There is no doubt that employee attitudes about their company can influence the way the customer views the company. Two stories from my past illustrate the advantage and potential disadvantage of having vocal employees. We would all like to think that having employees who are excited about the company is a great benefit, but it depends upon the message that they deliver to the customer.

While I was working with a major utility in the early 1990s, we had some union issues. We were engaged in protracted negotiations over benefits, pay and job security, as well as healthcare issues. At the same time, a hurricane blowing through the area with 100-plus-mile-an-hour winds knocked down dozens of interstate transmission towers. We had never lost even one in a storm before. Some communities within our service territory were out of power for up to three weeks. The public was mad. The state government (in the form of advocate agencies for the consumers) was mad. The union employees were not happy.

When we awarded safety jackets (really nice jackets given to employees who exhibited outstanding safety performance) around that time, some employees asked to have the company logo taken off the jackets! They said that they didn't want anyone to know that they worked for our company when walking around town or coaching a Little League game because they feared the questions and comments that would come their way. Some of them actually started badmouthing the company as a way to build support for the union's position in negotiations with management.

Customers noticed the sour attitude of the employees concerning the company. It reflected on their negotiations for terms with us. Our employees were ambassadors for the company, but they were not delivering a great message. Both the public and business customers had concerns about the utility's management that were fueled by employee attitudes and comments.

Good will
I saw the opposite happen when I worked at a drug company in another part of the United States. People there wanted everyone to know that they worked for the company because it carried such positive weight with businesses and the public. People who saw your company identification badge dangling from your waist or pocket would ask if you could help them get a job there. Their checks were not questioned; a company I.D. meant you had credit at any store.

The company's customers treated the employees with respect, and the employees were proud to be working there. This contributed, in part, to the company's reputation of producing the highest quality products, though not the cheapest. If you had to take a drug, you wanted it to be the best: ours.

The company took public stands for community issues that involved the employees. For example, when one profitable drug was found to have problems with serious side effects, the company destroyed all it had made. The company frequently supported employees in participating in public health and safety campaigns. The employees and the community appreciated this support. Thus, the message from and to the employees when they were in the community was strong and positive. The employees were treated as special and privileged. They enjoyed that feeling and communicated positively about the company to businesses and the public. They were proud to work for the company. They wanted the company logo on their safety jackets.

What made the difference? There were many things. The attitude of the employees and the approach of management to employee issues were aligned. Management understood that the reputation of the brand and the company was built over decades. The management approach was supportive of the employees. There was a "family" atmosphere at work: People easily related to each other and valued their role in the community as employees of a major corporation. The management and employee attitudes were synergistic, not adversarial.

By contrast, the relationship between management and employees at the utility company, which had been positive in the 1980s, disintegrated. Previously, when there were major issues involving natural disasters, the businesses and the public marveled at the cooperation of the staff to restore service. There was a "family" atmosphere at the company, and people were proud to work there. But then a new management team took over and, as part of cost-cutting moves, deliberately and specifically attacked the "family" feeling at the company. Executives knew layoffs were coming. They advised the employees to think of themselves first and what would be best for the individual, rather than what would be best for the company or the community.

The employees listened and understood. They wanted their jackets without the company logo. Customers understood that to mean employees were not thrilled with this management team. What should they think?