To Speak or not to Speak? That is the Question
Does your company have a plan in place for wayward and controversial comments or positions made or taken by the C-Suite leadership team or company executives? Has your company thought through the potential consequences—positive and negative—of taking or not taking a public stance on a contentious issue? What about individual executive actions that go directly against company postures on Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) issues?
In today’s hyperpolarized and connected world, even a seemingly innocuous comment, picture, or post can potentially cause substantial harm to an organization’s reputation, bottom line, and ability to attract future talent.
Elon Musk is one leading example of a business leader that is prone to making provocative statements and comments on Twitter. His recent posts of a meme mocking the current crisis in Ukraine followed by a subsequent post challenging Russian President Putin to a duel received a substantial amount of likes and dislikes.[i] Previous posts about taking Tesla private resulted in substantial financial penalties for both Tesla and Musk and a settlement that required Musk to step down as Tesla’s Chairman.[ii]
Tesla’s stock price, underdog status, and cult following may have shielded it from substantial blowback and long-term repercussions. This insulation is not necessarily available for all businesses, particularly smaller companies that cannot afford to take major reputational “hits”.
While it’s important and necessary to allow leaders to express themselves, doing so in ways that deviate from long-held company positions or that have the potential to be interpreted as discriminatory, hurtful, flippant, or challenging can be destructive.
By directly challenging President Putin, Musk may have unintentionally exposed not only himself but the company and its employees to increased risk of cyber-intrusions, phishing campaigns, ransomware attacks, and workplace-related violence. While attribution is difficult in the cyber realm, Tesla employees that suffer personal financial losses or the loss of Personal Identifiable Information (PII) in an intrusion or hack may look to seek damages from Tesla or be more inclined to engage in behaviors and comments that expose the company and its employees to workplace violence. What happens if a disgruntled shareholder makes threats against the company or decides to show up at one of the company locations? These are real consequences that companies must consider.
The potential for repercussions also extends to ESG issues. How will the public and employee population respond if it is discovered that key leadership frequently use private planes for business and personal reasons, or take lavish business trips during periods of financial restraint within the company? The hypocrisy of such actions recently made headlines during the COP26 Climate Summit when dozens of private jets ferried leaders to Scotland.[iii][iv]
Disney is another company that has made headlines over its public positioning around Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill. A number of Disney employees were outraged over the company decision to not publicly object to the bill. In response to the pushback, Disney’s CEO issued an apology and a follow-up pledge to donate to an LGBT advocacy group, which was rejected by the group.[v][vi] Do all Disney employees support this position? Did Disney’s leadership consider the effects on morale for employees who did not support this reversal? Are these employees at a greater risk for bullying in the workplace because they chose to remain silent?
It would be sensible for Board of Directors and communications teams to work with leadership at the time of their hire and annually after that to identify if there is alignment on key issues, particularly controversial ones that have a greater likelihood of eliciting undesirable responses and additional scrutiny. Company leaders and executives, like all employees, have a right to express themselves; however, they must also be held to a higher standard and have greater accountability for their words and actions in public and in private.
Company communication teams and Board of Directors also have a responsibility to ensure their chosen company postures on contentious issues—both public and private—do not ostracize employees or increase the likelihood of workplace bullying, harassment, or retaliation because of opposing viewpoints. A company’s decision to take a public stand on a position must take all current and future employee viewpoints into consideration. Failure to do so because of myopic decision-making or external/internal pressure to respond can lead to far greater consequences and long-lasting reputational damage.
Sources:
[i] Tristan Bove, “Elon Musk challenged Putin to a fistfight for the fate of Ukraine—and the Russian government responded”, Fortune,March 14, 2022.
[ii] No Author, “Elon Musk Settles SEC Fraud Charges; Tesla Charged With and Resolves Securities Law Charge”, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, September 29, 2018.
[iii] Ollie Williams, “118 Private Jets Take Leaders To COP26 Climate Summit Burning Over 1,000 Tons of CO2”, Forbes, November 5, 2021.
[iv] Martha Ross, “Leonardo DiCaprio skips private plane to fly to COP26 summit, unlike ‘eco-hypocrites’ Jeff Bezos, Prince Charles and Bill Gates”, The Mercury News, November 3, 2021.
[v] No Author, “Disney apologizes for ‘silence’ on ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill”, BBC News, March 11, 2022
[vi] Elizabeth Blair, “After protests, Disney CEO speaks out against Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill”, NPR, March 10, 2022
