Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Cellular-telephone adoption increase from
738 million in 2000 to over 6 billion today
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates lead the world in philanthropy
Investments in renewable energy technologies overtake investments in fossil fuel technologies
Greenpeace partners with multiple multi-national corporations
SOURCE: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), US Chamber of Commerce, organization website

Local, reactive, heartstrings-driven
 Give if asked; “good neighbor” giving
 Give to causes important to senior leaders
 Intentionally NOT strategic or connected to the business for fear of a backlash
Visible, proactive
 See other companies begin to get credit
 Grants are proactive and “make sense”
 Better measurement of inputs
Strategic, aligned, beyond cash
 Accept very few unsolicited grantee proposals
 Giving as a “portfolio” of expectations to manage
 Co-design initiatives with nonprofit partners
 Greater attention to employee engagement

 Trends in employee engagement
 How corporations are defining the value proposition for employee engagement internally and externally
 Pertinent data to help build and define value of employee engagement
 How corporations and their employees identify success in employee engagement
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Top Companies
Typical Companies

Source: Gallup Employee Engagement
Index

Source: Fleishman Hillard/National Consumers League study,
“Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility”

Corporate Citizenship
US Consumers’ Perspective – What matters most
1. Values and treats employees well and fairly
2. Executives and business practices are ethical, honest, open and transparent
3. Authenticity
4. Goes beyond what is required to provide safe, healthy and reliable products and services
5. Listens to consumer, customer and community input when making business decisions
6. Active and involved in the communities where it does business
Committed to corporate social responsibility, sustainability, economic opportunity, environmental stewardship, etc.
7. Donates or invests its fair share of profits, goods or services to benefit others
Source: Golin Harris Corporate Citizenship Gets Down to Business 2006

41
82
Negative View of Firm's CSR
Work
Positive View of Firm's CSR
Work
17
67
21
71
37
75
80 0 20 40 60 100
Sirota Survey Intelligence, 2007

12
The Corporate Handprint
Philip Mirvis & Bradley Googins

Corporate
Footprint
Green--Environment
Reduce/Minimize
Do Less Harm
Reactive
Report
Green is Gold !
Corporate
Handprint
Social & Ecological
Increase/Maximize
Do More Good
Pro-Active
Reach Out
Blue is too— for business & society!

PRODUCTS
PLANET
PROSPERITY
PURPOSE
PEOPLE
The Corporate Handprint

Relational Model: Engaging the ‘Whole Person’
Across Identity Spheres
Employee
Engagement
Self-in-Work
Roles
Self-in-
Affinities
Self-in-the-
World
Who am I?
Who am I to become?
Self-in-Life
Roles

Millennial Generation on
Corporate Citizenship
– Three of four young people want to work for a company that
“cares about how it impacts and contributes to society.” Nearly
seven-in-ten say that they are aware of their employer’s commitment to social/environmental causes and 65 percent say that their employer’s social/environmental activities make them feel loyal to their company.
(Source: The Cone Millennial Cause Study).
– How many students believe that business should work toward the betterment of society? Over 80 percent of the members (and
66% of nonmembers). How many agree business is currently working for the betterment of society? Some 18 percent of members (and 24% who are not members). Corporate citizenship matters to tomorrow’s business leaders.
(Source: Net Impact)

Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Who We Are
 Nonprofit organization founded in 1999.
 The only international forum of business CEOs and chairpersons with an agenda exclusively focused on corporate philanthropy.
What We Believe
 Philanthropy is a long-term investment
 Executive leadership is essential
 Corporations have unique resources
Who is Engaged
 Over 175 CEOs and Chairpersons
 Companies from each industry sector
 Companies represent over 40% of all corporate giving in the United States
Our Strategic Focus
 Represent the CEO voice.
 Bring business discipline to corporate philanthropy.
 Own the standard on philanthropy practice and measurement.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
“I helped to start CECP with the belief that corporate
America could be a force for good in society.”
- Paul Newman

“When considering a change in your company’s contributions, which constituency most influences your decision?”
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Between Grant Recipients and Giving Officers
• How to assess whether grantees are achieving the intended results
• How to estimate a "return on investment" (ROI) numeric for comparing and/or aggregating the effectiveness across different grants in achieving social results.
Between the Giving Officers and the CEO
• "business case" and demonstrate how supporting the philanthropic initiative will be valuable to business.
Between the CEO and the Investor Community
• Investors want assurance that spending on corporate philanthropy enhances (or at least does not diminish) shareholder value.
• Concurrently, a number of investors ask that the companies in which they invest demonstrate greater philanthropic leadership and social responsibility.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Enhance employee engagement.
• Companies engage employees through group volunteer programs and awareness of their philanthropic initiatives, which raise employee motivation, productivity, and a sense of identification with the organization.
Build customer loyalty.
• Especially in consumer-oriented industries, a company’s commitment to communities and certain philanthropic causes enhances brand perception, customer loyalty, repeat business, and word-of-mouth promotion.
Manage downside risks to the company’s reputation.
• Philanthropic initiatives provide companies with a fresh opportunity to prioritize and address stakeholder risks, i.e., ways in which the company may not be meeting public expectations.
Contribute to business innovation and growth opportunities.
• Philanthropy also provides access to new relationships and opportunities whereby the company can find, test, and demonstrate new ideas, technologies, and products.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

CORPORATE
PHILANTHROPY
ACTIVITIES e.g.: grants and employee volunteer programs
BUSINESS IMPACT
• Increased output, sales, and productivity
EMLOYEE NEEDS
FULFILLED
• Self-enhancement
• Work-life integration
• Reputational shield
• Bridge to company
• Collective self-esteem
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME TO BE
TARGETED AND
MEASURED
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES
• Sense of organizational identification
OTHER MODERATING FACTORS
• Extrinsic incentives, e.g. compensation and performance-linked rewards
• Employee characteristics, e.g. tenure and training
• Employee perception of HR practices, work environment, management, and company capabilities
Source: Adapted from Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S. & Korschun, D. (2008) and Bartel, C. (2001).
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
JOB-RELATED
BEHAVIORS
• Reduced absenteeism
• Retention
• Efficiency
• Cooperative behaviors
• Work effort
• Advocacy

Employee Attitude or
Job Behavior
Collective self-esteem
References
Luhtanen & Crocker
(1992).
Metrics and Survey Instruments
Survey completed by employees with eight-item scale to reflect a member’s personal evaluation of the group (private collective self-esteem), as well as his or her assessment of how non-members evaluate the group (public collective selfesteem):
1.
I feel good about working for X.
2.
I often regret that I work for X.
3.
Overall, I often feel that working for X is not worthwhile.
4.
In general, I am glad to be an employee of X.
5.
Overall, X is considered a good company by others.
6.
In general, others respect what X stands for.
7.
Most people consider X, on average, to be less effective than other companies.
8.
In general, others think that X is not a good company to work for.
Co-operative behaviors McAllister (1995).
Survey completed by managers with ten-item scale to reflect affiliation, cooperation, and assistant co-operation behaviors:
1.
Takes time to listen to other people’s problems and worries.
2.
Rarely takes a personal interest in others.
3.
Frequently does something extra that won’t be rewarded, but which makes co-operative efforts with others more productive.
4.
Passes on information that might be useful to others.
5.
Willingly helps others, even at some cost to personal productivity.
6.
Rarely takes others’ needs/feelings into account when making decisions that affect others.
7.
Tries not to make things more difficult for others at work.
8.
Goes out of his/her way to help co-workers with difficult assignments.
9.
Offers to help others who have heavy workloads.
10. Covers for absent co-workers.
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Overview of Matching Gifts
94% of companies offered at least one matching gift program
(N=170).
57% of companies increased matching contributions from
2009 to 2010
(N=133).
$1.70 median matching gift million contributions in 2010
(N=133).
25

Matching Gift Allocations
Matching Gifts as Percentage of Cash Giving, Medians, 2010
All Companies (N=159)
Consumer Discretionary (N=19)
15%
16%
Consumer Staples (N=15) 11%
Energy (N=8) 7%
Financials (N=41)
Health Care (N=22)
Industrials (N=13)
Information Technology (N=17)
Materials (N=8)
Utilities (N=14)
13%
14%
16%
22%
17%
16%
Matching Gifts
26
85%
84%
89%
93%
87%
86%
84%
78%
83%
84%
All Other Cash Giving
Note: Telecom. Services industry not detailed due to small sample size

Volunteer Programs, 2010
Paid-Release Time and Outside-Company-Time
69%
62%
54%
50%
69%
54%
27
2008
Offered Paid-Release Time Program
2009
Offered Outside-Company-Time Program
2010

28
Employee Volunteer Program Offerings, 2010
92
91
78
76
73
67
66
54
53
48
44
40 40
33
32
34
27
18
15
16
10
4
Dollars for
Doers
Employee
Recognition
Awards
Flexible
Scheduling
Paid-Release
Time
Family
Volunteering
Domestic N=143
Day of
Service
Board
Leadership
Team Grants Retiree
Volunteering
Pro Bono
Service
International N=83
Incentive
Bonus

Examples of Paid-Release Time Program Policies
SPECIALIZED Policy :
• Manager approval for paid-release time requests
• Offering different opportunities by division or region
• Restricting paid-time off to company-wide days of service
• Restricting paid-time off to employees participating in team grant activities
• Restricting paid-time off to employee volunteer programs specifically run by the company.
• Offering fellowship or sabbatical options.
HOURLY Policy:
• Hours per year: 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours, 20 hours, 24 hours, 40 hours
• Hours per month: 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours
DAY Policy:
•Days per year: 1 day per year, 2 days per year, 3 days per year, 5 days per year, 6 days per year, and 3-6 month sabbaticals.
29

30
Since 2001, the Giving in Numbers report has provided thorough analysis and comprehensive benchmarking data for corporate philanthropy professionals seeking to assess the scope of their contributions initiatives.
Free download: CorporatePhilanthropy.org
Includes findings on:
• Giving and the Economy
• Benchmarking Tables
• Giving by Program Area
• Giving by Motivation
• Employee Volunteerism
• Matching Gifts
• International Giving
• Corporate Foundations
• Giving by Gender and Ethnicity
• Management & Program Structures

Employee Engagement Today:
Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition
PANELISTS
Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Organizational Studies.
Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll
School of Management at Boston College
Margaret Coady and MODERATOR
Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy
Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation
© 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

Kathleen Mayglothling
Program Manager
Charities at Work Summit
April 3, 2012

– Thomas Edison
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 33

GE works on things that matter. The best people & the best technologies taking on the toughest challenges. Finding solutions in energy, health & home, transportation & finance.
Building, powering, moving and curing the world.
Not just imagining. Doing.
GE works.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 34

Make money
Strong, sustained economic performance
Make it ethically
Rigorous compliance - financial & legal rules
Make a difference
Ethical actions, beyond formal requirements
Citizenship for GE is not just about “giving back” but about enabling positive changes around the world… a full-time commitment with the same goals, strategies & accountabilities that drive business.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 35

The Goal: To build deep and positive relationships where
GE people live and work
Communities
Town
Neighbors
Local Infrastructure
GE People
Contributions
Time
Expertise
Education
Environment
Health
GE
Company/Foundation
Matching Gifts
United Way
GE Volunteers
Humanitarian Relief
The Opportunity: GE and its employees & retirees help meet community needs through a variety of resources & skills.
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 36

Matching Gifts
• 1:1 match of employee & retiree contributions to eligible charities
• Includes broad variety of areas; available year-round
• 2011 Total: $70M
United Way Giving Campaigns
• Supports UW & other charities with pledges, volunteers, & supplies
• Additional 50% contribution from
GE Foundation to local UWs
• 2011 Total: $26M
GE Volunteers
• Employees & retirees donate time & effort towards initiatives in their local communities.
• 80 year+ tradition
• 220+ Volunteers Councils in 51 countries organize over 6,200 projects annually
• 1.3M volunteer hours per year
Supporting GE employees and retirees in their personal philanthropy and volunteerism
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 37

“The employer matching gift program was the brainchild of Philip Reed, chair of the General Electric Board of
Directors, who wanted to encourage
GE employees to contribute to their alma maters. Reed believed the incentive to contribute was greater if the company matched the employee’s gift.”
* Source: HEP Data
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 38

 Retirees claim a large portion of matching funds, primarily for Higher Education institutions
 Cumbersome process on community side deters employees and broader participation
 High matching limits favor officers, directors, retirees
“The only value in employee engagement efforts lies in the actions taken once the data has been collected and analyzed.”
Bersin & Associates Research Report
Employee Engagement: A changing marketplace (Sept. 2010)
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 39

Gifts Registered (#)
Total Matched ($)
Charity Participants (#)
GE Participants (#)
1954
5,234
$200K
359
4,928
2004
32,941
$18M
1,781
13,927
2011
109,948
$35M
13,360
30,194
Annual Max per person
($)
$1,000 $50,000 $50,000
Substantial increases across the board, particularly following the 2005 Program enhancements
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 40






Encourages giving to many organizations and causes
Empowers employees & retirees to direct GE’s charitable giving
Helps strengthen recipient charities and institutions
Builds internal reputation and goodwill
Demonstrates Company support of employee & retiree interests
Employee
Concerns
Matching
Gifts
GE Fdn.
$$
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 41

Special Food & Shelter 2:1 Matching Gifts
Partnerships –More than Just $$
• GE Aviation & the Lynn Shelter Association
(Mass.): 250 volunteers donated 1,500 hours to rehab 10 apartments, build a library & computer center, & redo the lighting. Others have donated professional skills, such as IT employees providing computer support. President Bill Hayes said, "Since GE has gotten involved, the
Association has been on an upswing. It has become highly respected in the community."
• African American Forum (AAF) at GE
Healthcare: conducted a food drive across the country, collecting more than 2,000 pounds of food for multiple charities.
Employee Responses
• “It is great to know that GE is still capable to support and help needed families during challenging times
(financial crises all over the world).”
• “The 2:1 is a great program and I am proud to be associated with a
Company that believes in taking the extra step to support those of us who engage in philanthropic activities.”
• “I was so pleased to tell my local shelter that GE would double my donation. This encouraged me to give more.”
GE Foundation Matching Gifts
Page 42

Discussion Questions:
• What does successful engagement look like to you?
• What challenges have you overcome or continue to face in engaging employees?
• What are your learning objectives for this conference?
43