How much do new employees value corporate social responsibility?

Many firms tout their devotion to the triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility (CSR).  Why do they do it?  One answer, according to University of Chicago economist John List in an interview on Freakonomics, is that it helps attract and retain workers.

List made his reputation doing field experiments in economics.  He is so devoted to this approach that he has set up his own data collection firm HHL Solutions to do experiments on labor market issues.  HHL posted help-wanted ads on Craigslist in 12 cities.  The ads varied in terms of the hourly wage ($11 to $15) and whether they mentioned HHL's commitment to corporate social responsibility.  Not surprisingly the application volume was 33% higher at $15 per hour than it was at $11.  Surprisingly (at least to me), the application volume also was 33% higher when the ads mentioned CSR.

The next surprise: the people who responded to the ads mentioning CSR were more 10 to 25 percent more productive and more accurate in their data entry tasks.

So let's see -- lower your hourly wage costs AND get more output.  Sounds like at least one part of the triple bottom line is dong just fine in firms dedicated to CSR.

Sacramento Chick-fil-A starts paying $18/hour

Today's WP reports that a Chick-fil-A franchise in Sacramento will bump up its starting hourly wage from $12-13 to $17-18.  The current minimum wage in California is $11, so this decision is clearly being made with the franchise's self interest in mind.  Quote from the owner Eric Mason:

As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term.  What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture.  

The business case for the raise is based on the franchise's ability to attract and retain qualified workers.  Mason certainly will have less difficulty filling open positions for the next few years.

Will other fast food franchisees follow suit?  The national unemployment rate is below 4 percent, labor force participation has not increased and immigration is being actively discouraged on multiple fronts.  So you might have to pay more the next time you crave some nuggets and waffle fries.  

Building better bosses

Three years ago Google started taking an analytical approach to human resource issues, including the age-old question of why do some bosses perform better than others.  After grinding gigs of data, Google found that there were eight key factors that determined which bosses were most effective.  Of those eight, the least important was technical expertise.

Most important? According to NYT, "even-keeled bosses who made time for one-on-one meetings, who helped people puzzle through problems by asking questions, not dictating answers, and who took an interest in employees’ lives and careers."

Three economists at the Stanford Business School have done a field study of boss effectiveness in a large services company.  Their key findings are

1. Bosses are important and vary in productivity. Replacing a boss who is in the lower 10% of boss quality with one who is in the upper 10% of boss quality increases a team’s total output by about the same amount as would adding one worker to a nine member team.
2. Bosses primarily teach; motivating workers is less important.
3. The worst bosses are unlikely to be retained. Over a given 1 year period, bosses in the lowest 10% of the quality distribution are 64% more likely to leave the firm than other bosses.
4. The difference between the effect of good and bad bosses on high quality workers is greater than that on lower quality workers, which suggests that good bosses should be allocated to the higher quality workers. Comparative advantage is key. Allocating bosses appropriately can raise firm productivity.

The bottom line on boss management seems to be shape up or ship out. 

Source: Kathryn Shaw's address to Society of Labor Economists.