(Image credit: iStockphoto/adamkaz)CEO activism entered a new chapter with the decision by more than 200 leaders of large corporations last month to publicly declare their support for voting rights for Americans and, by extension, their opposition to political efforts to change voting laws in ways that were seen to restrict voters.
Nearly all, with notable exceptions like Warren Buffett, identified themselves with their organizations. Others, such as Doug McMillon of Walmart, declined to sign saying that he “would not use the company’s voice on this issue,” but mentioning that he had already made it clear that “we believe broad participation and trust in the election process are vital to its integrity.”
Some of the signatories were recruited in a Zoom meeting of more than 100 CEOs organized by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Sonnenfeld commented that “Ensuring social cohesion in democracy is part of a CEO’s job of managing the strategic environment.”
"When they identify with their corporations, do CEOs assume that they are representing them?"
One question these events raise for us is not a political one. It is not about where you stand on the issues of voting rights, or gun safety, or immigration, or climate change, or others being debated in state legislatures across the country. It is instead about CEO representation on such matters.
When they identify with their corporations, do CEOs assume that they are representing them? Regardless of the answer, it’s clear that others—employees, customers, suppliers, politicians, the general public—do.
As a frequent speaker at various corporate events, I was tempted to think that my name and reputation was the attraction until I saw the billing and the relative prominence of my name as opposed to that of the Harvard Business School. Take away the titles and their corporate affiliation and most CEOs would go unrecognized. Their persuasive clout would disappear.
Are CEOs representing employees? How about those who don’t support the stance on a particular issue?
Are CEOs representing a brand or product doing what is, on balance, good for the business? Will their identification with an issue attract more customers than it drives away? Will it attract the kind of employee who shares the values implied by the CEO’s position?
Of course, executives implicitly make socially influenced and socially important decisions all the time. Decisions about what businesses to enter, what products and services to offer, and where to do business all have social implications that we rarely note. That’s just business as usual.
Sonnenfeld’s comment earlier implies that what is good for a particular business should no longer be the primary motivation for activism—that what is good for business in general (“the strategic environment”) should be an important criterion for action. Terms like “a new great awakening” and “a spiritual revival” were used by journalists to highlight the CEOs’ efforts.
Senator Mitch McConnell said in regard to the CEO-centered initiative, “If I were representing a business, I’d stay out of politics.” Regardless of an effort to position this as an apolitical piece, there will be those who will want to debate the politics. Instead, let’s focus on where CEO activism is taking us, regardless of the issue.
Whom do activist CEOs represent? Does the CEO open letter represent “an important turning point”? Can representatives of businesses “stay out of politics”?
Where does CEO activism go from here? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
References:
David Gelles and Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Hundreds of Companies Unite to Oppose Limits, But Others Abstain,” The Economist, April 14, 2021.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, “CEOs Lead America’s New Great Awakening,” The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2021.
Summing up last month’s column
Respondents to last month’s column were, by and large, not surprised by the question: Why can’t more leaders teach? They offered some persuasive reasons.
For example, Lisa Marks Dolan put it this way: “Too many leaders think teaching is telling what they know; it’s about helping others find their own answers.” Pete Bowen attributed the condition to the notion that “People who are ‘naturals’ at something are often poor coaches/teachers of that thing … a less-talented person (is) … in a much better position to teach/coach the detailed process to others. They have been there.”
Selina Myareves attributed it to different skill sets for leaders and teachers, based on a “facilitation approach.” As she said, “Many leaders only know play in their adult life in the terms of competition. This does not set them up well for the cooperative flow of information, stimulation and investigation required in good teaching.”
David Wittenberg questioned the implied premise that good leaders should make good teachers: “Teaching has a specific meaning. Leadership has a specific meaning that is different … Teaching and leadership have different goals. When I teach, my goal is to enable my learners to grow in skill, knowledge, and judgment. When I lead, my goal is to inspire and motivate my team to realize a vision … The two activities need not overlap.”
Those regarding the situation as worth correcting largely recommended teacher training for leaders, assuming they might be interested in pursuing it. David Massello reminded us that “most in leadership have never been trained to teach.” Meade Sutterfield, based on his experience, suggested a “two day academy for rookies and returning facilitators alike before each session to break the habit of command and reintroduce the mindset of facilitator.”
Comments suggested that we should ask ourselves whether leaders should even be considered as a potential source of good teaching. Or are leadership and teaching so different, as David Wittenberg suggests, that the premise of the question is misguided? What do you think?