Writing Boots

On communication, professional and otherwise.

What do we owe an employee?

04.08.2009 by David Murray // 9 Comments

Books
 This is the second of a series of posts on
Sharing Information with Employees,
a 1942 book I've found that I believe is the first ever written on the
subject of employee communication. In the first post, we discussed the author's familiar sounding explanation of the purpose of employee communication. This post takes us further afield from the current thinking.
—DM

Like every employee engagement consultant and entrepreneur boss you meet on today's streets, Alexander Heron believes the purpose of employee communication is to inspire the employees to take "ownership" of their work. But Heron argues that employees inherently have an ownership of their jobs, and it's the company's responsibility to honor that ownership and help make the employee a more intelligent, broad-thinking actor.

And responsibility, as we're about to learn, is not a word Mr. Heron is afraid of. Listen to him describe the difference between what the company owes a day laborer—"He has given us eight hours of honest work as he agreed. We have given him $4.80 as we agreed. He owes us no more; we owe him no more."—and what it owes a long-term employee:

Assume that the second man was twenty-five years old the day he came to work. He "fitted in," he learned our ways, he gained experience, he acquired new skills, he took on new responsibilities. As he did so, his rate of pay was fairly increased. As the years pass he is suddenly forty years old—above the average age of employees in American industry. He has been our employee for fifteen years. His present rate of pay is $1.00 an hour. His average rate for fifteen years has been eighty cents. He has given us 30,000 hours of honest work. We have paid him $24,000, at the successively agreed rates. Can we close the books on him? Can we say he has given us the agreed hours, we have paid him the agreed dollars, and there is no more owing, by him or by us?

Hell yes! cries the modern corporate manager, as he or she has done since corporate America two decades ago blithely declared the end to any kind of contract between employees and management. Be your own free agents, they said. Manage your own career. You're all mercenaries—we're all mercenaries! But Heron responds:

He has put into the job more than the 30,000 hours. He has put into it, into the enterprise, fifteen years of his life. They are not just fifteen years, either; they are the fifteen years which should be the foundation of all his later life earnings. Those years are his investment in the enterprise. We cannot give them back to him. We can pay off a bond-holder, or buy out a stockholder; but we cannot buy out the investment this worker has made. We wanted him to stay with us and put in those years. We want him now, as through the years, to protect and promote the business which is his job, as if it were his own. And it is his own in a way which neither he nor we can change. He is not the same man at forty than he was at twenty-five; the difference has been invested in the enterprise.

I know what you're thinking. So does Heron:

True, he has gained in some ways. He has gained skills, knowledge, maturity. He may have gained some reputation for special expertness in some line. He may have money in the bank, an equity in his home or in a life insurance policy. On the other hand, he has lost youth, adaptability, salability. He has lost fifteen years of the promise of future usefulness to any enterprise. He has risked or staked his chances of employment and income, during middle age and later years, on the future soundness and success of this enterprise. He can take away from him his acquired skills, knowledge, and reputation; he cannot withdraw the investment of the years of his youth. The important question is, has he invested those years or merely spent them?

The case is tragic when a man so invests his priceless years in an enterprise which goes merrily on without him, exploiting the youth of newer, younger men. The case is tragic; but it is very rare. …

The major tragedy occurs when not one man but many deposit priceless years in an enterprise which they all discover, too late, is unsound. In a year when their habits have become fixed and their heads partly gray, their ages are from forty to fifty and their periods of employment have reached ten, twenty, or thirty years, they find that the enterprise is not the lifetime of security they thought they were buying.

This places on us an obligation, the mutual understanding of which  is the key to constructive co-operation. That is the obligation so to plan and manage the enterprise that it will be the anchorage for middle age which the worker has a right to expect.

What corporate executives were saying when they told employees to be free agents who didn't have a right to expect anything was that they didn't have confidence enough in their strategies to ensure workers an "anchorage" for six months from now, let alone for middle age.

Fair enough. But that's not what they tell investors. They assure investors today just as they did in Heron's day, that they understand the obligation to maintain their faclities, conduct sufficient R&D to keep up with customer demands, stay abreast of the latest business technologies and processes, and created "a personnel in management, production, and sales which has reproduced itself, has trained its understudies."

Employers must, Heron concludes, "render this service to the investor of years as much to the investor of dollars."

And the corresponding employee communication responsibility?

First, we must recognize our inescapable obligation to manage the enterprise in such a way as to furnish middle-age security for those who spend their years of youth in the enterprise as wage earners.

Second, we must encourage them to expect and demand this kind of management as their truest form of social security.

Third, we must share with them the information which will create this attitude and which will continuously show them whether or not their long-time interests are being conserved.

Then and only then can we expect to find them shaping their attitudes and actions in terms of the future security of the enterprise in which they have such a priceless stake.

We can dismiss all of the above as hoplessly old-fashioned only until we realize that it's merely an exaggerated, absolutist-sounding version of the values of the companies—how they dwindle!—that we still most admire.

Southwest Airlines, for instance, wouldn't shrink from this basic philosophy. Neither would S.C. Johnson, with which I've had long and happy association, or Northwestern Mutual or Wegmans, for which I've also worked. You think Bill Gates would think of all this as so much sepia-toned silliness? No, he'd say: I did my best. Ballmer, you're up next.

In our next installment, Heron asks a question whose relevance in the post-meltdown climate shocks the senses:

"Are we, as employers … ready to see that our free-enterprise system is doomed unless it can be understood by the great majority of our citicizens, constituents, and beneficiaries?"

And he describes quite simply how employee communications people who would go about creating this understanding need only to return to the employee his or her own native economic intelligence by using "the language of … realism."

Could it really be this simple?

Categories // Communication Philosophy

What’s the purpose of employee communication?

04.03.2009 by David Murray // 13 Comments

Books This is the first of a series of posts on Sharing Information with Employees, a 1942 book I've found that I believe is the first ever written on the subject of employee communication. I hope these posts, and the discussions they may inspire will amount to a white paper on employee communication. —DM

So as we stipulated yesterday, corporations are by definition social organizations, because they affect so many areas of our social life. So Boots readers agree with author Alexander Heron, who sets out to name the purpose—not of "employee communication," a term that I don't believe appears in this book—but merely of "sharing information with employees."

The first purpose, he says, is to inspire employees to take a sincere interest in their work, which appears to have been as difficult a problem 67 years ago as it is today.

Why aren't employees interested in their work?

Because organizations are big and work is so specialized that workers don't feel a sense of ownership. And since 1942 was closer to the Industrial Revolution than 2009 is, Heron could see the real and psychologically devastating shift in "ownership" that the typical worker had endured.

"Instead of his grist mill, the miller's son owns a number on a payroll," Heron writes.

Employers had failed to recognize that "a place on our payroll, a job in our plant, is the only 'property' the average worker possesses from which to derive his livelihood," Heron writes.

We deplore the fact that he does not seem to take an interest in his job; we overlook the fact that he has an interest in his job—a possessive interest, if you please. Until he can recognize this possessive interest, he is not likely to take an interest in the job in the sense of putting himself into it, protecting it and fostering it in all its relationships.

Employee engagement, anyone? And here's how Heron says it relates to employee communication:

If we had fully recognized the interest in the job which belongs to the worker, perhaps we should have done much more to tell him about the features of his job which do not come to his attention in his highly specialized function—perhaps the function of watching four automatic machines turning out twenty units per minute of the precision-tooled cam which eventually goes into position 23A.

Perhaps we should have given him a chance to see, or at least read about, the structure of the finished product and the place and importance of his specialized piece or part. Perhaps we should have let him know the important characteristics of the steel he handles and where it is made. Perhaps we should have told him the market outlook and how much 'livelihood' his job promises for next year. Perhaps we should hope to have him know the burden of taxes borne by his job, what the highly paid executive does to insure the existence of each job in the enterprise and a hundred other facts.

Heron's a good writer, isn't he?

It's amazing to read the above, because it's an at-once sepia-toned and freshly expressed echo of what employee communication consultants espouse now.

But in our next installment, which I'll post next week, what's amazing isn't the familiarity of Heron's ideas, but the jarring strangeness of his claim that employers "must recognize our inescapable obligation to manage the enterprise in such a way as to furnish middle-age security for those who spend their years of youth in the enterprise as wage earners."

How in blazes is he going to prove that point? Don't touch that dial …

Categories // Communication Philosophy

Employee communication, in the beginning …

04.02.2009 by David Murray // 6 Comments

I've been looking for it for almost two decades, and now that I've found it, I'm savoring it—and I hope you'll savor it with me, bit by bit, as I make my way through.

It's the first book on employee communication—written before the birth of most communication practitioners and our communication buzzwords, habits of thought, sacred cows, tired arguments, lost causes and artificial limitations.

Plainly titled Sharing Information with Employees and published in 1942 by the Stanford University Press, it's written by an Alexander Heron, about whom all I know so far is that he was a "Director of Industrial Relations for a large and far flung enterprise." ("Industrial relations" was a department without a precise modern-day equivalent, which generally oversaw the relationship between management and labor.)Books

The introduction, by a Paul Eliel of Stanford and signed Jan. 8, 1942, claims that a survey of business literature revealed not a single previous book about "sharing information with employees."

… strange as it seems, while all of our general or special works on labor relations, personnel management, and similar subjects have discussed in great detail how to employ specific techniques, none of them have more than touched on the most fundamental of all techniques in labor management: how to convey information to employees. None of them have ever thought it necessary to attempt to answer such questions as: How do you tell employees what you are doing or proposing to do? How do you tell them about the business in which they are engaged? How do you tell them the importance of the project on which they are working?

And it's in his introduction that Eliel introduces the first potentially debatable idea, by claiming: "Implicit throughout Mr. Heron's treatment is consideration of the business as a social institution as well as an organization designed to carry out economic objectives."

Before our first proper installment in this series—which I grandly hope through my commentary and our discussions will amount to a white paper—can we all agree to stipulate that corporations (to which we give so many of our precious hours and so much of our hearts' blood, whose products and services we use, and whose vast resource-taking and refuse-making we live with, whose varying financial stability makes and breaks our livelihoods and sometimes our very lives) are social institutions and not mere economic engines?

Or can we not?

Categories // Communication Philosophy

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Now Available

An Effort to Understand

Order Now

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE BLOG UPDATES

About

David Murray writes on communication issues.
Read More

 

Categories

  • Baby Boots
  • Communication Philosophy
  • Efforts to Understand
  • Happy Men, and Other Eccentrics
  • Human Politicians
  • Mister Boring
  • Murray Cycle Diaries
  • Old Boots
  • Rambling, At Home and Abroad
  • Sports Stories
  • The Quotable Murr
  • Typewriter Truths
  • Uncategorized
  • Weird Scenes Inside the Archives

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Log in

  • Preorder An Effort to Understand
  • Sign Up for Blog Updates
  • About David Murray