In the spring 2014 edition of Update, Craig Mousin recommended that Catholic colleges and universities provide “a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST [Catholic Social Teaching] in action.” But how can that be done? Mousin observed that the contribution of Catholic Social Teaching to the reduction of precarious work in the 20th century does not seem to be recognized by contemporary business leaders. He suggested, “Catholic colleges and universities would seem the best place to breach the barriers [between scholars and business leaders/management authors] by providing a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST in action. CST’s foundation in the dignity of each person—who is not a commodity, but a member of the human community created in the image of God—provides one starting point. Above all considerations, the dignity of each person—each student, staff, and faculty member—should influence daily decisions about allocating resources and determining employment policies.”
The vocation of the Business Leader (VBL) also recognizes respect for human dignity, as well as the common good, as a starting point. It describes these concepts as “foundational principles which should inform the way we organize the labor and capital employed, and the processes of innovation, in a market system” (38). For CST to be recognized for its contribution to good work and organizational effectiveness, employers need to be able to translate the concepts of CST into present-day management practices and language. Further, to show relevance in a results-oriented culture, the connection between CST-aligned management practices and organizational success must then be demonstrated.
Significant resources are available to Catholic university leaders for taking CST beyond the foundation of dignity (and even beyond CST-grounded policies and philosophy statements) to actually bringing about good and productive work. In fact, “organizing good and productive work” is one of the objectives organizations should have, according to the VBL, in order to promote human dignity and the common good. The document even provides several practical considerations in its discernment checklist: provide employees with appropriate and genuine autonomy (in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity), design jobs that allow employees to use and develop their skills and knowledge, train employees appropriately to enable their success, clearly define responsibilities so that employees know what is expected of them, ensure safe working conditions, provide living wages, and give clear and honest performance feedback. A large volume of organizational and management research sheds much light on how to do all of these things effectively.
Regarding translating CST concepts into contemporary management language, consider the CST idea of “human flourishing.” The VBL points out that “the way human work is designed and managed has a significant impact on whether . . . people will flourish through their work” (44). What does it mean for employees to flourish? In contemporary management-speak, it means that they are engaged. Engaged employees tend to be more enthusiastic about their work than those who are not. They identify more with their employers, feel more valued, and have a greater sense of wellbeing.
A large body of research supports this notion that employees who are engaged, flourish. For instance, the American Psychological Association’s 2014 Work and Well-Being Survey found that “In predicting well-being, engagement and trust accounted for 50.8% of the variance.” Also, it found that “Workers that feel valued were significantly more likely to report having high levels of energy, being strongly involved in their work and feeling happily engrossed in what they do.”
CST and Organizational Success
Does treating employees with dignity and creating work environments in which they can flourish support organizational success? Again, picking up on the growing volume of engagement research findings, the answer is clearly yes. Unlike employee satisfaction research, which has generally shown little effect on business outcomes, engagement research has found a significant impact. For example, customer retention (could disengaged part-time faculty be hurting student retention?), loyalty, profit, and customer satisfaction are generally found to be much stronger in organizations where employees are engaged. Several studies that show the relationship between engaged employees and positive organizational outcomes are cited below.
To be true to mission values, Catholic colleges and universities must place the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, as Mousin suggested in his column, at the forefront of management considerations. Beyond being the right thing to do, creating workplaces that are effective laboratories of CST in action could help confront mounting financial pressures through better engagement of faculty and staff, especially those in part-time classifications. Making CST principles operational can be done by incorporating CST-aligned best practices, understanding contemporary management expressions of CST concepts, and finding the tools to measure the success of these workplace experiments.
We invite you to respond to this column through the Human Resources and Mission blog. We also invite you to post links to your mission statements, as well as HR and compensation philosophy documents if you would like to share them with our readers. This will permit a fuller discussion of how mission and CST influence the employment process. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
[1]
Information about the Vocation of the Business
Leader as well as a link to the document can be found at https://www.catholic.org/news/business/story.php?id=45927.
[2]
For instance, Dr. Michael Naughton, University of St. Thomas (MN), has done
considerable work in this area. See a list of selected articles at http://www.stthomas.edu/catholicstudies/faculty/naughton.htm.
[4] A sample of studies that show the relationship
between engagement levels and positive business outcomes include: Harvard Business Review Analytic Services
Report: http://www.yorkworks.ca/default/assets/File/analyst-insights-HBR_Achievers%20Report_TheImpactofEmployeeEngagementonPerformance(1).pdf; 2013 Gallup Engagement Survey Results (see the
summary on page 9):
http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx;
Specific Best Practice Employers Engagement Findings: http://www.apqc.org/sites/default/files/files/Link%20Engagement%20to%20Bus%20Outcomes.pdf;
and Towers Watson 2012 Survey: http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2012/07/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study.