About
|
Previously on...
Hello,
Some days ago, my wife and I went for dinner with an American couple that moved to Portugal some months ago. I couldn't help but ask about how they felt about next week’s elections. I asked about the process and the atmosphere in the US.
We enjoyed a selection of appetizers and a bottle of green wine out on the terrace of an upscale restaurant in the middle of Lisbon. Time flew by, and when we realized it was time to say goodbye.
While we were heading home, we talked about how pleasant the evening was. Ana recalled that part of the conversation about politics and said that I had taken a risk talking about politics as we didn't know their political preferences. I argued that it was a calculated risk. I was careful not to mention or ask for any particular candidate — I was curious about how nervous they were and took the opportunity to ask about the election process. We learned about the Electoral College history, and we discussed the fragility that it represents. By then, we could already tell what their preference was.
It's fine to talk about politics, but it is wise to avoid any clash of preferences if you're meeting someone for the first time. Politics nowadays is so charged that you want to be careful about how you talk about it. In doubt, you better avoid the subject. It doesn't mean that it is a tabu or that you're not being yourself and creating real connections. You're just being sensible and being careful not to create unnecessary tensions.
Companies vs. Politics
Although commenting on the news is not the objective of these Letters, some topics are just too hard to avoid, and I want to take the opportunity to share my thinking about those.
Make a lot of questions (you can find >30 questions!)
Think about the 2nd and 3rd order implications of any decision
The news that got my attention this week was Expensify CEO sending a "vote for Biden" email to 10 Million of his customers. This came weeks after Coinbase CEO wrote a blog post explaining why he doesn't want the company to discuss politics. Two opposite positions from well-known tech startups illustrate that we don’t have a consensus on dealing with politics and business.
NY Times also had a good follow-up article.
Should you do it?
Tech, especially those from the Silicon Valley family, always liked to be social-issues minded. Being around San Francisco, where many social movements like anti-war or LGBT rights took shape, is probably part of the reason.
But they are not the only ones.
Nike famously partnered with Colin Kaepernick and picked sides on the race debate (sides?).
If you're not familiar, you can find the background story here:
Did Nike took advantage of Kaepernick or helped him and the movement against racial discrimination and police brutality?
Why would Nike get involved?
Is that a corporate decision - around the company's role in the world - or a brand decision - to be associated with a challenger/rebel positioning?
Companies vs. Politics (cont.)
We will come back to companies and social causes, but let’s fast-forward to 2020 and focus on the initial topic — companies and candidates.
Is it ok for companies to proactively support a candidate?
How much involved in politics should a company be?
What are the topics that a company should voice and proactively act upon?
How are these political and social awareness and activism relates to corporate social responsibility?
These were some of the questions popping into my mind while I got involved in some of these discussions online.
Tim Leberecht asked
"Should businesses, and especially CEOs, publicly take sides though? Yes, absolutely, I believe, in fact, in this case, with so much at stake, it's a moral obligation. Do you agree?"
My first reaction was:
"Disagree. There are so many things wrong with this. Technically I bet he doesn’t have permission from customers to send political (non-product) messages. So he’s betraying the trust customers gave him to have access to their inbox. How do you define what can be an exception? Unless otherwise stated, the CEO mandate, which is defined by the board, doesn’t include having and pushing a political agenda unless it clearly affects the business (regulatory topics, for example). He is using company resources to drive a political agenda. The CEO should focus solely on the company's mission and practice the company values in regards to its stakeholders. Is he questioning all his stakeholders — employees, investors, suppliers, partners, customers - on their political choice? Why not? It seems that the argument that justifies the e-mail would work for discriminating stakeholders. Where do you stop regarding “the right thing to do” and “take sides” and “moral obligation”? I don’t see any framework where this is acceptable."
Kyle Lacy asked using, among others, the example of Expensify and Coinbase:
"Do you believe a company should openly support a political party, cultural movement, or religious belief?"
I commented:
"A company is an organization with a mission - everything that doesn’t work for that is a distraction. The CEO, LT, and every employee have a mandate that doesn’t include politics. No, the CEO doesn’t own the company and should serve the mission agreed with the board and stakeholders in general. Noble and moral imperatives are personal and should be treated like that. It’s not a company’s business to decide where to draw the line. The company should have values that guide and are related to their business conduct. They serve the mission and the company and its relation to stakeholders. Yes, this includes gender equality and diversity because it is related to the business. But not Pro-choice/Pro-life that is not. Overall this politics thing is another case of a paternalistic and egocentric view of a company."
Companies have always been involved in politics — from funding political parties to lobbying and even hiring ex-politicians. And we can agree that many political decisions can affect the company performance - from tax law to regulation or employment law.
If companies are involved in these discussions and driving favorable decisions seems understandable, if not natural. Otherwise, the company would be a passive performer, and you could even say that they were not protecting the company's interests.
Unintended consequences
Going back to the initial question
Is it acceptable for a company to back a particular candidate if he has more favorable policies regarding specific laws and regulations?
You could say that's the natural consequence of being involved and wanting to influence those decisions. What we miss is the unintended consequences of supporting a candidate, which is a common pitfall. We jump to conclusions without considering their 2nd and 3rd order impacts.
A candidate comes with a bundle, where our area of concern is just a small part, so in the end, you're supporting much more than you intended to. There's also much more visibility and emotion involved when supporting a candidate — not every one of your stakeholders will be happy with your choice.
If you're keen to support a candidate explicitly, how far do you go?
Someone on Linkedin bluntly declared that, in recruiting interviews, he always questioned about who they voted for in the last elections — if it was not already scary, he was quite clear on why — he immediately ruled out people who didn't vote like him. Because they are "idiots," and he doesn't want "idiots" in his company.
Does he have that freedom of selecting who he has in his company?
In general, it makes sense, but is it acceptable to discriminate based on political choices?
Is it more acceptable than gender or race?
You can say that people are born with a gender (I know...) and a race, so it is nothing that they can change (well...), so they should not be cursed by that.
What about religion?
Are we going to accept that we can call you “idiot” if your religion is X and be fine with discrimination based on religion?
If not, why should we accept political discrimination?
See? It’s a slippery slope. Even if you don't go that far, how comfortable will your customers, employees, and partners feel if they don't share your political views?
Personal and Authentic
I've been quoted saying that business should become more personal and authentic, that companies and brands don't talk, don't have emotions or empathy — people have that.
So if I want to be authentic, shouldn't I voice my political point of view?
As we have seen, the consequences may outgrow the benefits, and I believe you still can be authentic and relatable without talking about politics and especially picking sides. Or you need to be careful about how you approach that because you don't want to alienate whoever you're having dinner with.
What about social issues like environment, gender equality, diversity, and discrimination?
Should companies take a stance and campaign for that?
They seem acceptable, and many people would agree on those issues and challenges, right? Even if that's true, we should question:
Why would a company spend resources to campaign for these social issues?
Companies should find a clear connection between what they do and these issues. Being a “good citizen” can and should be part of their values, so they don’t harm the world while running their business. Reducing their environmental footprint becomes a natural consequence. But it is more about doing than talking.
When it comes to discrimination is their duty to follow the law and basic principles like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — that's what being a "good citizen" means. Again, it is about practicing non-discrimination, not talking about it.
And for example, if the topic is Pro-choice/Pro-life, it hardly has anything to do about what the company does — it's a society issue, not a company issue.
Good at the Core
Why shouldn't a company use its resources to make the world a better place?
If making the world a better place is part of their DNA, they should practice that in everything they do — starting with their mission and going down to how they treat their employees, their customers, and partners or minimize their environmental footprint. If everyone does that, I'm sure the world will be in a better place.
They don't have to spend their advertising dollars or spam their mailing list to do this. Actually, that's the easy but less effective way to “change the world”. It is harder to practice the values, change how to run the business, or even change the business you're in.
The same thinking applies to some Corporate Social Responsibility programs. While at the heart of the CSR concept is the will to be a "good citizen", some companies get confused and promote voluntary social work or donations as some kind of "give-back" to society. It's great that individuals want to do that, but they should be the ones to decide. We would be in a better place if the companies pay them better and limit their work schedule, so they have the time and money to give back. And, last but certainly not least, the company is already contributing to society if they pay their due taxes and avoid using dubious tax optimizations schemes.
Bottom line, a Company can be a “good citizen” and contribute to a better society:
with their mission and the products & services behind that
by employing people and contributing to their professional realization
by paying fairly to employees and suppliers
by paying their taxes
by minimizing their environmental footprint
by fairly rewarding shareholders’ risk
by partnering with stakeholders that follow these “good citizen” principles.
Everything else is probably a distraction, hubris, or downright some kind of whitewashing (green, blue, red, pink, purple,…).
Thanks for reading,
Hugo