So I think this is 'how not to do it' for a few reasons. 1) This kind of thing has to be done in person. Writing angry emails from above will only have the eff

So I think this is 'how not to do it' for a few reasons. 1) This kind of thing has to be done in person. Writing angry emails from above will only have the effect of getting people upset. 2) Scolding people about 'not working hard enough' is lacking in insight. 'Hard work' is probably not the issue, almost certainly, it's structural etc. - which is to say - it's probably more 'managements' fault than anything. Which implies a hefty does of hypocrisy. So the message should have been mostly about 'the problems we're facing, what some underlying issues are, and a plan for addressing them' and how everyone has a responsibility to participate. At most - if there is a legitimate problem of distractions or slagging off ... he can hint at it and that's about it. But only in the context of material plan and assuming responsibility himself for the overall concerns. 3) It's fair for a CEO to be concerned about staff trying to take on 'too much concern' for their ostensible political causes - but - he should not deny that a) his staff feels as though the issue is important and b) the company, on some level has a responsibility to be a good corporate actor. So what he can do, first, validate their real concerns instead of dismissing them, explain why social responsibility for these things are often an individual thing to be done outside work and why organisations generally are not in and of themselves political or issue oriented, but also indicate some things the company can do to be 'good corporate actors' in the context of these issues. To put a different way, it's not a corporations job to 'sponsor protests' for example, but it definitely is a corporations responsibility to make sure they are 'not being racist' within their own operations and relations. In fact 'political action' is often secondary to the real, material actions which in and of themselves are 'root causes'. For example 'not being racist' is much more important that 'going to a protest' because if we all behaved appropriately, such problems would arise much less often. Surely there are at least some things the company could do to improve their actions as a group, which I think would in fact be more relevant and material to the concerns of some of the staffers anyhow. By implementing some appropriate measures, and indicating that 'this is actually the best way to address such problems' - he's both making his company better at the same time as addressing their real and emotional concerns.