What to do when social or political issues start to drive employee activism

NOTE: I shared this article in a few places in the autumn of 2023, but found I was talking about the topic again with some business leaders last night, so thought I would make it more broadly available.

LONDON – 25 October 2023 – There are difficult conversations happening in boardrooms and outside office food trucks in every country in the world this week. “Have we said enough? Do we need to say anything? Why won’t we say something?”

Whenever there is a conflict with a global angle or a social issue that captures headlines, organisations are called upon to comment. Some do, some don’t. And in both cases companies can feel that they have made the wrong decision. Amongst other things the activism of employees can have a significant impact on the business’ desire to speak. In a case cited in the media this week, one-third of employees in a well-known tech company quit after being told they couldn’t sound off on the issues of the day.

Here is a field guide on to how to address the issues and a way to come to an effective conclusion.

1.???? Do our employees need to hear from the company on this issue?

Organisations exist to create commercial value for employees, for shareholders and to serve customers. That is the core of what a business stands for. It also needs to operate within the laws and norms of the geographic region in which it operates.

There are circumstances when an organisation needs to look after its commercial interests in a certain geography. There are also circumstances when an organisation has responsibility towards the people that it employs or serves. In these cases, companies need to be specific and clear in what they choose to say about issues that might affect them.

Where there is a clear and individual ‘duty of care’ responsibility, organisations and their HR teams or line managers should be prepared and ready to connect with those individuals.

2.???? A sense of helplessness and the need to ‘do something’ can be channelled, if needed

Empathy and our ability and willingness to understand and relate to others is a key human characteristic. In many businesses it is what makes the company great. It means that it is a great place to work. It helps ensure that people want to be there, that they work hard, and that they connect effectively with colleagues, partners and customers.

Many organisations run charity programmes where employees are encouraged to get involved in raising funds for charitable organisations. These are often driven by employee teams that operate independently of the business, but still bear its name. They provide a good channel for people to focus their attention. However, they also need to meet a (sometimes unstated) bar that is worth considering: are they inclusive? Are they likely to be hurtful to any people in the organisation? Do they align with the values and traditions of the people in the company?

As an example, some companies used to invite speakers from the leading political parties to address employees before a general election. This was seen as a way to help support public engagement in the democratic process. However, over time, with the emergence of a greater diversity of views, more divisive issues, and the increase in political parties, this practice has largely stopped. At the same time, one could argue that more and more people are actively involved in the political process – they simply do it outside of work.

People who want to get involved can be pointed to ways that they can do that, outside of the business umbrella.

3.???? Does this meet the tests you already have in place?

Not that long ago businesses were struggling with the rise of social media. What happens when someone associated with the business airs an inappropriate image or an unpopular view on a social media account?? LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook etc.? At that time companies tended to do one of two things: they published a social media policy, or they reminded people of the undertakings in their contract of employment. In both cases the result tended to be that people should not engage in activities that risked bringing the business into ill repute.

Most products and services, to succeed in the market, need to be attractive to a wide swathe of consumers. Anything that employees or organisations do or say that reduces that market is not in the interests of the organisation, or the people who rely on it.

When social issues or news stories start to drive employee activism, organisations should be in a position to fall back on policies and practices that have been in place long before.

4.???? What do you know?

In most areas of contention there are words and nuances that separate views and people. Many of these are buried deep in the psyche. People learning new languages will be very familiar with this on a simplistic level: the word the dictionary says is right, doesn’t land that well in this part of the world.

With issues charged in different communities, geographies, or countries, there are often reams of these words. In literature the choice of words is what makes it interesting and memorable. When talking about issues that are live and contentious, language is important. The nuances between positions, experiences, and strongly held positions can seem very narrow. The line between acceptable and hurtful can be a very hard one to tread.

Companies ought to stand back and think: “What do we uniquely know? What do we uniquely have to add to this discussion?” If there is not a clear answer, then the statements or responses to employee activism should be either unnecessary or simply as broad as can be.

5.???? Take your time. You have time.

No one is immune from the risks associated with rushed decisions. Global behemoths make tactical errors. Political leaders, more steeped in the need to use appropriate language, still find themselves in awkward positions. Commercial organisations are part of civil society, by the way that term is often defined, but they are not the drivers of civil discourse. They are asked to comment or respond when they have an active or central role in an issue. However, when they don’t, they have the benefit of time to understand and try to see if there is an insight or a nuance that they alone can provide.

Even when an organisation feels that it has a stake in an issue, and they want to speak, they still have the benefit of time. No organisation responds to every request for comment. In many cases lawyers will be involved when employees, customers or competitors make a charge against a company. When asked for a view on a social or political issue organisations should exercise the same discretion.

Today we are seeing a new pull from the media as well as they call around the companies to ask for comment on issues of the day. Similar to taking employees’ questions, there is no need to respond if a response isn’t relevant to commercial interests.

Leaders, managers and employees all have a contractual obligation to the organisation that employs them. That contract does not stop the employee from having views, but it does hold the whole business to a higher standard of discipline and discretion when it comes making public statements or activist behaviour.

Organisations do not need to launch into discussions that are not core to their commercial interests.

- 30 –

David Ferrabee, Managing Director, Change, Culture and Engagement at Teneo, can be reached at [email protected]