in decisions about corporate pay and benefit policies. They are
also offered regular counseling on their career development by a profes-
sional career planner inside the corporation, and are encouraged to pursue
outside opportunities when they better fit their needs. This company
practices realistic idealism at its best. High rates of productivity and low
rates of turnover prove that these practices pay off.
There is always a risk that passing along such responsibilities will

386 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

backfire and people will, ina cynical fashion, take advantage of acompany.
What can be done to channel ambitious employees’ efforts toward mutually
valued rather than self-serving ends?
3. Channel Ambition to Desirable and Ethical Ends. There are so many
opportunities for self-dealing and unethical conduct in companies today
that special efforts are needed to ensure that new employees and veterans
intemalize corporate standards of morality. As Kenneth Goodpaster, an
instructor at the Harvard Business School who has tried to enlighten
managers about the need for corporate ethics, notes,

There was a certain cynicism that said, What good will philosophy do when
everyone knows the bottom line is profit? Why bother putting a veneer over
than when in fact the driving impulse is going to be amoral if not immoral?

The chairman of Chemical Bank has made the kind of special effort it
takes to ensure that his company’s commitment to ethics is perceived as
more than just a veneer. He personally drafted the bank’s statement of
corporate ethics and met with employees all over the world to reinforce its
importance. Surveys at Chemical Bank show that employees today are
more conscious of and sensitive to shady and deceptive practices and
believe that the company means business when it promises to enforce its
ethical code.
Professor Kathy Kram of Boston University's School of Management
has studied several companies where managerial trainees are assigned
senior mentors who not only groom them for advancement but also
socialize them in corporate ideals. Her research shows that these role
models are serious about their responsibility to prepare a new generation of
ethical and upbeat executives. Furthermore, in the eyes of their peers, the
management trainees seem to emulate the manner and embrace the values
of their role models. Other companies sponsor training seminars in which
managers are challenged to work through case studies and simulations
involving ethical dilemmas. The point is that companies can and are taking
steps to inculcate and reinforce responsible conduct in their people. Inthat
way, the driving impulse toward profitability is informed by higher ideals.

FOUR CYNICAL PERCEPTIONS AND HOW TO

COUNTER THEM
Setting realistic expectations, passing along responsibility, and channel-
ing ambition are threc ways that a company can effectively manage the
expectations of its work force and forestall cynicism. The next task is to
deliver on people’s realistic expectations and to be visible in doing so—
even to doubting Thomases.
In most corporations, there are many practices that deeply disillusion
working people and fuel cynicism. For example, promises of generous

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 387

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PuiLip H. MIRvis aND DoNALD L. KANTER

benefits, frequent performance reviews, and bright career opportunities

breed cynicism when the benefits are reduced by corporate fiat, reviews
become perfunctory and ceremonial, and career planning gets pushed off to
a more profitable quarter. The sense of disillusionment is increased by
unresponsive hierarchies that promote a class system, and by nonparticipa-
tory decision making that makes it plain who really counts in a firn. There
are, however, four specific aspects of company life that, according to
national surveys, not only disappoint people, but also disillusion them.
Here is how companies can manage otherwise.

Complaint #1: The pay system is rigged. Polls show that working people
widely believe that hard work and commitment are not rewarded by
American companies. Some 75 percent of the work force believes that what
employees are paid has very little to do with the quality and amount of effort
they put into their work. Furthermore, people believe that they are not
getting anywhere near the recognition they expect for doing their jobs well,
but certainly hear about it when they perform poorly.
If people’s expectations to be rewarded for their hard work are being
frustrated in industry today, who profits from their efforts? Polls show that
nearly 50 percent of the American working population believes that their
company alone profits from their hard work. For these employees, it is the
familiar and disillusioning story: Management is taking advantage of the
workers, whipping up motivation, introducing new equipment, and then
hoarding the fruits of success.
Even more striking is the finding from a Gallup Poll conducted for the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which found that only 9 percent of jobholders
believed they would be the primary beneficiaries of improvements in their
company’s productivity. The rest saw the benefits going to the managers,
stockholders, and consumers. It is worth noting that these results stand in
sharp contrast to those found in a recent study of Japanese workers. In
Japan, 93 percent of the jobholders believed that they would benefit from
improvements in their employers’ profitability.

Solution: Make it fair and make it public. One obvious means of

countering employee perceptions that hard work does not pay off is to
institute a fair pay plan. The gap between the highest- and lowest-paid
member of American companies is far greater than that found in Japan.
Defenders say this is essential to motivating management and to stimulating
people to reach higher in their companies. The fallout is that many in the
work force believe that management is paid too much and that their own
contributions are undervalued. In this age of the narrowing pyramid,
companies that encourage a wide pay gap risk tuming off people who, of
necessity, stay at current job grades longer and make more lateral than
vertical career moves.

388 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, a Vermont ice cream manufacturer, has

instituted a 5 to 1 pay scale, in which the highest-paid manager cams no
more than five times the salary of blue-collar workers. The company is not
trying to limit managers’ pay. On the contrary, managers can make as much
as they want, so long as everyone gains along with them.
Merit pay systems can also be implemented. Although more firms than
ever have instituted these systems, results have been mixed. Workers
complain that increases do not reflect true merit and they mistrust the
secrecy that shroud most merit pay arrangements.
Edward Lawler, a professor of management at the University of South-
emn California’s Center for Effective Organizations, recommends that
companies adopt open pay systems, in which all the rates, steps, and grades
are made public to employees. Interestingly, Lawler finds that people over-
estimate what their peers are making until the rates are made public. He also
advises firms to publish the results of industry and area salary surveys. That
way people can judge for themselves whether their pay is fair in comparison
with what other firms pay. This implies that management has to convince
the cynics—through substance, not rhetoric—that the game is fair.
Some companies go so far as to have their pay and promotion audited by
independent consulting firms that issue opinions on the extent to which pay
and promotion decisions truly reflect meritorious performance. Others rely
onemployee involvement to set fair pay rates. Rimrock, a Columbus, Ohio,
manufacturer, had a team of managers and employees set compensation
rates for the boss on down. Pay satisfaction jumped markedly. Graphic
Controls publishes its salary information to employees and regularly
surveys them on pay faimess. An in-house pay-and-benefits committee,
staffed by managers and employees, reviews the survey findings and makes
merit pay recommendations to management.
Certainly there are benefits to establishing gain-sharing or profit-sharing
systems in corporations. The former reward employees based on gains in
productivity or cost savings, while the latter give them a share of corporate
profits. In either case, however, the way in which the systems work has to
be made clear to employees. Secrecy brings the cynics out of the closet.

Complaint #2: Management can’t be trusted. There is disconcerting

evidence that alarge proportion of working people do not believe what their
managers tell them. In our survey, only one in five working people said
they trust their management. And more than 40 percent of the cynics
are convinced that management lies and will take advantage of them, given
the chance.
The cynical drums have beat in a new generation of self-help books and
periodicals that counsel people on surviving company takeovers, restruc-
turings, and downsizing. The keys seem to be personal positioning,
posturing, and making the right power play. The guides also advise keeping

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 389

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PuiLip H. Mirvis AND DONALD L. KANTER

one’s résumé current, maintaining contact with headhunters, staying con-

nected to a job network, and, most important, always looking out for
oneself.

Solution: Make hard truths testable. In the teeth of all this received
wisdom, what can companies do to regain employee trust and commitment?
W. Michael Blumenthal recalls that when he was chairman of Burroughs
Corporation, he faced rank disbelief when his company took over Sperry
and he promised to create a partnership between the two firms.
Blumenthal created a Merger Coordination Council, staffed by execu-
tives from both companies, to design the new organization and appoint new
management. He insisted that meritocracy prevail and regularly intervened
to ensure that the best systems and people from each company were retained
in the new one. Unisys, the name of the combined company, was selected
from 15,000 entries submitted by employees. This was a small but
symbolically important gesture in building a new identity. The fact that top
senior managers from both companies were retained and that the new
company bears the mark of both former ones showed cynics that manage-
ment could be trusted to deliver on its promises.
‘When Prime Computer acquired Computer Vision, employees predicted
a bloodbath with reductions mostly on the CV side. Joe Henson, CEO of
Prime, however, wanted reductions to be based on merit. He and his top
managers personally reviewed rosters of proposed staff reductions to
ensure that performance, and not politics, were guiding decisions to retain
or lay off workers. Several placement centers were established to help
people find jobs within Prime or, if necessary, with area employers. A
generous severance agreement was formulated and publicized among
employees. Job posting and outside hiring were suspended to ensure that
people whose jobs had been eliminated had first crack at any openings.
Two manufacturing vice presidents, Mel Friedman and Cathy Kote,
took the lead in handling layoffs in their areas. Both met with groups of
employees to openly address their concemns and grievances. The financial
rationale for the layoffs and statistics on the numbers of people and
positions affected were presented to employees. Both managers faced the
firing line and refused to delegate the transmission of bad news to their
subordinates.
A task force, staffed by employees throughout the company, was
charged with monitoring the progress of the merger and handling staff
reductions. Its findings were circulated widely. That way, employees had
a direct pipeline to senior management and could indicate whether the
reductions were fair.

Complaint#3: The company doesn’t care. Many people state flat out that
their companies do not care about everyday working people or about the

390 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

communities in which they conduct business. Although layoffs and plant

closings, plus revelations of unhealthy working conditions and corporate
environmental pollution, contribute to this perception, the view that man-
agement does not care canbe traced squarely to the way in which companies
traditionally have been managed. The old saw that “the business of business
is business” still dominates the mind-set of many managers. Human
relations and concemn for the commonweal are given short shrift or
neglected altogether.
Harris polls show that in the 1980s there has been a sharp decline in
people’s ratings of business’s efforts to keep the environment clean and
contribute to the well-being of communities. Furthermore, ratings of its
success in providing steady work for employees have dropped 34 points.
And 80 percent of the populace believes that companies do not pay their fair
share of taxes.
At the same time, surveys show that most people find their immediate
supervisors honest, likeable, and concemned about them as individuals.
Between the abstraction of the faceless company and the flesh-and-blood
presence of a caring boss, however, lies the group known as “management,”
which everyday working people deem to be callous and indifferent. This
perception is magnified when management is generally invisible, routinely
absorbed in life at the top, and seemingly uninterested in the day-to-day
concemns of people in an office or plant. Needless to say, this builds a wall
between management and employees and can be devastating to the sense of
community in the workplace.

Solution: Bring community to the workplace. There are many ways in

which a company can promote a sense of community within the enterprise.
More egalitarian practices are one example. Upbeat companies are getting
tid of executive parking places, private dining rooms, and limited stock
options. Instead, they host companywide gatherings, provide communal
eating facilities, and promote employee stock ownership.
Such practices put everyone on common footing, reinforcing upbeat
attitudes and helping to quiet the cynic. Taking a somewhat different
approach to building community, firms such as Johnson & Johnson put their
corporate ideals into practice through health improvement programs that
include physical exercise and regular paid check-ups for employees.
Company health facilities are also used to bring community to the
workplace.
Several companies have created community liaison offices to work with
leaders of civic and nonprofit groups in planning new facilities or handling
plant closings, and ombudsmen regularly hear the complaints of commu-
nity groups. All this sends a message that the company is responsive to
community interests.
Bank of America goes so far as to issue a “social audit” that describes the

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 391

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Prip H. Mirvis AND DONALD L. KANTER

company’s investments in community, civic, and charitable activities and

evaluates its compliance with environmental and equal employment legis-
lation. Bank of America branch managers are charged with contributing to
community groups in their geographic areas by, say, building and maintain-
ing a park or a day-care facility. The managers’ performance in these areas
is evaluated and used in making salary and promotion decisions.
Polaroid goes even further in connecting the company with the commu-
nity. Teams of workers contribute to decisions about the charitable giving
of the corporation and, in effect, adopt community groups in overseeing
company philanthropy. They oftenlend their own technical and managerial
expertise to these groups and contribute their own funds to them. Interest-
ingly, Polaroid employees regard this as a perk, rather than a burden, and
take pride in the belief that their company cares about people.

Complaint #4: Time is at a premium. In many companies, time is

culturally at a premium: People are not supposed to have time to talk or
socialize with one another, or to join in lunchtime or after-work “bull
sessions.” For those living for the moment, digital watches add precision
to the management of time limitations, as do day-by-day planning guides,
minute-to-minute appointment schedules, and the like. Taking time for
people simply takes time away from everyone's busy schedule—and
having a busy schedule is a mark of success.
This preoccupation with time is to some extent a reflection of people’s
heightened sense of self-interest and self-importance. Many executives
today use time much as they use money—for instrumental purposes. It buys
them more analysis and meetings, more contacts and information, more
persuading and selling. Even people’sleisure time is compressed into more
exciting vacations and more action-packed recreation. This fixation on time
limitations has its costs, of course, including personal stress and anxiety.
Can Americans adopt a longer-term orientation to time? Because our
culture discounts the inevitability of aging and slowing down and devalues
patience and persistence to a degree, there is no evidence that Americans
will embrace a guiltless longer-term outlook. The live-for-the-moment
mentality is here to stay; however, there are ways that companies can put
time into the service of corporate ideals.

Solution: Give people more control over their time. Some leading
companies, IBM and Xerox for example, provide executives with time off
to pursue worthy volunteer pursuits; executives on sabbatical can be found
teaching at community colleges and leading charitable organizations.
Many more firms have at least adopted flextime to allow people to
formulate their own work schedules. In this way, people can use time to
assert their independence, control their own pace, and meet their personal
priorities.

392 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CoMBATTING CYNICISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Many companies face the twin challenges of meeting baby boomers”

insistent demand for independence and working parents’ desire for more
flexibility and control over their work schedules. Some younger Ameri-
cans, for example, are choosing to work at night and to use their days for
recreation, playing with their children, or socializing with friends. In the
same way, more people are working at home or adopting four- rather than
five-day work schedules. Time, which has become a medium for self-
assertion, should become an essential component of the corporate reward
system.
‘The managerial implications of this are enormous: Time can be areward
assuming many forms. It opens up the possibility of job sharing for two-
career couples with children, of desirable part-time work, and of providing
people with longer holidays and shorter work weeks, producing temporal
instead of financial rewards. Recognizing and responding to these values
in the new work force requires changing basic patterns of management,
which can pay off handsomely for both companies and employees.

SOMETHING WORTHWHILE TO BELIEVE IN

In their study of the strength of corporate cultures, Terrence E. Deal and
Allan A. Kennedy found that twenty-five of eighty companies surveyed
had, in the eyes of their employees, a clearly articulated corporate philoso-
phy. Eighteen of these firms espoused what the authors call “qualitative
values” that bespoke human ideals.
Statements of philosophy define a company’s ideals and address
such subjects as the company’s beliefs about people, its attitude toward
customers and aspirations for quality, its standards of management,
and its expectations of employees. But simply formulating a high-
minded company credo will not necessarily capture people’s imaginations
or stir their idealism. Indeed, it has become fashionable for companies
to develop philosophy statements, have them printed on glossy bro-
chures, and then ignore or counterfeit them in everyday management
practice. This gap between what companies preach and what they practice
can be a sharp spur to cynicism. It is crucial for companies to live their
corporate ideals.
Many in Caterpillar likened the Human Resource Strategy Conference
to the Constitutional Convention. People could get their heads together,
speak plainly and forthrightly, and find common ground. This structured
dialogue yielded some high-minded principles—a statement of what
employees should expect from their company and what their company
should expect from them. Ben & Jerry’s couples an old-fashioned attitude
with newfangled ideas. The business is part of the community, believe the
founders, and has a responsibility to give back to it. B&J donates 7 1/2
percent of its pre-tax profits to charitable and community action groups.
Employees regularly contribute to worthy causes as part of their job

National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989 393

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Priip H. Mirvis AND DoNaLD L. KANTER

responsibilities. And the company’s social mission is given equal standing

alongside its economic mission. The founders insist that it be so.
Graphic Controls puts its credibility on the line every two years. Results
from employee surveys are published not only internally but are also
revealed to stockholders and the public. GC'’s former chairman, Will
Clarkson, was not satisfied with saying “People are our most important
asset.” He decided to publish information so that all could determine
whether that valued asset was being well managed.
Sure, there are cynics at Caterpillar, Ben & Jerry's, and Graphic
Controls, as well as at the other companies cited here. But cynicism is
neither chic nor socially acceptable at these companies. Management has
taken steps to bring realism and idealism to the fore. High rates of
productivity, quality, and innovation depend on trusting and trustworthy
people. Upbeat companies know this. The cynical ones and the cynical
managers they breed can profit from their example.

394 National Productivity Review/Vol. 8, No. 4/Autumn 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.