For leaders in today’s volatile, media-saturated world, communication is not a soft skill, but a rock-hard, essential competency. One of the trickiest questions they face: Should we, as a company, take a position on a current event or issue? In the following excerpt from her new book, Pfizer Chief Corporate Affairs Officer Sally Susman provides a framework to help.
. . .
As leaders, it’s our job to prepare for the storms headed our direction. But it’s hard to see around every corner and impossible to anticipate every eventuality. In fact, you cannot. There’s no way to have a briefing document, contingency memo, or talking points to anticipate every scenario. I realized that when I found myself awash in issues following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. With President Trump’s victory, there was a rash of questions that came in my direction. Would our company support the Women’s March in Washington the day after the inauguration? Did we have a position on the so-called war on science? What was our stance on whether undocumented people should be allowed to use our social services? Did we think the United States should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement? My head was spinning.
I paused. Rather than run each issue up the corporate flagpole and debate the pros and cons, I chose to create a framework by which we could make the decision to opine, or not, on breaking issues based on agreed-on metrics. Why not? All other big corporate choices had an agreed-on set of measures and hurdles by which to run the company: when to invest, how to appraise productivity, how to calculate risk. But on the question of when and how to wade into public affairs waters, we were far less clear. This was my area of expertise, and I was chagrined that my domain lacked the discipline and rigor the others (finance, manufacturing, legal, etc.) had refined.
My fellow executive committee members offered to help me write the formula. We gathered in the company board room and started brainstorming. Candidly, it was hard for me to listen to my colleagues’ views, some of whom had no particular expertise in my area. Some were scientists, others were lawyers, a few were accountants. I consciously worked not to be defensive. And, because I sat back and listened, I heard several good suggestions from people I may have wrongly dismissed had I created a wall between them and me. These are smart, experienced leaders, and I suspected my framework would be stronger for their input. So, I parked my ego and started taking notes on a large easel. Old fashioned, I know, but effective.
Our framework has five questions:
1. Does the issue relate to our purpose?
This question is a meaningful brake to prevent a company from weighing in on every issue. It is not necessary to offer a viewpoint on every single cultural whim or social movement — in many cases, silence is golden.
Most consumers don’t think about where Pfizer or any other company stands on every issue facing society. They want to know where we stand on issues related to what we do. In large companies, there will be an advocate (or a critic) on every public controversy, but individual interest shouldn’t govern. And not all issues are equal. Speaking out on too many topics erodes one’s agency. Don’t overuse your microphone or people will stop listening. Focus your advocacy on issues that resonate with your purpose.
2. How does the matter impact our stakeholders?
This question must be thoughtfully answered, especially in cases where stakeholders’ interests may be in conflict. There are so many topics, from climate change to parental leave, where arguments for and against can quickly combust with different constituencies on either side.
For me, there is one constituency above all others: an institution’s employees. Their views take priority. Staff who feel ignored or alienated are often your most troublesome detractors. By contrast, those employees who feel heard and understood are your greatest ambassadors.
3. What are our choices for engagement?
You always have options in terms of response modes and actions, though they may not be obvious in the moment. Do not become a prisoner of other people’s agendas and plans when pressured to “Sign our petition” or “Add your CEO’s name to our open letter” or “Get back to me before my deadline today!” Design and follow your own thought-out strategies. Choose the message and messenger that most clearly expresses your view. Following our experience with CEO Dr. Albert Bourla’s colleague letter that went viral after the Trump-Biden presidential debate, my preferred way to get on the record for a hot topic is to have the boss send an internal message that we then make public. It’s controlled and executed on our own terms.
4. What is the price of our silence?
This question often trumps the others. An issue may not be precisely on point to our purpose, the views of stakeholders may not be obvious, but the cost of saying nothing is just too great. Silence on some topics — such as racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and other matters of humanity — is unacceptable.
For example, after white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August of 2017, many companies spoke out. At Pfizer we issued an all-colleague note from our CEO that began, “Dear Colleagues, I’m writing regarding the bigotry and violence we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. The racism that was on display has no place in a civilized world. The hate groups — and individuals — behind this weekend’s vitriol and violence are not welcome in our communities and need to be held accountable for their actions.”
Two years later, in 2019, the Business Roundtable (BRT) redefined the purpose of corporations, moving away from shareholder primacy, and including comments to all stakeholders. Pfizer signed alongside 180 other major multinational companies. This declaration set a new bar for leadership that included more robust public engagement.
5. How does the issue relate to our values?
This question was provoked by our BRT statement. An additional layer of consideration is an important one. Our Pfizer values are courage, excellence, equity, and joy. Any of these can stir us to action.
This framework makes my job easier and more efficient. Using a scaffolding allows us to hit the ground running in terms of the actual work to be done. I may not know what tomorrow’s controversy will be, but I do know how I’ll evaluate it for my company. Here I’m aligned with the decorated war general and U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” I encourage you to find a framework that best suits you (or feel free to use ours) or claim whatever structure allows you to always feel ready to face anything that comes your way.
This excerpt has been lightly edited.
