The day DBS read, “Don’t Be Silly! Volunteering is hazardous to your career!"

The day DBS read, “Don’t Be Silly! Volunteering is hazardous to your career!"

As some of you may already know the new CEO of AWARE happens to be a banker. She is the vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.

What really surprised me was shortly after she announced her new position, Ms Lau qualified herself by sharing she did not have the green light to be Aware president from her employers.

What’s DBS beef with Ms Lau joining AWARE? – it seems, its work related ‘We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,’ a spokesman said last night – I don’t know what to make of this. Really, I don’t. But one thing is for sure I don’t buy it. I just think DBS wants to avoid negative publicity and distance themselves from anything remotely controversial.

Having said that lets give them all the benefit of the doubt; and lets all play charades and assume, its really a work related concern – even so: does an employer have a right to get involved with what an employee decides to do during his or her free time?

I understand; times are hard these days. And firms have to remain focused and get the best possible mileage out of every dollar spent. Only why draw the simplistic straight line assumption volunteer work will get in the way of an employee performance?

Shouldn’t firms during these challenging times be encouraging their employees to give time to nonprofit organizations when money is short? Don’t they have a moral duty to encourage philanthropy and even make it convenient for employees to volunteer their time and expertise?

Why does it have to be an all of nothing calculation? Why can’t firms strike a happy balance between individual performance and still provision enough space for their employees by helping them to find ever more innovative and creative ways to add value to our community?

Some say with the bad economic times; firms both large and small have been making cutbacks due to poor earnings and what they used to give to charities and worthy causes has even gone down dramatically – but shouldn’t this lamentable state of affairs spur them instead to find ever more creative and innovative ways of not putting an end to the charitable work that nonprofit organizations have come to expect from them?

The point I am trying to bring across is as the economic outlook grows more dire each day, firms should be increasingly encouraging their employees to donate their skills for free, rather than narrowing the field of possibilities by discouraging them to do so. Or just resorting to no imagination dollar donations, as it remains the best way to get around the lesser profit still need money for charity paradox.

As it’s precisely because firms are unable to provide grants and bursaries at the same levels of the past. They should be looking for creative ways to continue to help communities and how might this whole idea of shooting down Ms Lau’s new appointment by her employers even add value to the whole idea of volunteerism – it cannot.

What really beggars the imagination is how DBS can so causally discount the obvious benefits to the broader community of women at large; when a highly experienced manager such as Ms Lau decides to helm an organization like AWARE – along with throwing out the merit of skills-based volunteerism that nonprofit organization usually can never afford. As consulting at private sector rates remains impossibly expensive (I should know, I happen to be a lawyer). Along with probably the idea it’s one way for firms to continue playing a meaningful role in giving back to the community while saving some money that would otherwise go to donations.

I hope DBS takes this opportunity to reflect deeply on their short sighted decision to disapprove of what Ms Lau has decided to do by taking up the new challenge in AWARE.

I hope the management of DBS have the imagination to take a broader sweep of the bigger picture and understand how they may even have inadvertently disabled many who may have felt the urge to volunteer their skills and time; but now feel that’s its a disincentive that may even militate against their career prospects.

And I hope DBS reflects on how many who are out there who desperately need help in these dire times; are now increasingly disabled further because of this scardi cat directive – and what was it all for? To side skirt undesirable publicity? To deflect controversy? To make more money?

Well that says a lot about your values. Alot!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27108.1