13 ms·
Generational changes pressure CEOs to take up political activism
- jonathankoren 6y agoKind of a weird premise. CEOs have always used their wealth and corporations to wield political power.
- xkeysc0re 6y agoBut this time it's the correct political wielding of it!
- alistairSH 6y agoI think the difference being poorly articulated in the article is CEOs making public declarations of political positions. They've always donated to politicians and been active in local politics - that's how the rich and powerful maintain their status. Now, their employees and customers are demanding public stances on social/political issues that aren't directly related to the company bottom line. The statements earlier this week from Coca-Cola, Delta, and MLB relating to Georgia's voting restrictions come to mind.
- jonathankoren 6y agoAhem. This idea that companies -- and CEOs in particular -- only weigh in on things that directly effect their businesses is absurd. See Hobby Lobby. See Henry Ford and his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent. See Peter Thiel. Even the unwashed plebes using the power of the purse to influence policy isn't new. Lest we forget the original BDS against South Africa. You don't play Sun City[0]. You don't buy gasoline from Shell.[1] "Strangely" pearl clutching is only involved with the much less effective later, never the much more effective former. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_(song) [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-04-12-me-3593-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-04-12-me-3593-s...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoI agree with the comment you were replying to. Throughout most of history, corporations were seen as institutions that took an active role in shaping society. This was particularly true in the gilded age. This idea that corporations are purely apolitical money making engines is relatively recent, something purely of the post ware era, and somewhat illusionary in truth.
- slowmovintarget 6y agoA few extremely vocal customers, and a few extremely vocal employees, mostly in the U.S. People in other parts of the world seem to be aghast at what's happening in the U.S. because either a) they've tried on these kinds of political systems themselves and fled them in horror or overturned them already, or b) they see it as theater because all of the recommended actions are superficial or actively harmful. The term "Outrage-Industrial Complex" is so apt here.
- georgewfraser 6y agoThis is a mostly-fake, media phenomenon. Most CEOs and most companies do not engage in political activism, we just tend not to notice people not speaking out. What's described in this article is something the authors (and most journalists) want to happen, but it isn't actually happening at most companies.
- tootie 6y agoIt's not strictly political activism though. It's companies that are making voluntary commitments to thinks like diversity and inclusion, managing their ecological footprint, supply chain transparency. And this is all happening due to pressure from employees/customers/shareholders. In some cases it's CEOs having a genuine concern for the country, but more often they are being pushed out of economic necessity.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoDelta? MLB? Coca-Cola? Over the Georgia legislature's attempt to disenfranchise voters? This is fake? I don't believe so. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2021/4/5/22368566/corporate-response-georgia-sb202 https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2021/4/5/22368566/corporate-re... Larry Fink's letters to CEOs (Blackrock has $9 trillion AUM) https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1qqdhmzgrwbb3/Evidence-Shows-That-Larry-Fink-s-Annual-Letters-Actually-Work https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1qqdhmzgrwbb3... ("When Fink calls for transparency on issues like climate change, companies with significant BlackRock ownership adjust their disclosures.") "As society became politically polarized, companies became more activist. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media fanning polarization, it’s more problematic for organizations and their CEOs to remain neutral. Consider what’s happened in the past decade: Hobby Lobby — a chain of craft stores that challenged a federal mandate stating companies pay for insurance coverage for contraception — took their case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nike featured the controversial athlete and social crusader, Colin Kaepernick, in an ad campaign. Retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling certain weapons in response to tragic mass shootings nationwide." https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumers-feel-when-companies-get-political https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumers-feel-when-companies...
- tolbish 6y agoA different kind of activism, perhaps. Isn't the "work should just be for work" attitude simply a political statement of its own—one in support of the status quo?
- eplanit 6y agoThat thinking is the same as "either you're with me, or against me".
- tolbish 6y agoYou can support the status quo without taking an extreme position. My point is that rephrasing what it is doesn't change what it actually is.
- fallingknife 6y agoNo. Not anymore than the "don't bring up politics at Thanksgiving dinner" attitude is.
- tolbish 6y agoThanksgiving dinner is an apples to oranges comparison to what a CEOs job is. From the article: > BRT redefined the purpose of a corporation from immediate profitability for shareholders, to a broader lens that includes customers, employers, suppliers and communities CEOs think about how their business interfaces with the world around them. Some weild power on the order of states/countries, so that would make sense.
- readams 6y agoIt is not true that every aspect of your life needs to be in service of political activism. It doesn't mean you're supporting the status quo because you don't spend 100% of your time doing politics.
- tolbish 6y agoThat is a very black and white strawman interpretation of what I said.
- darkwizard42 6y agoThis feels like a natural evolution as companies try to ingrain their employees with the concept of being a part of the "family." If a company asks and gets you to spend SO much of your time living and breathing their values, then it only makes sense for that generation to push for the company to live out their values/the ones that resonate with them. That being said, I agree with the comment that MOST CEOs and companies do not engage in any kind of political activism and don't have a reason to do so.
- ppeetteerr 6y agoThis wouldn't have been an issue if we let corporations be money maximizing machines working within the confines of the legal system (and a strong legal system that treats them as such). Instead, we look to corporations for health care, retirement funds, a sense of purpose and belonging. This is the natural outcome.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoI don't think another way is possible at least under the current system. Politicians are able to shove responsibility (like healthcare) on the private sector as a way to address their ineffective programs and social need derived from policy blunders at the govt level. Employer based care can be directly traced to such an instance, for example. So it seems like the natural state of systems is for politicians to demand the most successful sector (usually private) to intervene, by the way of passing regulations, and thus, given enough time and enough blunders, eventually they will require such sector to own a bunch of competencies they were not really designed for (for example, employers shopping for worker healthcare coverage).
- slackfan 6y agoA small group of very loud, and generally (unfortunately) rather unproductive people is doing just that. But then again, if the response is to kowtow to the activists and not fire them for not doing their job - then I suppose I have no remorse for when your business eventually goes under, because you were not focused on your primary business objective. And as somebody who comes in to work to work and keeps his politics firmly in his personal sphere, it's a good indicator for why I might not ever want to work for you.
- fallingknife 6y agoIn the past these sort of people would have just been fired. Why is it different now?
- slackfan 6y ago"Feelings don't care about your facts" or something.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bluefirebrand 6y agoOften they belong to groups that are riskier to fire because of discrimination lawsuits. Safer to try and placate them.
- swalsh 6y agoI really think this is the answer. I think a lot about the fall out of the firing/accepted resignation of the AI ethics employee at Google. Based on anonomouys accounts from people talking about having worked with her, It seemed like she often turned interactions with her into hostile interactions, but people feared speaking up because she had a lot of power/influence which many found intimidating.
- 6y ago
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoThe old adage is "with great power comes great responsibility" Most CEOs are not perceived -rightly or wrongly- as paragons of virtue, so one can see this not ending particularly well. (The use of "CEO" here is the traditional use to refer to C-suite execs of large multinationals, and not necessarily business owners / founders... which are probably a distinct animal)
- sergiotapia 6y ago>CEOs can no longer resort to an avoidance strategy: "The middle ground is no longer feasible for anybody. Silence means acquiescence, which means complicity." Nope, companies can take strong stances like Coinbase and say: you are for the mission or you're gone. Simple.
- slackfan 6y agoIn the end, modern political activism doesn't keep the lights on, it doesn't improve the quality of your workers' output, the quality of your team, etc. Coinbase's tack while maybe seeming extreme to many is quite solid business sense.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoCompanies that are extremely entrenched can use activism as positive PR. What you will never see is Companies engaging in activism that could possibly hurt themselves. For instance a company that already pays everyone they employ more than $15 an hour might very well campaign for a $15 minimum wage. It costs them nothing and improves their image. A company that employes a huge amount of people at the current minimum wage would never campaign for it to increase. It would be too costly. But they might find something else to be activist about. Currently popular are LGBT interests or BLM. Both of those are worthy causes but you should give companies serious side-eye when they post BLM messaging on twitter yet campaign against raising the minimum wage or improving workers rights.
- HenryKissinger 6y agoSpeaking of CEOs and politics, I think JP Morgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon would be a terrific president.
- PeterStuer 6y ago"CEOs can no longer resort to an avoidance strategy: "The middle ground is no longer feasible for anybody. Silence means acquiescence, which means complicity."" Oh yes they can, and should. There is no appeasement possible in this. The only way to deal with these cultists is to keep them firmly at arms length and don't play their mind-games. The old quote comes to mind: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
- yayr 6y agoso what is the objective/cost function here? My hypothesis: - the longer humanity survives, the bigger the value. - the more of humanity contributes to that goal, the bigger the value. - the more of economic activity contributes to that goal, the bigger the value. and finally, why is this relevant: The more educated people are aware of this situation and are working in relevant companies, the higher the pressure for the companies to comply towards this objective function. So, personally, I'd appreciate the phenomenon to move from anekdotal to the direction of 5 sigma.
- stonogo 6y agoSounds like a natural result of the Citizens United vs FEC. Corporations are now the richest and most influential "people" in our political system. Where there is power, there will be attempts to sway that power.
- motohagiography 6y agoPerhaps this puts me among the first to stop clapping, but I would argue it's not generational changes, and it's not activism, it's appeasement. A CEO is a job like any other, they aren't founders, and they can be replaced by their boards like any other employee. Their job is to stay on message and sustain narrative that returns value to their investors, and if they have to deal with brand pressure from activists, their job is to do the needful. A CEO isn't hired to be brave or risk a brand for some personal principle. It's also easier to affect concerned noises and gestures to appease domestic pressures instead of say, being principled about conditions in your foreign factories. It is a political job, and all politics is blackmail. The quesiton all CEOs and senior executives are made to ask themselves is whether they want pride, or power? The ones who survive are these activist CEOs who take a public stand for global justice, because discretion is the better part of valor.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwawaysea 6y agoIn a lot of cases, I am not sure what the "pressure" actually is. Why do CEOs or other corporate employees care at all about the noise made by activists on Twitter or small numbers of employee activists? Why not just ignore them and move on? I feel like there would be no real impact and that they're unnecessarily caving into demands from progressive activists regularly. In doing so, these corporations are alienating center-left, center, and right customers as well as tilting the scales of our politics. This is especially true for highly influential companies that control information like Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
- lifeisstillgood 6y agoA long time ago I wanted to set up a proxy voting service - the idea was that your pension fund invested in X hundred companies, and you therefore had X/100 shares in each - with a median pension a single person would get to vote at a large % of AGMs annually. Now one or two or 50 shares wont make much difference - but this eventually becomes shareholder democracy.
- bennysomething 6y agoAs an employee I want to join a company and exchange my services for money. Not join a political movement. I can also vote with my feet, if a CEO decides he wants to drag politics into this equation I can try and go else where. Also in my limited experience companies driven by some hr agenda about inclusivity and diversity have stopped promoting based on merit, instead promoting based on quotas. That will only last so long. Also hearing this moralising nonsense while they invest heavily in China makes me doubt there's any sincerity behind this. Just wanting to look virtuous to a bunch of misled virtue signaling staff, who are probably in the minority but who are extremely vocal.
- bobthechef 6y agoThis is partly driven by fear of the de facto activists (graduates) that graduate from ideological bootcamps (universities) and infiltrate (join the ranks of) corporations, and partly fear of activists in the media. Frankly, much of the activism we're seeing isn't all that dangerous to get behind and parrot given the current climate, so there's no real swimming upstream here (what's more "risky" at most colleges: being conservative or liberal? Which would make you terminally unhip?). Many students simply absorb the worldview imparted to them by university education (+ media and primary ed) without ever really stopping to consider any of it. So if you want a glimpse of tomorrow, look to what college students are learning today. So there's an element of concerted political action (surveillance, the fusion of state and corporation, radical social changes esp. where human sexuality is concerned), but a good dose of the logic of the culture playing out. Ideas have consequences. It just takes a while for them to unfold. It would however be foolish to ignore the oligarchic dimension of it all. Plato's Republic has much to say about this and it rings eerily true.