Pacesetter Research: Senior Leaders and Managers Now Accountable for Corporate Culture Management?
Responsibility for corporate culture now extends beyond the CEO; senior leaders are finding themselves having to manage culture, leaving some baffled
November 14, 2023 at 02:40 PM
6 minute read
For centuries, going back to Richard Arkwright's first factory in 1760s England, most employees worked in company offices, and corporate culture developed organically, defined only by momentary fiat or need. Much of corporate culture stemmed from impromptu brainstorming sessions, coffee breaks, lunchroom lunches, happy hour, etc. Of course, there were other business leaders who better understood the impact culture has on employees and overall business and were intentional and strategic in the corporate culture that was created. Investopedia defines company culture or corporate culture as the beliefs and behaviors that determine how a company's employees and management should interact and perform. Regardless of the approach, corporate culture is largely recognized as a business element that business leaders, often the CEO, are responsible for implementing, diffusing, and managing throughout the organization.
However, over time, accountability for managing corporate culture began to creep into senior leaders' and managers' lists of roles and responsibilities. Arguably, after the 1990s recession and after a series of corporate financial scandals that ruined businesses such as WorldCom and Enron, and the millions of people who had invested in them, the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was a critical and necessary response to protect investors, customers, employees, and overall business livelihood. SOX imposed demands on public companies for effective internal controls over financial reporting and established penalties for corporate executives and boards that are found to mismanage or tamper with a corporation's financial reports to mislead investors. This regulatory change aimed to enhance transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior, which in turn had a fundamental impact on corporate culture. Private companies have also adopted this growing professionalization of governance and reporting standards in the corporate world for enhanced performance management.
Then, the 2008 financial crisis prompted a series of regulatory changes that aimed to address the weaknesses and failures in the financial system. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains various regulations in response to financial industry behavior that led to the financial crisis of 2007–2008. While the regulatory changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act are primarily aimed at the financial industry, the reform has broader implications for other sectors as well. For example, it introduced regulations for over-the-counter derivatives market, which impacted all organizations using derivatives. The Act also established the SEC Office of Credit Ratings to ensure that credit rating agencies provide meaningful and reliable credit ratings of the businesses, municipalities, and other entities they evaluate, impacting many companies across all industries. An increased regulatory environment, again, placed a greater emphasis on risk management, governance, transparency, and ethical behavior, which indirectly impacted corporate culture. Some organizations had to look deeply at their corporate culture and determine if their behaviors aligned with the new regulations. And if not, some organizations had to develop a new culture that did. Developing a new culture is often complex, given culture is impacted by several elements such as company mission and values, organizational structure, compensation structure, workplace strategy, and recruiting and retention policies, to name a few. Organizations are also increasingly facing social pressure from stakeholders about ESG initiatives that impact culture – - all these complexities leaving senior leadership in disarray.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllALM Market Analysis Report Series: Nashville's Rapid Growth Brings Increased Competition for Law Firms
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250