Ritics] want, we give.”122 An additional attainable source of resistance was cynicism concerning the new narrative’s staying power, a view that “this also will pass and we will get back for the `good old days.'”122 Parrish’s issues had been well founded. Soon after 1 year of promoting PMC’s new narrative, he summarized outcomes from a Corporate Affairs survey by noting thatWe possess a good deal of function to complete with Philip Morris employees. . . . [M]ost of you still usually do not really feel that there is complete “buy in” by managers and personnel to [the] core ideas of GS-4997 site Societal Alignment and Constructive Engagement.A stumbling block for employee acceptance of societal alignment may have been the new alignment among PMC and society on smoking’s illness effects. In 1999, workers had been reportedly “confused about PM[C]’s official stance on health issues”68; in 2001, Corporate Affairs organizing notes referred to a lack of understanding amongst personnel on the company’s positions (presumably like these on overall health) and lack of confidence incommunicating them.124,125 Employee focus group responses to a PMC-produced television advertisement highlighting that light cigarettes have been no safer than frequent cigarettes also suggested discomfort with PMC’s new “public health” method.126—128 Most focus group members disliked the ad, seeing it as a different instance of the corporation “badmouthing its solution.”126 One asked “Why are you trying to do away with our customers”126 Staff advisable a far more optimistic ad that highlighted PMC’s responsible activities, like YSP, and framed smoking as a “choice.”127,128 Largely unchanged versions in the ad ran on television among 2003 and 2005.129—132 In 2001, a newly formed corporate responsibility activity force, charged with defining corporate duty and recommending socially accountable practices,133 commented on employees’ lack of engagement with all the corporate narrative. Task force members noted that staff had PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21323909 difficulty reconciling the old story with the new134 and understanding “how we evolved our positions and why.”135 The process force concluded that personnel required assistance “connect[ing] the previous to our present and future; how did we get from there to right here What exactly is our story”136 Task force members advised senior management that[t]here is often a fading “old story” to PM USA and an emerging “new” story. Quite a few of our folks are far more acquainted with the old than the new– few are conversant using the “big image.” Integrating and living the new story cannot evolve with no honoring our past and understanding the path we’ve traveled to where we’re currently.The activity force saw “building the story” as “a vital piece of moving forward”138 and advised senior management to perform so.137 While members of senior management explained why alter was important (as described earlier), they did not incorporate a fuller explanation from the company’s past into the corporate narrative. The following year, as element of PM USA’s corporate duty efforts, a consultant, Company for Social Responsibility, interviewed 25 senior-level workers about what corporate duty meant to them and what challenges the firm faced in that arena.139,140 Several interviewees stated that lower-level workers (specifically hourly workers) did not realize or had doubts about PM USA’s focus on responsibility140; some were concerned that, if prosperous, youth smoking prevention would place the enterprise out of business enterprise.140 Interviewees suggested that additional communicati.