Spotting political calculus behind some acts of corporate charity

Spotting political calculus behind some acts of corporate charitySpotting political calculus behind some acts of corporate charityOver the past few years, I have teamed up with fellow economists Marianne Bertrande, Matilde Bombardini and Francesco Trebbi to look into one underappreciated way that businesses may attempt to influence politicians corporate philanthropy.We found that what we call politically linked charities get more money from corporate foundations in general. We also find that when politicians gain leverage on issues tied to a companys interests, charities in their districts get more gifts from that companys foundation. For example, a nonprofit is more than four times more likely to receive grants from a corporate foundation if a politician sits on its board.This means, in our view, that some corporate giving may influence members of Congress in both major political parties to a degree indirectly bending laws and regulations in ways that boost profits ratherbei than s erve the publics interests.Political charityWhy would businesses rely on charitable donations rather than, say, campaign funds or lobbying efforts, to influence government? One big reason is that there are limits on campaign contributions, but effectively no limit on what corporations may give to charity.And it appears that corporate charity is deployed in ways that look a lot like influencing.Second, companies may support nonprofits that serve the voters of individual politicians districts thereby indirectly helping him or her get re-elected. For example, an investigation by The New York Times of former Democratic Rep. Joe Baca of California concluded that he used his family foundation and its generous giveaways to run something akin to a permanent political campaign. But much of the foundations largesse was funded by local companies and major corporations that have often turned to Mr. Bacas Washington office for help, not by his family.First, companies may give to politicians pet charities. For example, as detailed in a recent New York Times article highlighting our research, the foundations of ATT, ConAgra Foods, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Medtronic, Merck, Monsanto, Nationwide Insurance, Principal Financial Group and Rockwell Collins all contributed to either the University of Northern Iowa or the Partnership for a Drug-Free Iowa. Perhaps not coincidentally, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley is a trustee of one of these organizations and an honorary board member of the other.Then there is the stealth factor. Its relatively easy to look up how much investment management giant BlackRocks political action committee, or PAC, gave Rep. Carolyn Maloney, in the 2016 election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets database, the New York Democrat got US$10,000. Thats because federal law has required all such donations to be publicly disclosed since the 1970s.Its harder, however, to connect the dots between BlackRocks charitable givin g that indirectly benefits Maloney and her colleagues who have New York Citys financial service businesses as their constituents.Striking patternsTo uncover potential links between corporate donations and legislative interests, we looked at the grants provided by the foundations of companies in the SP 500 and Fortune 500 lists that comprise many of Americas largest companies. Because these grants must by law be disclosed on tax returns, we could link most donations to specific nonprofits. That, in turn, meant we could pinpoint in which congressional districts the nonprofits were located.As the Grassley and Baca examples indicate, it is ritterlich to say that corporate foundations are more likely to give to nonprofits tied to politicians if those lawmakers belong to committees that matter to the company.We also have also found that companies foundations give more to nonprofits in districts represented by politicians who also get campaign cash from those same enterprises. That suggest s that corporate giving does double duty as a form of stealth campaign finance.What can be done about itCorporate charitable contributions totaled nearly $18 billion in 2014, the most recent year that we analyzed in our data. My colleagues and I estimated that 7 percent of them were politically motivated about $1.3 billion. At that level, the political donations delivered through charity may be as important as more easily observable channels of influence.For example, corporate PACs spent less than $500 million in 2014 while lobbying expenditures amounted to $3.3 billion.In light of our findings, we believe that corporate-funded activities of all kinds should require more disclosure, including the donations companies give to charity.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

New study shows everyone prefers to work with men

New study shows everyone prefers to work with menNew study shows everyone prefers to work with menA new MSN poll for Business Insider found that the majority of men and women still prefer the company of men at work.And its not just men supporting their own gender One in five men and women said they would rather work with a male colleague.Perhaps this male confidence also stems from believing in their own success.Most men in the MSN poll believed that the gender gap is an issue of the past. 40% of men surveyed said that women are treated very fairly in the workplace while only 17% of women believed the same. This reinforces a separate study that found58% of U.S. men in the workforce believed that all obstacles to gender equality are gone.Thats what researchers found in studies on confidence in the workplace men are mora confident - almost unquestioning- in their abilities and mora confident that when things go wrong at work, its their gender, and not their performance, thats to blame . As Ladders has previously reported, male leaders have an advantage and are better liked - across generations.Millennial men believe men make better leadersMultiples studies got the same result men are very confident in their abilities- so confident that they suspect discrimination when they dont get the job. Out of the8,000 millennials aged between 18-34 that Qualtrics and Accel surveyed, 33% of millennial men believed that they had faced frequent gender discrimination at work, compared with the 21% of millennial women who felt the same way.Moreover, millennial men were 50% more likely to believe that their gender was affecting their career opportunities, although Qualtrics didnt say whether the men believed the effect was positive or negative, meaning whether the men believed they received better or worse opportunities because of their gender.Meanwhile, women were more likely to believe in gender equality at work, with 41% believing that men and women are judged by the same crit eria in the workplace.The Qualtrics study also showed vastly different views between young men and women on what makes a good boss or leader.For instance, millennial men are more likely than their female counterparts to believe that men are more effective leaders, with 38% of young men saying that compared to 14% of young women.And, while millennial men and women both mostly had no preference for their bosss gender, they tend to favor strictly gender-limited workplacesTwo-thirds of millennial women and 72% of men prefer to work with people of their own gender, Qualtrics found.Confident that theyre rightResearchers have found that the reason that men feel that gender discrimination may keep them from jobs is that that theyre more openly confident about their abilities. In other words, men are more likely to believe that if they didnt get the job, something was wrong with the process rather than a flaw in their own abilities.One study found that in self-assessments on individualcompet ence, men graded themselves higher than women. In fact, theyre so confident in themselves that a 2016 study found that men were more likely to be their own topexpert on any subject. Looking into two decades of data on academic citations, researchers found that men self-cited themselves 70% more than women. Men are, in fact, their own consultants.These beliefs in fairness and confidence are particularly interesting because they dont hold up to reality as measured by a plethora of studies that show women are more likely than men to be discriminated against for their gender in the workplace.The Financial Times surveyed 50 of the worlds largest banks and found that women inthese positions wereless likely to be promoted than men. Only 25.5% of senior bank roles in 2016 were held by women.The workplace isnt a fair battleground for men and women when it comes to wages either. Four studies found that when women negotiated for higher pay, they weremore likely to be penalized for it from both men and women. The people on the other side of the negotiation said they would be less inclined to work with a women who negotiated, more likely to call her a bad fit to the company.The main takeaway from these studies, which show self-image thats contrary to reality, may be that more workplaces should train employees on how to fight their own subconscious biases on men and women in the workplace.

The nice boss, the tough boss A fairytale

The nice boss, the tough boss A fairytaleThe nice boss, the tough boss A fairytaleFairytale mindsets create a powerful lens through which we view leadership. Do you let them affect how you act as a leader? If so, you may be leaving a piece of your potential effectiveness on the table. (And live less happily-ever-after.) The stories of goodness and evil we were raised on predispose us to see leaders along a mental continuum. At one end dwells the classic tough boss. This boss is demanding, brimming with strong opinions, fearless, scheming, and wants (badly) to win. She brooks no fools, and is perceived as difficult to interact with.Think of the gruff and coercive Beast early in Beauty and the Beast You will join me for dinner. That is not a request. Or how mean monsters crawl into closets and spook children at the departure of Monsters, Inc, bottling the resulting screams to power their city, Monstropolis.On the otherbei end of our good vs. evil leadership continuum lives the lovable leader. This person is highly caring, fun, has time to listen, and is quick to wink, encourage, and thank. He relishes strong relationships, and often has a good sense of humor to boot. Think Prince Simba early in the Lion King as he wanders off to savor a carefree life with his (many) friends in the wild. Simbas discomfort with flexing his muscles or being strong is palpable, so he chooses a life of nice.Where do you need to dwell on this leadership continuum?As a boss where do you sit on this continuum? (Or more importantly, where do your direct reports and colleagues think you are?) Is your big challenge figuring out the optimal place to hang out on this Tough Guy vs. Nice Guy scale?Absolutely not.Your challenge is to dismiss the whole scale. To recognize that it is a problematic fairy tale itself that doesnt serve you or your teams. The worlds most effective bosses realize that they can be very very tough AND very very caring during the saatkorn workday, or even during the same conversation. They defy physics by living on both ends of our described scale simultaneously.Just think back to your favorite boss. Chances are, she challenged you to jump high and didnt always make popular, easy decisions. However, you knew she genuinely liked and supported you, and as a result you were fiercely loyal.Diagnosing your current approachHow do you know if youre dishing up enough love but not enough tough edge? Or enough toughness, but not enough love?The best place to start is with feedback from your team. Ideally confidential 360 feedback collected through a 3rd party. This will give you a candid view of how your direct reports, peers, boss, and others at work view you.In my leadership and coaching programs, I work frequently with individuals who find via 360 feedback that they need to shore up one side or the other of their tough AND caring equation.For example, one recent client (well call him Beast for now) was universally viewed as super smart, fiercely competi tive, able to make tough decisions, and fast movingyet others didnt trust him and didnt feel he had their best interests at heart. He had what they labeled rough edges. Several team members said they would leave his group the moment another viable work option materialized.Another recent client (well call her Simba) was very well-liked. She provided lots of flexibility, was a good listener, and had an endearing sense of humor. But her team didnt feel successful, and their collective results were flagging. They didnt feel they were learning from her or growing professionally, as much as they enjoyed her and all the leeway she gave them.Can we really bust out of this tough vs. nice myth?Luckily a number of my clients have proven via their 360 results - either with or without conscious efforts to change that it is possible to be seen as strong, demanding, caring, and fun all at once. Those who proved this typically ran the most successful operations as measured by profitability, growt h, employee retention, and client satisfaction.But arent tough and caring tricky to bring together?Once upon a time, the poet Walt Whitman said Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.Leaders must cultivate their own unique multitudes of emotions and behaviors. And avoid casting themselves as one-dimensional (but comfortable) leadership stereotypes.Eventually our fairy tale characters Simba and Beast got their happy endings. They dug deep in themselves to find their own multitudes. They broadened their approaches. Prince Simba realized that he needed his strength (as well as his kind heart) to help his fellow creatures. And Beast softened, learning how to better connect not just with Beauty, but the rest of his world.So may your leadership happily ever after periodically involve an honest, active quest to identify and cultivate whatever you most need at the time be it greater strength, or greater heart. It will serve you well.TH E END.