ChatGPT: A communicator’s friend or foe?
/*! elementor - v3.10.2 - 29-01-2023 */
.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}
/*! elementor - v3.10.2 - 29-01-2023 */
.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-stacked .elementor-drop-cap{background-color:#818a91;color:#fff}.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-framed .elementor-drop-cap{color:#818a91;border:3px solid;background-color:transparent}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap{margin-top:8px}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap-letter{width:1em;height:1em}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap{float:left;text-align:center;line-height:1;font-size:50px}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap-letter{display:inline-block} This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Insights Research CenterWe’ve started to get glimpses into what AI means for the comms and PR professions, and not all the news is good…As AI has burst onto the scene, no one has missed the fact that it will have huge ramifications — not only in our work lives, but for society at large. This is especially true in terms of privacy, regulation, and information access — not to mention the very definitions of originality, authenticity, and art. There is talk of a “Cambrian explosion” in terms of AI’s impact on our world, due to its exponential enablement of new technology and generative outputs. But what specifically does it mean for professional communicators?AI’s newer generative language models, such as ChatGPT, are transforming the business landscape in ways that have huge knock-on effects for the profession. The push of a button is all it takes to create original content, mimic narrative styles, paraphrase texts, and in some cases, design compelling rhetoric that can sway and motivate. It’s patently clear that this is going to be a game changer and relieve at least some of the more tedious tasks in comms. Not to mention the fact that it’s really fun to use. Why, then, does it make us feel so uneasy?In my book, published last year (a lifetime ago in AI terms), I emphasized that generative AI poses a significant threat to the communication and PR professions. In terms of day-to-day content production — such as press releases, corporate announcements, and basic journalism — ChatGPT and its variants can produce convincing and accurate copy in a fraction of the time it takes a human being. This is especially threatening to entry-level and junior communications roles. But the fact is that this type of technological encroachment as inevitable as taxes and death. Just as robotic chefs and robotic surgeons and AI-powered legal contracts will soon become commonplace, many communication tasks will be outsourced to machines. This will undoubtedly create crises for employment and financial security — and it will also create crises around the purpose and meaning of apprenticeships and on-the-job learning — not just for comms, but for all impacted professions.The good news is that communicators have an ace in their pocket. We are still a long way from surrendering organizational and leadership communication to a machine, at least for the time being. This is for two different reasons:1.) There is a dark side to these technologies Even in the earliest days of GPT-2 and GPT-3, researchers found that generative AI excels at generating disinformation — a phenomenon that Politico’s AI reporter Melissa Heikkilä cleverly described as “filling the swamp.” Generative AI is alarmingly effective at crafting slick-sounding messages — from QAnon conspiracy theories and climate change denial to extremist narratives and radical ideologies.With this kind of gloomy research, however, we can glean many useful insights. Because AI is so effective at “filling the swamp,” it means that the structure of disinformation itself must be formulaic or algorithmic. IPR published a valuable primer on how to detect disinformation, and these clues, along with academic research into AI, may help us learn how to reverse engineer it.2.) Generative AI’s output is decontextualizedChatGPT is a generative technology, but that doesn’t mean that the content it generates is meaningful or even relevant. In Alan Turing’s imitation game, a series of questions can determine if one is interacting with a human or a machine, but the results of the game depend not only on the ability to give correct answers, but on how closely the answers resemble those that an actual human would give. In other words, the machine eventually reveals itself. For the time being at least, for any issue of real consequence, ChatGPT is an imitation and not the real McCoy.For these reasons, I believe that generative AI presents an opportunity for the communication profession to grow, even as it increasingly threatens many livelihoods. It may, in fact, be because of the threat that it forces change. It does this by providing an impetus to up our game and focus our time and energy on how to develop more perceptive, sincere, thoughtful, and yes, human communication — that can only be done by people. This is easier said than done, but it will mark the next era of the profession. And provide an even greater reason for corporate communicators to have a seat at the table in the organizations they serve.ReferencesBuchanan, B., Lohn, A., Musser, M., & Sedova, K. (2021, May). Truth, lies, and automation: How language models could change disinformation. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://cset.georgetown.edu/public ation/truth-lies-and-automation/McGuffie, K., & Newhouse, A. (2020). The radicalization risks of GPT-3 and advanced neural language models. Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey. https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/sites/www.middlebury.edu.institute/files/2020-09/gpt3-article.pdf
Laura McHale is the Managing Director and Leadership Psychologist Expert at Conduit Consultants Limited. McHale is an expert in assessments, leadership, and team effectiveness. She is the author of Neuroscience for Organizational Communication. She currently serves on the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center Board of Advisors.
...
Dr. Hongmei Shen and Dr. Chunbo Ren sought to define and establish disengagement as a unique concept. They also identified which factors drove disengagement and explored the behaviors through which it manifests. The study was motivated by the increasing global prevalence of employee disengagement and its detrimental effects on both organizational performance and culture.To better understand what disengagement looks like and how to define it, the researchers conducted 24 in-depth interviews with employees working in China.Key Findings — The researchers found that disengagement behaviors included an indifferent attitude to work, pulling away from being involved with colleagues and work events and a “who cares” approach to high priority tasks. — While disengagement and burnout are often perceived as similar, this study revealed a distinction between the two. Burnout is not characterized by a lack of willingness to contribute, but rather a state of being overwhelmed that restricts one’s capacity. On the other hand, disengagement involves employees who possess the necessary capacity and bandwidth but lack the motivation to actively engage.— Burnout can be understood as a temporary state that, if not remedied, can eventually lead to the more long-lasting state of disengagement. Implications for PracticeEmployers should recognize the significance of an employee’s alignment with both their role and the organizational culture as crucial factors influencing disengagement. A mismatch in these areas often serves as a predictor of disengaging behaviors. Additionally, employers should be mindful that they can adopt mitigating measures to decrease disengagement. This can be achieved through practices like actively listening to employees and actively involving them in the decision-making process of the organization. Click here to understand more about what disengagement looks like, how to recognize it, and how to prevent it.Shen, H., & Ren, C. (2023). Reconceptualizing employee disengagement as both attitudinal and behavioral: Narratives from China. Public Relations Review, 49(2), 102318.
... 
This blog is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center.Internal Communication (IC) is an essential part of any organization’s success. It is the backbone of a company’s culture and its ability to drive performance, engagement, and commitment among employees. However, measuring the effectiveness of internal communication has often been ignored or considered unimportant due to various reasons such as lack of resources, time, and effort. Some leaders also struggle to see the correlation between IC and business issues. But times are changing, and businesses are measuring more than ever, making it a strategic imperative.According to a 2023 Deloitte study, 58% of corporate affairs leaders consider data and insights to be their top area for improvement. This indicates the need for organizations to invest more in communication measurement and evaluation. The 2023 Brand Finance report, which ranks the world’s most valuable brands, also highlights that brands consistently make up 20-25% of the value of listed companies. Measurement and evaluation are crucial in helping leaders appreciate the value of brands, both internal and external.Measuring internal communication goes beyond proving value; it is now viewed as a strategic tool to make effective decisions and guide business priorities. It helps diagnose issues, allocate resources, create programs, and take action based on insights from data analysis.So, how can you ensure that internal communication measurement is a priority for your organization? Here are some strategies to consider:Set clear and SMART goals that align with the business’s priorities. For example, you could aim to enhance team outreach over the next six months by conducting six monthly meetups and engagement initiatives. Objectives could include increasing staff awareness and commitment to the organization’s purpose and goals, encouraging staff to talk positively about the company, improving brand perception and reputation, connecting staff to each other and the organization’s purpose, and increasing engagement and effectiveness in their roles.Identify specific audiences to engage, from skeptics to committed supporters and everyone in between. Getting everyone on board matters for successfully embedding measurement as a practice within the organization.Create a dashboard that brings all communication activities together, allowing stakeholders to see a comprehensive view of communication activities.Demonstrate the value of measurement by making it visible and inclusive. Invite stakeholders to share what they value the most, and ask what they think the organization should measure and report.Revisit and enhance how communication can further impact the business.Train “power” users of communications within business teams to be upskilled on measurement.Show how internal communication measurement can link to external communication and vice versa. For example, demonstrate how staff can act as ambassadors and contribute to content marketing in ways that help the brand’s reputation externally.The Barcelona Principles 2.0 recommend focusing on measuring outcomes (awareness, knowledge, relevance, etc.) and impact (such as productivity, innovation, reputation, safety, employee retention, and innovation), not just outputs like hits, views, or likes. Approaches for measurement and evaluation include surveys, polls, focus groups, interviews, and sentiment analysis.According to a Gartner update, most organizations do not invest enough in measurement or innovation. Organizations also tend to avoid broadcasting the value and impact of measurement and evaluation, which limits how the function is perceived.To effectively measure and evaluate internal communication, there are a few key questions that internal communicators should consider. By answering these questions, communicators can gain valuable insights into what is working, what isn’t, and how they can improve their strategies going forward. Here are some key questions to consider:Which channels are working well? Why?It’s important to understand which communication channels are resonating with employees and why. This can help communicators focus their efforts on the channels that are most effective, while also identifying areas for improvement. For example, if email newsletters are consistently getting high open and click-through rates, it might make sense to invest more resources into that channel. On the other hand, if social media posts aren’t getting much engagement, it might be worth exploring other channels that might be a better fit.Which content elements are trending? What is driving engagement?Similarly, it’s important to understand which types of content are resonating with employees and why. This can help communicators create more engaging content in the future. For example, if videos are consistently getting more views than other types of content, it might make sense to create more video content. On the other hand, if blog posts aren’t getting much engagement, it might be worth exploring other types of content that might be more engaging.Which type of employees are most involved? What are the drivers?It’s also important to understand which types of employees are most engaged with internal communication, and what is driving their engagement. This can help communicators tailor their strategies to better meet the needs and interests of different employee groups. For example, if younger employees are more likely to engage with social media content, it might make sense to create more social media content targeted at that demographic.How can internal communicators raise the profile of the function?Finally, it’s important for internal communicators to think about how they can raise the profile of the function within the organization. This might involve highlighting the impact that internal communication has on the organization or demonstrating the value of measurement and evaluation. By showing how internal communication is contributing to the success of the organization, communicators can ensure that their function is seen as an important part of the business.Measuring internal communication is more important than ever, and it requires a strategic approach. By setting clear goals, identifying specific audiences, creating a dashboard, demonstrating value, revisiting and enhancing communication impact, upskilling internal communication teams, and linking internal communication measurement to external communications, organizations can effectively measure the impact of internal communication and drive better results.
Aniisu K. Verghese, Ph.D., is a globally recognized communicator and Prosci® Certified Change Management Practitioner with over two decades of experience. Aniisu holds a Ph.D. in organizational communications, runs Intraskope, a boutique communication and personal branding consultancy, and is based in Krakow, Poland. His mission is to help individuals and organizations discover and develop their sweet-spot through effective communications. He is the author of Internal Communications – Insights, Practices and Models.
... 
Next, we asked who should have influence on their company’s actions:
While the top answers were similar, there were important differences. Far more respondents said employees should be influential than said employees are influential – 62% to 47%, the largest gap in our survey. Respondents also said customers should be more influential than they are (51% to 45%), while boards of directors and competitors should be less influential than they are:
The results also underscored the fact that employees are a diverse public with needs and attitudes that vary by age, race/ethnicity, gender, political philosophy, and other factors.For example: Male employees are more likely than female employees to say that several groups should have influence over their company’s actions: the Board of Directors (29% vs. 18%), Shareholders (28% vs. 19%), and Distributors (18% vs. 11%)Black employees are far more likely than either Hispanic or white employees to cite racial inequality and related issues as something they would like to see their employer influence in society (38% vs. 17% and 12%, respectively.)Younger employees are more likely than employees ages 45+ to advocate for the influence of labor and trade unions (25%) professional affiliations/associations (24%), distributors (22%), media outlets (22%) and geographic communities (10%).
While there is a wealth of data to be found in our survey results – reach out if you want to learn more — the most important takeaway is that your employees are the leading voices in your network, and they want to be.Employees are your most important public. Listen to them. Understand them. Engage them in and enable a multidirectional dialogue. When they talk about your organization – on LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Fishbowl, or a dozen other channels – their voices will be the among the most trusted. And, not coincidentally, those engaged employees will be a huge driver of your business results.
Ethan McCarty is the CEO of Integral, an award-winning Employee Experience Agency. He lectures at Columbia University in New York City and is a member of the Forbes Business Council. He currently is a member of the Institute for Public Relation’s Board of Trustees and is Director of the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center.
... 
Download Full Article (PDF): Deconstructing: Artificial Intelligence RegulationThis research brief is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research Center
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a disruptive force within the communication industry. Regulations of this new technology have yet to keep pace with the technological development of generative AI. However, within the United States, the President, Congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, and municipal governments have attempted to provide a framework to regulate AI. These regulations attempt to strike a balance between allowing the technology to grow and guarding against issues of disinformation, discrimination, and privacy violations. This article examines the current trends in U.S. AI regulation pointing out the legal and regulatory philosophies that guiding early attempts to manage generative AI platforms. The article concludes with suggestions for PR practitioners to navigate the evolving parameters of AI regulation.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE COMMUNICATION ISSUE OF THE 2020sThe power of generative artificial intelligence has sent both awe and fear for those with knowledge-based careers, such as public relations. Looking at the trade presses and seminars in the field, the issue of how do we use artificial intelligence (AI), how does AI help us with communication strategy, and how will AI potentially make public relations practitioners obsolete, are common questions. Generative AI’s disruption to communication is analogous to the creation of the internet. When the internet was put in public domain for use in 1993, there was trepidation by some organizations to become part of the online revolution. The beginnings of online growth saw some organizations rapidly adopt the new technology, while others were more cautious. By the late 1990s the proliferation of the internet led to the dot com bubble and the eventual crash of those companies in the early 2000s. From that event, regulation of the internet proliferated in the 2000s, and led to the current status we operate in today.The internet’s evolution is illustrative of how AI regulation is likely to develop. The technology is rapidly evolving and there is uncertainty in how it will be implemented. Managers and communicators share a mutual interest and skepticism of the real benefit of AI. This is also accelerated by the democratization of AI tools. Utilizing machine learning and generative AI does not necessarily require custom software. And barriers to AI use, such as hardware, software, machine learning models, data, and expertise data scientists, are more available with costs trending downward for organizations. That means that AI as a tool is gaining more traction in a variety of work settings, large and small.This situation presents a difficult position for lawmakers and industry organizations who are seeking to regulate generative AI in this early phase. Too much regulation can stifle the growth of an important new technology. No regulations would potentially facilitate a free-for-all development of generative AI that can result in unintended adverse impacts on user privacy, increase of discrimination, and the loss of intellectual property. This article examines existing and proposed U.S. laws and regulations on AI and provides suggestions for how professional communicators practicing in the U.S. can navigate this fast-paced and evolving technology.What Does This Mean for U.S. Based PR Practitioners?Giving public relations practitioners precise measures for navigating their communication work is difficult given the state of flux of AI regulation. At this stage the legal system is porting out where the problem points are in AI, with privacy, discrimination, and disinformation being major areas of concern. Going forward, PR practitioners should be aware of three major issues.1. EXPECT REGULATORY CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.U.S. law is in a state of flux, and that means that as the technology of AI evolves so will the law. Federal agency law is likely to address the particular issues of AI in communication, so practitioners should pay close attention to FTC regulations in the area. That agency is concerned over many of the topical issues in communication, namely disinformation. However, U.S.-based practitioners increasingly communicate in a global marketplace, which may have laws that differ to that in the U.S. For instance, the European Union GDPR regulates data privacy, which has major impact for the construction of AI platforms. Understanding the evolving landscape of AI regulation means looking at U.S. federal, state, and local law, but is also requires a global perspective.2. COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION AND FAKE NEWS ARE MAJOR DRIVERS OF REGULATION.AI regulation has increasingly focused on discrimination and false information. At the basis of artificial intelligence is human knowledge. That knowledge has been developed over thousands of years and contains inaccuracies, biases, and other disinformation that can be replicated by AI. The bottom line is AI is only as good as the data it uses to generate content, so it is important for professional communicators to be wary of the accuracy of any exclusively generated AI content. As a business, public relations firms and in-house functions have a unique opportunity to discuss bias and accuracy of information with clients and employers, because so much of the law is rooted in transparency. PR professionals have worked with issues of organizational transparency since the dawn of corporate PR, so regulations, like that in New York City, that mandates disclosure of algorithm use and potential bias lends itself well to the transparent practices of communication.3. PR PROFESSIONALS NEED TO DEVELOP AN ORGANIZATIONAL OR INDUSTRY STANDARD TO DEAL WITH EVOLVING AI.AI technology will evolve faster than the laws that regulate it. Because of that, public relations professionals will need to establish professional standards and norms for AI use. Those conversations need to happen now, and need to continue to happen as AI’s place in the field becomes more solidified. This conversation should include frank discussions around ethics, organizational reputation, transparency, and business goals. Ethical guides for industry provide a framework for difficult discussions about implementing AI. However, these discussions must consider both the deliberate and unintended consequences of AI use. These conversations may also include industry standards in niche subfields. For example, AI guidelines have already been establishedin some sectors, such as in engineering and healthcare. If a professional is practicing in one of these areas, these standards can serve as a guidepost for communications as well.For more information, download the full report HERE.
Cayce Myers, Ph.D., LL.M., J.D., APR is the Legal Research Editor for the Institute for Public Relations. He is the Director of Graduate Studies and Associate Professor at the Virginia Tech School of Communication.
... 
This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center. Anyone working in public relations or corporate communication knows that words matter. Behavioral scientists have amassed considerable evidence that even small wording changes can sometimes have surprisingly large effects on people’s attitudes, judgments, and behaviors. Some of this work has focused on wording that contains “logically” equivalent phrasing but is either framed positively or negatively. For example, researchers have shown that people are less likely to go under the knife if the potential outcome of a surgery is framed in terms of failure (e.g., a 1% mortality rate) rather than success (e.g., a 99% chance of survival).Semantically similar phrasing can also affect decision making. One of the best-known examples of this bias comes from an experiment in which individuals who viewed an automobile accident were asked to judge the speed of the cars when they either “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” “contacted,” or “hit” one another. Using “smashed” in the question led to higher speed estimates than any of the other verbs, an intriguing result that shows how leading questions can subtly shape the answers of witnesses in a trial.In health communications, the labels that drug companies use to describe their medications can also affect how people respond. As an example, a recent paper found that when a drug was described as preventing a health problem rather than curing a problem, consumers displayed a stronger preference for the drug to be natural and sustainable. On the other hand, when the drug was described as curative (vs. preventative), consumers cared more about the drug’s potency and effectiveness.In a new research article forthcoming in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, I find evidence of another wording effect that Marketing and Communications leaders who work in health care (including pharmaceuticals and biotech) should know about. Specifically, I show that when a health treatment (e.g., a medication or drug) is described as a cure, it fundamentally changes individuals’ expectations about how the treatment will be priced.Because a drug that claims to cure a disease or illness seems superior to a drug that does not make such a strong claim, you might think that people would tolerate higher prices for cures than non-cures. This is consistent with the principle of “value-based” pricing: in general, people are willing to pay more for products or services that are more effective and therefore provide greater value.But that’s not what I found! Instead, in the domain of health care, I provide robust evidence of a cure effect in which individuals prefer lower price levels for cures (vs. non-cures) and consider high prices to be especially unfair. This effect persists when companies describe their treatment by directly using the word “cure” or indirectly using language that merely suggests it is a cure (e.g., “100% effective,” “eliminates disease”).Why does the cure effect occur? My research shows that when thinking about health treatments, people tend to focus on communal value rather than the traditional market value that underlies value-based pricing. In other words, because health care naturally lends itself to thinking about close relationships with others, individuals seek the fair and just distribution of outcomes. People are especially concerned about communal value when thinking about cures because they seem to be so effective and can presumably have an outsized effect on people’s well-being (e.g., cures can save lives). As a result, individuals demand lower prices for cures so that they can be more universally accessed.The cure effect has important managerial and public policy implications, which can be highlighted by the cautionary tale of the biotechnology company, Gilead Sciences. Nearly a decade ago, when launching its new hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, Gilead loudly trumpeted that the drugs were cures and therefore warranted their exorbitant $1,000-per-pill price tag. This communications approach, which aligns with a value-based pricing model, fell flat in the court of public opinion. Patients and consumer watchdog organizations alike rose up against Gilead, deriding the company for engaging in unlawful price gouging. An inquiry was even opened to assess whether Gilead had violated consumer protection laws. In hindsight, Gilead did itself no favors by claiming that its drugs were cures that could eliminate the hepatitis C virus. A more restrained communications approach would have likely sparked much less consumer outrage. Taking a public policy perspective, the current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines related to medication labels give drug manufacturers and marketers considerable flexibility in their word choices on product labels and advertisements. Because health treatments that claim to be cures are judged differently than non-cures—irrespective of whether this claim is accurate or inaccurate—it is imperative that regulatory agencies such as the FDA ensure that labels that appear on health treatments are truthful. Even if certain word pairs are accepted and considered interchangeable by the FDA or other regulatory agencies, they may be semantically different in the minds of individuals. My research shows that the mere substitution of one label for another can exert substantial influence on people’s judgments and behaviors that are both societally consequential and managerially relevant, such as insistence on universal drug access, price preferences, and price fairness judgments.References:Isaac, M. (2023). cure effect: Individuals demand universal access for health treatments that claim to eliminate disease symptoms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, forthcoming.Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
Dr. Mathew Isaac is the chair of business administration at Albers School of Business and Economics at Seattle University. He is a marketing professor and senior advisor at Seattle University. Dr. Isaac is also a member of the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center.
... 
This blog is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center.My agency conducts the Integral Employee Activation Index study annually with The Harris Poll to understand employee mindset and behaviors. We just did a pulse check and the results stunned me. Employees’ expectations about the issues their employer takes a stand on changed drastically.The study gathers input from employed individuals across the United States from a wide variety of industries, career levels, genders, generations, and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Results represent employee attitudes about company values, differences between managers and non-managers, digital transformation, politics in the workplace, and more. In a nutshell, our study is somewhere between a peek into the minds and behaviors of a workforce and a predictor for what will resonate with the working public.In the study, we explore the societal and political issues employees believe are most important for their employer to make a difference on. For the past two years “Employees’ good health and well-being” and “Job creation” topped the list, followed variously by racial and gender inequity, data privacy, income inequality, and universal access to healthcare. We’ve found that when employee values align with organizational priorities all kinds of positive activities occur. And when they don’t? Employees are more likely to take action against their employers.In April, we conducted a study of 1,200 employees across the country. We wanted to understand if or how employee priorities shifted since we conducted the 2022 survey. What we found changed our minds. And our assumptions. Why? This April, gun violence, housing issues, and poverty displaced other issues and rocketed into the top five issues. While we can’t prove causality, we see a high correlation between the responses to our study and what was going on in the world. Housing affordability is way down. Mass shooting deaths year-to-date are way up. Concern about COVID-19 is somewhat diminished. The workplace reflects our culture. We know that. And make no mistake: gun violence, poverty and housing are workplace issues that employers want employers to make a difference on. Regardless of your personal stance on these issues, employees want their company to do something. Why? Because they see these as salient to their relationship with their employer. It’s about ensuring employee safety and wellness and bringing meaning to day-to-day work.
Top ten: Which issues should your employer make a difference on?
So what are you going to do about gun violence? The BBC reports that the number of mass shootings has gone up significantly in recent years, citing statistics from the Gun Violence Archive. Every day, 321 people are shot in the United States, according to Brady United. Companies are not exempt from gun violence. Everytown for Gun Safety* reflects that since 1999 there have been nearly four times as many mass shootings in the workplace as there have been in schools. Fifty-eight percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence in their lifetime, meaning that it is highly likely our colleagues, employees, and customers have experienced gun violence. I wrote a blog post back in June 2022 on Second Amendment Rights vs. Gun Violence: Workplace Polarization, I stressed that companies need to understand what their employees care about and value.There are ways for your organization to get involved if you’re interested in finding ways to protect your employees and customers or promoting gun safety through business practices. As an example, in 2016, Levi Strauss & Co. prohibited consumers from bringing guns into their stores. In January 2019, CEO Chip Bergh joined other CEOs in support of H.R. 8 to require background checks on all gun sales.Additionally impacting employees and businesses, communities experiencing gun violence are less likely to be hubs for economic growth and commerce, and face lower property values, fewer business startups and loss of jobs. So what are you going to do about housing and poverty?Another issue facing employees, your people, is housing. Stable, safe, and secure housing is fundamental to employees’ ability to perform their roles well. The post-pandemic housing economy is negatively impacting people across the country. The last year saw a sizzling housing market marked by lower than normal inventory, fast-selling homes, and steadily increasing property prices that favor sellers, not buyers. What might this mean for your employees? Perhaps organizations provide a cost of living adjustment for certain segments of your employee population to ensure that they have stable housing? With employee frustration over their pay, Amazon is going to let employees pledge stock for home loans. Another consideration is the Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) down payment assistance program created by Fannie Mae in 1991. The EAH can help companies cut employee turnover in half and save as much money as it costs. It works by providing qualified employees’ funds for downpayment and closing costs as a loan that is forgiven over a period of time, as long as the recipient stays with the employer. This may also have the added benefit of ameliorating the racial homeownership gap.The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) details that some employers are starting to offer home-buying support benefits, which assists workers to reach their homeownership dreams. This, in turn, bolsters recruiting, hiring, and retention of employees. Something employees indicate they care about. When you develop your employer value proposition, it’s time to go far further than decent dental and vision benefits!What we learned & what we can doHeadlines drive your workplace experience because they are employee experience issues. The workplace experience is where employees have a societal experience. Organizations have the power to influence change — through content, interactions, policies, and directing the powerful energy of capital with purposeful strategic intent. When we consider employee experience broadly, we can impact important societal issues. And it’s not all upside because inaction and inattention comes with the risk of moral hazard and losing your best people to companies making a difference. Find the original blog post here.
Marianne Eisenmann is a former communications research consultant and past member of the IPR Measurement Commission.
John Gilfeather is President at John Gilfeather & Associates and is a past member of the IPR Measurement Commission.
...