4 ms·

Why CEOs Shouldn't Publicly Discuss Religion, Politics Or Sex(ual Orientation)

3 points by oldmill 14y ago

mindcrime 14y ago
I'm not seeing much "why" in this article. There are a couple of anecdotes and a lot of opinion spewing, but not much of substance to support the idea that "founders shouldn't publicly discuss Religion, Politics or Sex(ual Orientation). Also, to his point about having a responsibility to "maximize returns for all shareholders": It’s a myth that corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits to shareholders at the expense of everyone else. Historically, the executives and directors of U.S. public corporations understood that they had a responsibility to other constituencies – customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation.[1] If doing what's best for "customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation" involves discussing politics, religion, or sex publicly, then a CEO should do it, even if it causes short-term financial loss. IOM, it's time for leaders to start looking at the long-term view a little bit more; as opposed to only focusing on "this quarter." [1]http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths-that-threaten-the-wealth-of-the-nation.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths...
- forgingahead 14y ago
  Agreed. For example, there is enough vitriol against private enterprise and business in this upcoming American election that businesses NEED to make a stand. The alternative is to quietly plan shifting capital and production means to more business-friendly countries -- things which no one who started a business in the US wants to do (they started the damn thing here in the first place!).
roguecoder 14y ago
So, they should never mention their wives/husbands? Was Zuckerburg's wedding a terrible misstep? Catholic hospitals are a disaster? Every lobbying group is a net negative for the company? I don't think he's thought this through. The problem in those specific cases was not choosing not to advertise on talk radio: it was failing to make up for those advertising channels elsewhere. (Though in Carbonite's case, advertising to people who will swallow whatever they are told without performing independent verification might be a superior strategy, of course...) The key is for the company to have an identity and a CEO who supports that identity. No one is surprised when Google opposes SOPA or creates a It Gets Better video: that is the kind of company it is. People who don't want to be part of that wouldn't work for Google.

3 points by oldmill 14y ago

I'm not seeing much "why" in this article. There are a couple of anecdotes and a lot of opinion spewing, but not much of substance to support the idea that "founders shouldn't publicly discuss Religion, Politics or Sex(ual Orientation). Also, to his point about having a responsibility to "maximize returns for all shareholders": It’s a myth that corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits to shareholders at the expense of everyone else. Historically, the executives and directors of U.S. public corporations understood that they had a responsibility to other constituencies – customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation.[1] If doing what's best for "customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation" involves discussing politics, religion, or sex publicly, then a CEO should do it, even if it causes short-term financial loss. IOM, it's time for leaders to start looking at the long-term view a little bit more; as opposed to only focusing on "this quarter." [1]http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths-that-threaten-the-wealth-of-the-nation.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths...

forgingahead 14y ago
Agreed. For example, there is enough vitriol against private enterprise and business in this upcoming American election that businesses NEED to make a stand. The alternative is to quietly plan shifting capital and production means to more business-friendly countries -- things which no one who started a business in the US wants to do (they started the damn thing here in the first place!).

roguecoder 14y ago

So, they should never mention their wives/husbands? Was Zuckerburg's wedding a terrible misstep? Catholic hospitals are a disaster? Every lobbying group is a net negative for the company? I don't think he's thought this through. The problem in those specific cases was not choosing not to advertise on talk radio: it was failing to make up for those advertising channels elsewhere. (Though in Carbonite's case, advertising to people who will swallow whatever they are told without performing independent verification might be a superior strategy, of course...) The key is for the company to have an identity and a CEO who supports that identity. No one is surprised when Google opposes SOPA or creates a It Gets Better video: that is the kind of company it is. People who don't want to be part of that wouldn't work for Google.