Divided We Lead

Leaders in all sectors — from business to sports to education — are publicly engaging in controversial political and social debates that they would have shied away from just a few years ago. Weighing in on divisive issues can alienate stakeholders — customers, employees, and investors among them. Yet since we wrote “The New CEO Activists,” published in the January–February 2018 issue of HBR, we’ve seen a growing wave of leaders surging into activist roles.

Consider the rush of activity in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Edward Stack, announced that his company was “going to take a stand” by no longer selling firearms to people younger than 21, among other policy changes. Other business leaders joined the public debate, prompting a variety of responses. For example, after Delta CEO Ed Bastian announced that the Atlanta-based airline would stop offering discounts to NRA members, Georgia lawmakers retaliated by killing a tax break that would have saved Delta millions.

Leadership in a Hot-Button World: Get the reprint

download PDF buy copies

CEO activism is part of a societal shift that some have called “the politicization of everything.” The ideological polarization in our political system — fueled by social media — has created a highly charged environment in which business leaders are increasingly on the spot to offer their views on complex issues with which they might have little experience. In fact, a recent Global Strategy Group report found that companies are now expected to respond to current events within 24 hours.

To find out what strategies are being used to navigate these new waters, we interviewed three leaders who have made activism part of their core activities. Marc Benioff, the founder and CEO of the software giant Salesforce, was one of the first corporate heads to speak out against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave businesses the right to refuse to serve LGBTQ customers. Kathy Carter, the president of Soccer United Marketing, is an outspoken advocate for gender equality. And Robert Zimmer, the president of the University of Chicago, has taken a public stand against prohibiting controversial speakers from visiting college campuses.

Why do they speak out? Our interviews with these leaders revealed that they feel compelled to address hot-button issues and that careful reflection about their own values and the history and culture of their organization guides their action. They also complement their public activities with a “ground game” executed out of the limelight.

The New Imperative to Step In

Regardless of whether CEOs and other organizational leaders feel a responsibility to take a public stance on contentious issues, their companies’ customers, employees, business partners, and investors are being swept along in the societal shift toward greater political polarization. That means the decision to remain silent about a growing number of controversial issues — say, assault weapons sales — is becoming unacceptable to more and more stakeholders.

This new imperative for leaders to reexamine organizational purpose comes in response to a sea change in the world around them. Americans are far more polarized than in the past, according to the Pew Research Center. Fewer people identify as moderates, and Democrats have become more liberal, while Republicans have become more conservative. The share of Americans who hold very negative views of the opposing party has more than doubled over the past two decades, to more than 40%. More than one-third of Republicans and 27% of Democrats believe their opponents’ policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” Record numbers of people would be uncomfortable if their children were to marry someone from the opposing party. Some Tinder users ask potential suitors to “swipe left” if they voted for President Trump.

The rise of social media and a fractured media landscape have exacerbated this polarization. Americans increasingly consume news and opinion only from sources that support their views. Social media, moreover, provides easy access to partisan information that is difficult to verify and often untrue, fomenting distrust and skewing perspectives.

Several trends are deepening the divisions. The most politically polarized citizens are the most engaged in politics: They vote in primaries, donate to campaigns, attend rallies and fundraisers, and so on. Politicians are becoming more likely to engage in activities aimed at amplifying the influence of the voters most likely to support them, backing sophisticated gerrymandering, microtargeting, and even voter suppression campaigns. The upshot is that politicians have less of a mandate to compromise and vote across party lines and more incentive to blame any failures on opponents.

The volatile mix of stark political divisions, polarized political identities, and one-sided media diets makes a leader’s decisions about entering — or staying out of — public debates extremely complex. According Ed Bastian, Delta’s decision to cancel the NRA discount to was meant to avoid taking sides. “The discounted travel benefit for NRA members could be seen as Delta implicitly endorsing the NRA,” Bastian explained in a memo to his employees after Georgia’s legislature killed the tax break; by canceling the discount, “Delta’s intent was to remain neutral.” The strategy didn’t play out as intended. When the Georgia legislature said it would eliminate the tax break unless Delta reversed course, Bastian was defiant, telling his employees that “Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale.” His words were widely hailed in the press and led Marc Benioff to tweet, “The CEO of the year award goes to Ed Bastian!”

Values into Action

The leaders we spoke with consistently referred to the need for a “north star” and the importance of having a clear understanding of their own values, those of their employees, and the traditions and culture of their organizations as they weigh the decision to take a stand.

Supporting employees. Although CEO activism is sometimes viewed as a personal crusade, Marc Benioff says he is often inspired to take action on issues at the urging — and in support — of his employees. He believes that doing what’s right for the company is fundamental to his role. “Anybody who says a CEO doesn’t have a right to say what they want for their company doesn’t understand what leadership is,” he told us. In fact, Benioff considers activism to be not a leadership choice, but a modern — and an evolving — expectation. “CEOs have to realize that Millennials are coming into the organization and expecting the CEO to represent the values of that organization. That’s why every CEO has to be in touch with those values,” he said.

In 2015, for example, Salesforce employees in Indiana, where the company is the largest technology employer, started contacting him to express concerns about that state’s pending Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Benioff made public statements threatening to halt company investment in the state if the law passed, paving the way for other CEOs to take similar stances. He said that his decision to stand up against the bill was based on two principles: that a core value at Salesforce is equality and that employees expect their CEO to look out for them. “I basically said, ‘You’re crossing a line with our values. We believe in equality for all. And if you [enact the bill], you’re not on our team.’”

Framing his decisions squarely in support of his employees, Benioff explained that his personal beliefs don’t necessarily play into his decisions to take an activist stance. He told NPR, “If you want to create a great company, you’d better be on the side of your employees. And you’d better be committed to being their partner.” He reaffirmed that commitment in his conversation with us, saying, “Every CEO has to have the back of their employees.”

Acting on personal conviction. Kathy Carter, the president of Soccer United Marketing, has emerged as a leading advocate for equal respect, equal resources, and equal opportunity for female players. But her motivation comes from personal conviction. “For me, it starts with making sure you as an individual figure out where you stand morally and ethically,” she said. “Because what I’ve found is that who you are should never change. And that is your core, and that’s your rock. And if you stay true to that, you can manage any of the conversations.”

Her values led Carter to publicly campaign for the U.S. Women’s National Team to be paid and treated equally. She also called for the U.S. Soccer Federation to conduct an analysis of its staff payroll to ensure there were no inequities based on gender or race. At the same time, Carter believes that leaders must carefully consider whether and where it is appropriate for leaders and employees — or players, in Carter’s case — to weigh in on social issues. For example, after Rapinoe decided to kneel during the national anthem before some games — as some NFL players were famously doing — U.S. Soccer prohibited such protests. Carter has publicly supported the group’s policy, because she feels that sports organizations should govern some types of player activism. Behavior “within the confines of the competition” — that is, actions taken on the field — ought to be subject to governance, she believes, but off the field, players have a right to use their fame and platform to promote their views.

Upholding the mission. In 2014, in response to decisions by an increasing number of universities to disinvite speakers because of their politics, Robert Zimmer commissioned a group of faculty to “draft a statement reflecting the University’s commitment to and tolerance of multiple forms of free expression.” The group’s report reaffirmed the school’s 2012 “Statement on Principles of Free Expression,” later known as the “Chicago Principles.” When we asked Zimmer why he took such a vocal stand, he explained that an essential role of universities is to expose students to all views — even those they may disagree with or find offensive — and that the movement to protect students from unpleasant or troubling content violates the University of Chicago’s mission and deep tradition.

On campus, opinions on the Chicago Principles have diverged. More than 100 professors recently opposed Steve Bannon’s being invited to speak there, maintaining that it amounts to an endorsement of hate speech. However, Zimmer’s stance is in line with the views of his predecessors, including a president in the 1930s who supported inviting the Communist Party’s candidate for U.S. president to speak on campus, asserting that “free inquiry is indispensable to the good life.” That history inspired Zimmer to advocate against the trend of universities’ rescinding invitations to controversial speakers.

“I felt that this was totally antithetical to what the University of Chicago stood for and its intellectual traditions,” Zimmer said. “I thought it was important to make it clear what our values were, what we stood for, and that these things stood in opposition to each other.”

When we asked the leaders how they persevere in the face of likely backlash, Kathy Carter cautioned that leaders today need a thick skin. “You can’t react to everything everybody says, and you have to recognize that people are going to take shots at you because they can. That’s a different type of leadership from what we’ve experienced in the past, certainly before social media,” she said. “Because the keyboard is mightier than the pen used to be.”

The Ground Game

The leaders we interviewed gave us insights about why they engage in difficult and complex political issues, but we also wanted to know how they engage. What tools do they use to mobilize their stakeholders and the public? They told us that although they engage on social media and make high-profile public speeches, they largely view these measures as insufficient. They also rely on a “ground game” — actions beyond the spotlight that support their public efforts to effect change on important issues of the day.

Recruit other leaders. A key element of Benioff’s ground game is persuading other top business leaders to speak out. Called “the ringleader of CEO activists,” Benioff pushes other executives to take stands and calls on employees of other firms to encourage their CEOs to speak out. “My number one goal is to help other CEOs recognize that they have permission to do this,” he told us. He has made the recruiting of his peers a regular part of his job, attending “at least two dinners a month with 20 or more CEOs talking just about [CEO activism].” He also takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by the many CEO groups he participates in to energize his peers in “acting from their values, representing their company, fighting for what they believe in.”

Benioff points out that the impulse to engage in activism does not come naturally to most CEOs. Even those who went to business school, he notes, “did not get trained on this.” Moreover, the sea change “is happening very much in real time for the CEOs, and so they need help, they need encouragement, they need confidence. I’m trying to help them recognize that they have tremendous platforms.”

Zimmer takes a similar approach, reaching out to university presidents and provosts from around the country to discuss — without the pressure of media coverage — the need for diverse perspectives on campus. He meets with high school principals to learn how they are “thinking about preparing students for an environment of open discourse and free expression when they go to college.” He also hosts informal dinners with university students to share experiences, learn their perspectives, and discuss the university’s mission and policy.

Engage the board. When leaders speak out, it’s essential that their companies stand behind them. Benioff works diligently in educating his board of directors to make sure they understand why he’s speaking out on particular issues. When we asked him why he does this, he was clear: “Your position can’t be a surprise in a board meeting. You have to bring them into the conversation.” He added that it’s extremely difficult to sell directors on an idea — especially a controversial one — if you restrict your interactions with them to the boardroom. “I bring my board members to my offsites, my key management meetings, my operation reviews, customer dinners, customer events,” he said. “I know that’s scary for some CEOs, but for me, making sure your board is on your team is the most effective thing.”

Conduct public outreach. The leaders we spoke with work hard to ensure that their organizations are well-positioned to influence decision makers in Washington as well as members of the general public who might disagree with their missions. Benioff frequently speaks out on controversial issues on television — not just on business shows but also on mainstream programs such as CBS’s This Morning and ABC’s Good Morning America. Zimmer goes beyond the confines of the ivory tower to spread his message to the general public: He wrote a widely hailed op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and has spoken at public events hosted by the Washington Post. And Carter took a highly public step, deciding to run for president of one of sports’ most important organizations and launching a campaign that brought her voice to ESPN, CNN, USA Today, and Twitter. For each of these leaders, public outreach is an essential part of activism.

A New Leadership Story

Not all executives believe that activism is the right way to lead. In February 2018, responding to calls to separate Berkshire Hathaway from businesses connected to guns, Warren Buffett told CNBC that it would be a mistake to impose his own views on “370,000 employees and a million shareholders…I’m not their nanny on that.”

But fewer and fewer organizations will have the luxury of staying out of the political fray, and those that strive to remain neutral will face challenges. Consider what happened to FedEx last month during the flurry of companies’ canceling their NRA affinity programs following the Parkland school shooting. FedEx, which offered discounts to NRA members, stayed silent for five days after the shooting until customer pressure forced executives to release a statement about its policies; the statement noted that FedEx has publicly supported bans on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, in opposition to the NRA. The company subsequently released three more statements about its discount program and its gun shipment policies, yet it continues to face boycotts, as do many other organizations that wavered in their reaction to Parkland.

A polarized world demands new approaches to leadership. “Business is the greatest platform for change, and CEOs have an obligation to use their leadership to create that change of the world,” Benioff told us. “It could be around LGBTQ, it could be about schools, it could be about the environment. These are things where CEOs can take very simple and concrete actions, and I’m encouraging them to do that.” The Big Idea