According to the Respect Research Group ‘Respect is an attitude of one human versus another, in which the first recognizes in the latter a reason which justifies in itself that the latter should be recognized and treated in a way so that the latter feels acknowledged in his/her value and significance. Respect stands for acceptance, appreciation and esteem and can make a corporate culture “bloom” not only, now, in the New Economy but also to sustain it far beyond it. It seems like companies with especially vigorous philosophies are particularly equipped to establish it as a value through their mission statements.’

Managers at all levels also play an essential role in this process, because for their employees, their attitudes, personal values and communication styles represent an embodiment of the company’s philosophy. The problem is however, that in modern companies forming and popularizing such value-oriented philosophies, often gives way to short-term oriented action plans, which bring quick financial results at the price of undermining the stability of inter-personal relationships in the company and hence threaten its long-term success. In this respect, the importance of corporate culture cannot be overlooked any more and it is more than ever before necessary for the establishment of a rational, responsible and conscientious management.

Two large online surveys were conducted among employees in Germany to explore the importance employees and organizations lay on aspects of interpersonal respect in relation to other work values. The first study (N1 = 589) extracted a general ranking of work values, showing that issues of respect which involve supervisors are rated particularly high among employees. The second study (N2 = 373) replicated the previous value ranking by and large. However, it is shown that the value priorities indicated by employees are not always matched by organizational practices. Especially respect issues which involve employees’ supervisors diverge strongly negative. Consequences and potentials for change in organizations are discussed.

Values are generally seen as intrinsic and enduring perspectives individuals hold throughout different stages of their lifetime. They indicate “what a person consciously or subconsciously desires, wants, or seeks to attain “. Work values represent these sentiments in applied settings, signaling what people strongly care about at their work place. Following this definition, work values are somewhat similar to the valence term in expectancy models of motivation and are thus believed to have a substantial impact on the actual behavior shown at the workplace. They encourage individuals to act in certain ways, affecting even such things as job choice. Whereas commonly work values are assessed as people’s preferences for certain objects or outcomes, such as job security, level of payment and others, we sought to integrate interpersonal respect in this list of more or less classic work values.

The first kind points towards the general acknowledgement of another human, an equal member of the same group, referred to as “recognition respect” or respect for persons. The second kind is directed at an acknowledgement of expertise or skill, referred to as “appraisal respect” or respect for work. These two kinds, although both named respect, are very different in their essence. Recognition respect is very similar to the kind of respect the philosopher Kant proposed. It follows a categorical imperative to respect other human beings by not only seeing them as means to an end but also as an end in themselves. In an organization this respect may show in supervisors who do not only focus onto the performance aspect of their subordinates but are also compassionate or understanding in a time of a private crisis on behalf of the subordinate. They acknowledge that all humans deserve to be treated in the same way that one would want to be treated oneself. Its essence is thus unconditional. There is no question if it is deserved or not. It is not about a personal appreciation or favoring but about following a clear set of conventions, which give people equal rights even though they are different. Research underlined this reasoning by confirming formal rules in justice issues as one of the antecedents of recognition respect.

Appraisal respect on the other hand points at an entirely different phenomenon. It is about the esteem one receives if one performs, if one masters a skill, or one accomplished things that set one positively apart from the rest. So, whereas recognition respect involves a message of equality, appraisal respect does just the opposite. It acknowledges positives differences and rewards them with status. This kind of respect does not draw itself from a general normative law instead it derives its legitimacy from the perceived object itself; it or its actions demand respect.

Thus in an organizational setting appraisal respect might show itself in a supervisor who acknowledges work or performance, may it be through spoken recognition, a promotion, or a raise in salary. Similarly, employees who state that they work for a supervisor they deeply respect is usually a sign of appraisal respect. Whereas in empirical research recognition respect seems to be a result of formal rule following, appraisal respect seems to rely more on the informal treatment in justice concerns.

The following list of work values were those that were posed to the respondents, which encompassed more or less classical aspects of work values usually investigated in companies (such as the original IBM survey later used by Hofstede, 1991; or typical values assessed by consultancies:

(1) having high job security
(2) having a high income
(3) having good career opportunities
(4) working in a job that is valued by society
(5) having enough leisure time besides the job
(6) working on interesting tasks on the job
(7) being able to work independently
(8) working on tasks which require a high sense responsibility
(9) having a lot of direct contact with other people
(10) being able to help others through the job
(11)working in a job that is useful for society
(12) having the feeling to contribute something meaningful
(13) working in a healthy work environment.
(14) working for a supervisor who appreciates my work
(15) working with colleagues who appreciate my work
(16) working with colleagues who treat me with respect
(17)working for a supervisor who treats me with respect
(18) working for a supervisor I can respect
(19) working with colleagues I can respect

As an article written by Dan Bobinski, CEO of Workplace Excellence, in Management Issues highlights, if managers and leaders will not model the expected behaviors for the workplace community, its unlikely the rest of the employees will have any regard for community standards, either. Behaviours equally ought to reflect a commonality of agreed values for the workplace, irrespective of what individuals espouse outside of work.  Relationship Management Institute endeavours to create a ‘plug and play’ culture that enfranchises all employees under a set of principles that offends no one’s personal beliefs but allows a common concordance of cordial collaboration culturally.

A company’s true character is expressed by its people. The strongest opinions, good, bad and indifferent (yes, apathy is equally considered as an indicator), about a company are shaped by the conversations and actions of all employees. A task force of the Arthur W. Page Society, a select membership organization for senior public relations and corporate communications executives, set out to examine the evolving role of the senior communications executive in 21st century business. The white paper examined the theme called “The Authentic Enterprise,” specifically, the drivers and implications of a rapidly changing context for 21st century business and reported on the results of a survey of chief executive officers on the evolving role of the CCO in light of dramatic changes.

‘Authenticity will be the coin of the realm for successful corporations and for those who lead them’ heralds the report.  Equally, it proclaims that ‘the actions and reputation, which used to be safe-guarded by a cadre of professionalized functions, are now the responsibility of everyone in the enterprise. What used to be controlled within the company’s “four walls” is now spread across multiple partners, communities and individuals aroundthe globe. This implies that companies must think in different ways about the roles of senior management and the responsibilities of all employees.’

According to the report, CEOs believe that the general public has increasingly become a part of the corporate ecosystem and that their top communications executives (who were the sample poll for the study) must effectively engage and incorporate the public into the fold of values-based messaging. They  look for new thinking along two key dimensions:

1. How to collaborate with the public and internal audiences
2. How to clarify and disseminate the company’s values

Personal Credibility
CEOs emphasized personal qualities more than training in describing what it takes for managers and key personnel to succeed at the highest levels,  identifying the following as elements for building credibility:

• Intimate and detailed knowledge of the company
• Strong business knowledge
• Leadership characteristics or experience
• Breadth and depth of internal and external relationships

The CEOs of direct-to-consumer companies not only feel that consumers have taken a new and more in-depth interest in corporations, but that this has substantially increased the importance of reputation and strategic reputation management for their companies. They therefore have a  greater receptivity to communications as a driver of strategy, attributing the need for cohesive communications due to the complicated elements of foreign operations and cultural issues.

There is a strong push among CEOs for communications chiefs to bridge the perceived gap between the “soft skills” of communications and the numbers-based performance idioms of the boardroom. Strategic planning requires unique, fact-based perspectives including:

• Internal and external reputation tracking
• Analyses of company performance before and after events that impact reputation
• Reputation comparables or case studies

The most relevant piece in the article to me articulated that the converging forces of technology, global integration, multiplying stakeholders and the resulting greater need for transparency are the most important communications challenges facing 21st century companies: ‘We are no longer in control of our traditional spheres of professional activity. Indeed, all business functions are at the dawn of an era of radical de-professionalization. Communicators are uniquely positioned to become experts on the new art and science of organizational trust.’

The mandate of The Relationship Capital Institute is to aid and abett the necessary evolution exhibited in the findings so elegantly defined by the Arthur W. Page Society survey.