The “New” Politics of the C-Suite (Ep. 108)

If you know my podcast and posts, you know I generally avoid politics. As a general rule, my mindset is around productive dialogue, and with divisiveness today, I’m not looking to stir up the crazies on either side, thinking they are on a mission from God to tell me how I’m wrong.  This, similarly, has been the typical policy of organizations to follow this creed. Business was for work, not politics, and potentially alienating half of a staff or, worse, your client base, was not something most executives were interested in doing.  Times are changing. With information moving so quickly, and higher expectations of employees for their organization to “have their back,” executives are stuck between a rock and a hard place to navigate what’s appropriate and best for the business, their people and the company’s values.  We have typically thought of this in social impact areas. Companies that have been quite vocal about their values have often stood by them, living what they preach. The most recent example is Patagonia giving its company away in its mission to leave this planet better off.  But other topics are dicier. From the Me-Too movement, to the race discussions following George Floyd, to Roe vs. Wade, executives are balancing a split employee base, and doing what they can to stand up for certain beliefs. And, often, these beliefs are personal, blurring the line between the company and it’s leader. In addition, beyond the challenge of should or shouldn’t they, many executives are being pushed in a direction where silence is more damaging than picking a side. For larger, more visible companies, silence on bigger issues is met with a negative public perception. There is a bigger challenge, as I see it, and I call it the “sizzle vs. substance.” Executives who are ready with the talking points are out and in front of the story, but when we look back over the past few months, little has changed. Is the benefit of marketing and PR talking points enough for employees and the public, or will they expect to see follow through? And who defines what follow through is acceptable?  I think back to my time in corporate, working executive communications and putting together speaking points. That’s the easy work; but actually building a program that follows the sizzle is where the rubber meets the road. As we put together these “vocal stands,” part of the internal discussion now must include how far the company is willing to go in support of it. Your Title Goes Here Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings. Click Here for an Unedited Transcript of the Podcast I’m Jim Frawley and this is Bellwether. Welcome to bellwether episode, 108. We’re gonna get into the 40 political stuff today. We’re normally I won’t normally, you know, when I have guests on the podcast, I always tell ’em leave politics out of it. Nobody wants to listen to anyone’s political views. We’re talking about productive things, how to set up businesses for, for success, how to do wonderful things. And so normally I, I leave the politics out on the side today. 0:59The question is, should we leave politics on the side, the new politics of the C-suite and what we’re finding across the board are a lot of CEOs and other types of executives are taking political positions in very hot political topics and making corporate decisions based on that for their people. And the question is, should they, and I’ve got opinions on it, which I’m gonna tell you in a little bit, um, and these opinions have changed over time. 1:34It’s interesting. It’s, it’s not a simple yes or no question when you really think about, you know, the, the struggles that come with being a senior executive, the challenges that come with being the leader of an organization, being in charge of so many people, being an example, all of the pressure that we put on our leaders. Now, all of a sudden, we take a look and say, well, maybe they should, or shouldn’t have that political political view. 2:02It’s not new for businesses to get involved in politics. It’s not new. This has been around for a long time. Always. There’s always money from businesses going into influence politics. What is new is the very visible way in which they do it. And it’s, I’m gonna call it sizzle versus substance before the money would go to influence political decisions. Now it’s more about a branding challenge and, and a lot of companies have had very active political movements throughout the years. 2:34And I think, you know, the first one you think about is Patagonia and their, their work to, you know, for climate change and, and preserving. And just recently, they gave the whole freaking company away to preserve a whole bunch of, uh, places. Um, and that’s fine. I it’s great, good for them. It’s a, it’s a wonderful thing. And I think it’s, um, a very noble decision and, and they’ve been, uh, living their ideals for a very long, a very long time since the beginning. 3:03And I think this just aligns with who they are as a company. And I think it’s fantastic and it’s good for the world. And, and I think it’s a good example. Um, so when we think about social impact, we think about Patagonia and a company that’s living its ideals, and that’s great, but now we see a lot of organizations try to kinda have the social impact or the credit of the social impact without actually doing something about the social impact. 3:33Um, because everyone’s got an opinion now and, and everyone’s able to, to talk about that opinion. And, um, if I think back over the last, I mean, we’ll say decade because that’s really the, this is when the new advent really started. It’s even less than it’s probably five years maybe. Um,you know, we think about the, the executives who spoke up around the me too movement inequality, right? Women’s equality in the workplace, I’ll say that women’s equality in the workplace, that’s one and they had opinions, valid opinions. 4:06And then you’ve got all of the discussion that came after George Floyd when George Floyd was murdered. And that was the racial discussions at work. Everyone had an opinion on that. Uh, a lot of it was we have to be listeners and everything else for, for that, um, Roe versus Wade that overturned recently, that was a big, hot topic. And, uh, executives jumped up and, and said, we’re gonna, you know, we’re opposed to it. 4:34And we’re gonna fly our people and give them whatever they need to go wherever they need. And, um, that’s when people started to say, Hey, you know, should you really be getting involved in this? And it’s a, it’s a very interesting dynamic of running a business and then also living the virtues and, and values that you espouse. And so, uh, I, I think it’s noble, it’s meant to be noble because you you’re in charge of a number of people. 5:06Um, you have to do what’s best for your people. Um, and so, so the question I’m gonna ask today is twofold. It’s interesting. And two, one, should they, and two, I want to talk about the sizzle versus substance because we see a lot of people saying it, but there’s no real follow through. There’s a lot of talk after George Floyd. We didn’t see anything. There’s a lot of talk on the me too movement. 5:30Uh, we did see some of it. We did see some of it, but how does that continue? And, and, and how does that go? Um, and what does that do? So, so let’s talk about, should they, traditionally, it’s been good practice to not wait into politics and that’s because social items generally weren’t necessarily good for business. And also there was, you know, we didn’t want to alienate people, a business doesn’t wanna alienate half the people. 5:58If, if a business 10 years ago came out on Roe versus Wade or something like that, you’ve just lost half your customers. And we see it today. How many people are just trying to cancel a company because they did a vaccine mandate or something like that. Um, we saw that with, um,oh, what’s the, I guess Carhartt did a vaccine mandate. And then people went bananas and then other people were like, well, so did Ford. 6:20You’re gonna get rid of your F-150. Um, and so it’s interesting how, since everyone has a voice, you can alienate an entire group of people. And then they’re gonna say, we’re boycotting your company. So there’s a risk, there’s real risk to taking a political stand, which even vaccinating your employees, isn’t really a political stand, but it became a political stand. Um, and so there’s a, so CEOs are kind of caught between this rock and a hard place on what do people expect from my company? 6:45What do my employees expect from my company? They don’t always align what’s best for my company. What’s best for my employees that may not align with what they expect. And so how do you choose the right thing? Um, it was easy to ignore it a long time ago because ignorance was bliss and there was a lot we didn’t know, and not everyone had an opinion and a way to express it. And that’s great. 7:12Um, sometimes that’s nice. Sometimes I pine for those days when, um, and I’m gonna do a podcast soon on the joy of not knowing and how ignorance was bliss. And, um, when we get these little bits of information today, suddenly everyone’s an expert with an opinion. And as the world and information flow changes today, many executives are finding an...