New Politics of the C-Suite

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.