Summary of Findings
My research question was two-fold: Does CSR impact attraction and retention of employees with a focus on Generation Y? The second part of that question was answered with a resounding no. When asked about retention, interviewees replied that CSR was not something that would keep them at a company. They would leave if the company had an egregious violation against their stated ethics or policy, but a CSR program was not enough to keep the employees at the company. However, in terms of retention, a company must maintain its values and the environment that employees expect. While a specific CSR program may not keep employees, a culture that does not match the employee‘s expectation will make them leave. It is critical for corporations to
operate in accordance with their values, like CSR principles, and act in an ethical manner. McElhaney (2008) stresses, ―senior leadership and management of the firm, including the board of directors, must make an authentic, firm and public commitment to CSR efforts,and engage with them‖ (p. 19). Employees are increasingly savvy and astute observers of corporate executive behavior, and employees will quickly observe conflicting corporate stated behavior and actual corporate behavior. In the absence of authenticity, employees could become disengaged at work and may leave or become less productive. Cone (2006) found ―56% [Generation Y] are likely to refuse to work at that [irresponsible)] company‖ (p. 9). Interestingly, when I asked the question regarding what type of company or industry would you not work for, they did not answer the question by saying, ―I would
not work for an irresponsible company.‖ The interviewees said that they would not work for a company that did not match their value set. It is personal as to what an irresponsible company is to the interviewees. An irresponsible company is a company that does not match the employees‘ values or violates their values while they are working for the corporation. Their qualitative responses to a seemingly simple quantitative question helped to more fully understand what Generation Y are wanting in a ―responsible‖ company.
When asked about attraction, the interviewees did not specifically articulate that CSR attracted them to the company. Interviewees were attracted to the environment and values of a corporation. A CSR program could be important to attracting talent, as a way in which to communicate about values of the company during this attraction phase. These values are important messages in attracting Generation Y, as Cone (2006) found 79% of Generation Y wanted to work for a company that cares about society. This caring may manifest itself in CSR programs. But, the value match is the most important in the attraction phase.
However, most crucial to attraction was flexibility, in terms of work/life balance, and career development. Interviewees from all generations discussed the desire for career development and wanting to work in an environment that matched their values. Flexibility, or work/life balance, was key for Generation X and Y. This was defined as working from home, having flexibility during the day to do personal errands, and having varied start and end times to their day. These requests for flexibility are supported by technology that enables anywhere and anytime working, as well as wanting to not be overly committed to work so that it impacts friends, family, and personal pastimes.
Overall, my research highlighted the need for development, matched value-set between employer and employee, and flexibility for attraction and retention of all generations and especially for Generation Y. CSR was not found to be a critical driver for attraction or retention. This is in contrast to aforementioned previous quantitative
research that supports CSR as crucial to attraction and retention. These findings are significant as on surface employees may agree that CSR is critical in the attraction and retention; when asked open-ended questions, employees discuss the need for personal development, flexibility, and values match.
Throughout my research, even though interviewees might have agreed on the importance of development, values, and flexibility, what each represents to each individual is different. I hypothesized that the different generations or employees in CSR companies versus non-CSR companies would have wildly different responses to attraction and retention, but I did not find that to be the case. Values, career development, and flexibility cut across generational lines and company lines. While previous research supports the values-match, I propose that we are now in the time of personalization of attraction and retention of employees. This is what I found during my interviews. Each person has different needs and wants in each category, which reflects where we are in our society. Currently, the focus is on individual choice, like iPhone, iSleep, iRelax. We can find anything that meets our specific needs; we can find specialized groups that match
our interests, like jelly from Michigan, Spanish speakers who live in Cedar Rapids, IA, or German Shepherd dog owners who live in Chicago. Marketers have learned not to treat everyone who buys their products in the same manner. Corporations will need to learn
this lesson for their employees. Employees cannot be treated as if they are all the same. Employees have different reasons for being attracted to an employer and different reasons to stay at the corporation.
As I outlined in my methodology section, I would use my research findings to create a practitioners‘ guide for HR professionals. I did hypothesize that CSR would be a primary driver for attraction and retention, but my research did not support this. However, my goal of creating a practitioners‘ guide remains intact. In the chapter that follows, I will use my research findings to create a practitioners‘ guide for HR.