The Impact for Employees When a Business Takes a Political Position

Illustration by Dreamstime

In the U.S. at least, partisanship has extended itself from the halls of Congress to the hallways of your business.

Don’t believe me? In the last year, I’ve had conversations that led people to believe that I was:

  • Democrat
  • Republican
  • Socialist
  • Libertarian
  • Green

Or, just a plain old jerk. These people took disagreeing with them seriously when it came to politics! And yet, when we entered a meeting about business issues, we could disagree just fine.

So when a company decides to take a political stand, is it any surprise when the consequences of that stand become magnified much more than a typical business issue?

To be or not to be politically agnostic?

I’ve worked for a variety of companies. Some have been ones that are completely agnostic. Most of their major board members stayed out of the political arena, and executive management most certainly didn’t play the game.

These companies wanted no part in the political process. If they did get involved, these board members, executives, and ultimately their employees, would generally work for advocacy organizations centered around a non-profit cause. And, even if they had a political action committee, they would stay out of it.

I’ve also worked for companies on the other end of the spectrum. They’ve had paid lobbyists, they’ve donated major money to specific candidates and causes, and they make it known throughout the company what political outcome would best help the business. They rallied their employees, and everyone involved, to the cause.

Risk and reward

For the agnostic, the risk is that you never mobilize your employees (and the people they influence) to speak truthfully about issues that can impact your company. You are willing to roll the dice that your potential non-action as a company won’t impact any political decisions being made for you. This is a real, calculated risk.

Article Continues Below

For the unapologetic, the risk in getting involved in a political issue is that you could possibly offend customers and employees. The Harvard Business Review blog covered this issue saying:

As the first round of state primaries ends, a different cautionary tale is unfolding. Various activists and consumers have been vigorously expressing their anger towards a group of Minnesota-based companies, including Target and Best Buy, for the large contributions they made to MN Forward (for Minnesota Forward), an organization devoted to regional economic development which in turn endorsed and paid for ads backing a Republican candidate for governor.

This is a real risk, both in potentially alienating employees and customers. But, the real reward of making a positive impact on the political decisions being made for you by regulating and legislative authorities can often override this concern.

What’s the best course of action?

You need to be up front and communicate your intent with stakeholders, employees, and customers. Let them know where you stand (or if you’re choosing not to take a position), tell them why, and then let them choose. I worked for a company that had a CEO that had views that ran counter to mine but I never had a problem with it because he was up front and honest about it. If I was bothered by it, I wouldn’t have decided to join the organization. It’s a choice of priorities we all make as potential investors, employees, and consumers.

What I’ve found problematic are companies that try to hide donations or try to intimidate employees into acting in one way or another politically. The problem with both situations is that these generate stories that get easily spread and can give the organization’s reputation a serious hit.

What sorts of political situations have you dealt with in the past and how have you handled them?

Topics

5 Comments on “The Impact for Employees When a Business Takes a Political Position

  1. Chris — Transparency is a great topic. Would you be available to chat with me about it for a few minutes by phone? I would like to bounce something off you and get your reaction.

  2. I've heard someone say they're trying to shop less at Whole Foods because the CEO “doesn't pay benefits.” Aside from the fact that this isn't even true — see http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefit… — it's a reminder that when the CEO says something about health care reform or domestic partner benefits other issues, even when s/he explicitly says “I gave my personal opinions … Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue,” the CEO's position is interpreted as representing the company's.

    This leads to a new set of questions. When an employee (say, a front-line employee, or the COO, or whoever) says something, who's position does that represent; just their own? If so, is it OK to post something on Twitter or on Facebook or say something to a customer that's totally opposed to the company's position?

    You might think that the CEO's position is more of the company's voice, and a front-line employee's is not. But a cashier at a retail store or a waiter/waitress at a restaurant, I would argue, is the voice of the company to the customer, probably even more than the CEO.

    In the end, in my view, transparency sounds good, but it doesn't address the central questions of who speaks for the company; what can be said; and does it depend on whether the employee saying those things is supporting or contradicting the company's or CEO's view?

  3. I've heard someone say they're trying to shop less at Whole Foods because the CEO “doesn't pay benefits.” Aside from the fact that this isn't even true — see http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefit… — it's a reminder that when the CEO says something about health care reform or domestic partner benefits other issues, even when s/he explicitly says “I gave my personal opinions … Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue,” the CEO's position is interpreted as representing the company's.

    This leads to a new set of questions. When an employee (say, a front-line employee, or the COO, or whoever) says something, who's position does that represent; just their own? If so, is it OK to post something on Twitter or on Facebook or say something to a customer that's totally opposed to the company's position?

    You might think that the CEO's position is more of the company's voice, and a front-line employee's is not. But a cashier at a retail store or a waiter/waitress at a restaurant, I would argue, is the voice of the company to the customer, probably even more than the CEO.

    In the end, in my view, transparency sounds good, but it doesn't address the central questions of who speaks for the company; what can be said; and does it depend on whether the employee saying those things is supporting or contradicting the company's or CEO's view?

  4. I've heard someone say they're trying to shop less at Whole Foods because the CEO “doesn't pay benefits.” Aside from the fact that this isn't even true — see http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefit… — it's a reminder that when the CEO says something about health care reform or domestic partner benefits other issues, even when s/he explicitly says “I gave my personal opinions … Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue,” the CEO's position is interpreted as representing the company's.

    This leads to a new set of questions. When an employee (say, a front-line employee, or the COO, or whoever) says something, who's position does that represent; just their own? If so, is it OK to post something on Twitter or on Facebook or say something to a customer that's totally opposed to the company's position?

    You might think that the CEO's position is more of the company's voice, and a front-line employee's is not. But a cashier at a retail store or a waiter/waitress at a restaurant, I would argue, is the voice of the company to the customer, probably even more than the CEO.

    In the end, in my view, transparency sounds good, but it doesn't address the central questions of who speaks for the company; what can be said; and does it depend on whether the employee saying those things is supporting or contradicting the company's or CEO's view?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *