Ritics] want, we give.”122 Another probable source of resistance was cynicism concerning the new narrative’s staying power, a view that “this as well will pass and we’ll get back to the `good old days.'”122 Parrish’s concerns had been properly founded. Following 1 year of promoting PMC’s new narrative, he summarized final results from a Corporate Affairs survey by noting thatWe have a excellent deal of function to perform with Philip Morris workers. . . . [M]ost of you nevertheless usually do not really feel that there is complete “buy in” by managers and staff to [the] core concepts of Societal Alignment and Constructive Engagement.A stumbling block for employee acceptance of societal alignment might have been the new alignment involving PMC and society on smoking’s disease effects. In 1999, workers were reportedly “confused about PM[C]’s official stance on health issues”68; in 2001, Corporate Affairs organizing notes referred to a lack of McMMAF site understanding amongst employees with the company’s positions (presumably including these on health) and lack of self-confidence incommunicating them.124,125 Employee concentrate group responses to a PMC-produced television advertisement highlighting that light cigarettes had been no safer than normal cigarettes also recommended discomfort with PMC’s new “public health” method.126—128 Most focus group members disliked the ad, seeing it as a different instance of your company “badmouthing its solution.”126 One asked “Why are you currently wanting to remove our customers”126 Personnel recommended a far more good ad that highlighted PMC’s accountable activities, such as YSP, and framed smoking as a “choice.”127,128 Largely unchanged versions with the ad ran on tv in between 2003 and 2005.129—132 In 2001, a newly formed corporate responsibility task force, charged with defining corporate duty and recommending socially accountable practices,133 commented on employees’ lack of engagement with all the corporate narrative. Activity force members noted that personnel had PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21323909 difficulty reconciling the old story with all the new134 and understanding “how we evolved our positions and why.”135 The job force concluded that staff needed support “connect[ing] the past to our present and future; how did we get from there to right here What exactly is our story”136 Process force members advised senior management that[t]here can be a fading “old story” to PM USA and an emerging “new” story. Many of our men and women are far more acquainted with the old than the new– handful of are conversant with all the “big picture.” Integrating and living the new story can not evolve with no honoring our previous and understanding the path we’ve traveled to where we’re currently.The activity force saw “building the story” as “a crucial piece of moving forward”138 and advised senior management to perform so.137 Even though members of senior management explained why modify was important (as described earlier), they did not incorporate a fuller explanation with the company’s past in to the corporate narrative. The following year, as part of PM USA’s corporate duty efforts, a consultant, Small business for Social Duty, interviewed 25 senior-level personnel about what corporate duty meant to them and what challenges the organization faced in that arena.139,140 Various interviewees stated that lower-level workers (especially hourly workers) did not recognize or had doubts about PM USA’s concentrate on responsibility140; some have been concerned that, if effective, youth smoking prevention would put the organization out of small business.140 Interviewees recommended that more communicati.