 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Off White Papers |
Sustainability is the New Green
by Frank Monahan
Imagine you have a meeting with the CEO and the CFO. This is your
big chance to show that HR types have earned that seat at the table.
You are ready. You have your PowerPoint presentation timed out to the
nanosecond and you’ve even performed your spiel in front of the
mirror. The title of your presentation is “How to Put the Groovy Back in
the Employee Experience.” But before you can say the word “security”,
you are being ushered out of the building and your career.
No HR type that I know would be guilty of such a foolish move. For
those of you old enough to remember, the word “groovy” was once
quite fashionable. It was actually cool for a two month period in 1967.
Once the drugs wore off, though, even the hippies realized their
mistake and stopped using the term. It has since become so “uncool”
that it invites ridicule today. For those not old enough to remember
1967, Mike Myers tried to breathe life into the term in his Austin Powers
movies beginning in the late nineties. Even in a comedy, its use
sounds ridiculous.
Last year, the term “green” was the new black. This year, the term
“sustainability” is the new green, which, as I just mentioned, had been
the new black. It is unlikely that the term “groovy” will ever be black.
No word on when black is going to be black once again.
Buzzwords in business come and go. Some stick. Many don’t.
Remember when “re-engineering” was all the rage? Any company
who was anybody was doing it. Try to find a company engaged in re-
engineering today. I suspect you won’t be able to find a single one.
And even if they are doing something like “re-engineering”, they
probably won’t be using the term. It’s so, like, last millennium. Need I
mention the Total Quality Movement?
The term “sustainability” seems to be queued up to be the newest rage
in business buzzwords. I suspect we are about to be bombarded with
articles and headlines in our business magazines touting the wonders
of developing “sustainability” strategies. In the past few years,
companies have aspired to be green. The thinking seems to have
been, if it’s good enough to save the very planet, surely it can be good
for our company. The threshold for being green seems to have been
pretty low. As much as I can tell from my research you had to do one of
two things to be considered a green company. 1) Your public relations
people had to publish an article in some kind of magazine with the
word “green” printed in green ink, or 2) your recyclable containers
needed to be the color green. Please note if your recyclable containers
were blue, you received an honorable mention but you weren’t
considered a green company.
In part due to the green ink shortage, companies this year needed to
upgrade their environmentally sensitive, politically correct sounding
terminology to incorporate a new concept. Let’s face it, the term
“green” is comprised of a puny single syllable. “Sustainability,"
however, is multi-syllabic. It involves a total of six syllables and makes
you sound really concerned and intelligent when you use it. And who
can be against doing things that are sustainable? Watch for it coming
to a seminar near you.
A few years ago, marketing people were churning out albums that
included the popular buzzword, “essential.” Album after album came
out with titles like “The Essential Bob Dylan” or “The Essential Simon
and Garfunkel.” Zombie like marketing people jumped on the
bandwagon and joined the “essential” craze. After all, using the term
“essential” sounds so much better than saying “we’re just trying to
generate some revenue by reselling some old songs.” And to show
you just how dangerous this bandwagon mentality can be, I refer you to
“The Essential Barry Manilow.” Enough said.
I can’t help but think that at the same time albums were all about
“essentials” business were all about getting back to the core
business. Life follows art I guess. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing
against the word sustainability. Essentially, it involves thinking and
acting for the long haul with strategies that will be effective. I can’t
argue against that. What I have a problem with is the use of the term
as if it’s some kind of “abracadabra-like" magic.
CEOs and CFOs know that the road ahead is going to be difficult.
Undoubtedly inflation will loom large in the next decade and there is
always the possibility that another economic shoe is going to drop.
The recovery is tentative at best and the employment picture remains
bleak. There will be an increasing need to find effective ways to
increase revenues in a declining market. Add to that the people costs
associated with, pardon the expression, the sustained pressure on the
workforce expense side. For those of us on the people side of the
business, it won’t be sufficient to throw out a trendy magical buzzword
here and there in Zombie-like fashion. We’re going to need to provide
real leadership and solve real problems. Anything less may sound,
well, just kind of “groovy.”
by Frank Monahan
Imagine you have a meeting with the CEO and the CFO. This is your
big chance to show that HR types have earned that seat at the table.
You are ready. You have your PowerPoint presentation timed out to the
nanosecond and you’ve even performed your spiel in front of the
mirror. The title of your presentation is “How to Put the Groovy Back in
the Employee Experience.” But before you can say the word “security”,
you are being ushered out of the building and your career.
No HR type that I know would be guilty of such a foolish move. For
those of you old enough to remember, the word “groovy” was once
quite fashionable. It was actually cool for a two month period in 1967.
Once the drugs wore off, though, even the hippies realized their
mistake and stopped using the term. It has since become so “uncool”
that it invites ridicule today. For those not old enough to remember
1967, Mike Myers tried to breathe life into the term in his Austin Powers
movies beginning in the late nineties. Even in a comedy, its use
sounds ridiculous.
Last year, the term “green” was the new black. This year, the term
“sustainability” is the new green, which, as I just mentioned, had been
the new black. It is unlikely that the term “groovy” will ever be black.
No word on when black is going to be black once again.
Buzzwords in business come and go. Some stick. Many don’t.
Remember when “re-engineering” was all the rage? Any company
who was anybody was doing it. Try to find a company engaged in re-
engineering today. I suspect you won’t be able to find a single one.
And even if they are doing something like “re-engineering”, they
probably won’t be using the term. It’s so, like, last millennium. Need I
mention the Total Quality Movement?
The term “sustainability” seems to be queued up to be the newest rage
in business buzzwords. I suspect we are about to be bombarded with
articles and headlines in our business magazines touting the wonders
of developing “sustainability” strategies. In the past few years,
companies have aspired to be green. The thinking seems to have
been, if it’s good enough to save the very planet, surely it can be good
for our company. The threshold for being green seems to have been
pretty low. As much as I can tell from my research you had to do one of
two things to be considered a green company. 1) Your public relations
people had to publish an article in some kind of magazine with the
word “green” printed in green ink, or 2) your recyclable containers
needed to be the color green. Please note if your recyclable containers
were blue, you received an honorable mention but you weren’t
considered a green company.
In part due to the green ink shortage, companies this year needed to
upgrade their environmentally sensitive, politically correct sounding
terminology to incorporate a new concept. Let’s face it, the term
“green” is comprised of a puny single syllable. “Sustainability,"
however, is multi-syllabic. It involves a total of six syllables and makes
you sound really concerned and intelligent when you use it. And who
can be against doing things that are sustainable? Watch for it coming
to a seminar near you.
A few years ago, marketing people were churning out albums that
included the popular buzzword, “essential.” Album after album came
out with titles like “The Essential Bob Dylan” or “The Essential Simon
and Garfunkel.” Zombie like marketing people jumped on the
bandwagon and joined the “essential” craze. After all, using the term
“essential” sounds so much better than saying “we’re just trying to
generate some revenue by reselling some old songs.” And to show
you just how dangerous this bandwagon mentality can be, I refer you to
“The Essential Barry Manilow.” Enough said.
I can’t help but think that at the same time albums were all about
“essentials” business were all about getting back to the core
business. Life follows art I guess. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing
against the word sustainability. Essentially, it involves thinking and
acting for the long haul with strategies that will be effective. I can’t
argue against that. What I have a problem with is the use of the term
as if it’s some kind of “abracadabra-like" magic.
CEOs and CFOs know that the road ahead is going to be difficult.
Undoubtedly inflation will loom large in the next decade and there is
always the possibility that another economic shoe is going to drop.
The recovery is tentative at best and the employment picture remains
bleak. There will be an increasing need to find effective ways to
increase revenues in a declining market. Add to that the people costs
associated with, pardon the expression, the sustained pressure on the
workforce expense side. For those of us on the people side of the
business, it won’t be sufficient to throw out a trendy magical buzzword
here and there in Zombie-like fashion. We’re going to need to provide
real leadership and solve real problems. Anything less may sound,
well, just kind of “groovy.”