This post is motivated by a number of recent articles about advocacy in businesses; specifically, different companies' approaches to such. Some motivating examples:
- Basecamp sees an exodus of employees after CEO takes stand against advocacy within the company: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx58vx/basecamp-employees-are-leaving-after-ceo-bans-politics-at-work
- Shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway are proposing advocacy-related proposals, which Warren Buffet is opposed to, saying he prefers his company not have top-down political mandates: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/business/dealbook/buffett-berkshire-climate-diversity.html
- Many companies are adopting internal advocacy programs, and/or devoting resources to such (eg: my current company has a pay-for speaker program for Diversity and Inclusion, with a new speaker for such every month, among other initiatives)
- The current political climate in the US is promoting the message that you are either an advocate for a cause or an implicit enemy of that cause, which is coercing businesses to take more explicit political positions, either through action or inaction
Now, I'm sure that (as usual) I'll have some divisive opinions on this topic, so let me start with one right out of the gate: what Basecamp's CEO did is not bad.
One could certainly argue about the merits of implicitly consolidating power in the C-suite (vs internal committees and such), but his fundamental argument is solid: if you have (and/or wish to encourage) a diversity of opinions within your organization, you cannot allow one perspective to steamroll all of the others (even if, and perhaps especially if, that perspective is the loudest in the metaphorical room). It's absolutely the case that, for example, a push for "Diversity and Inclusion" is one of the loudest in the corporate world, with implicit condemnation for any company which is not explicitly advocating for such (ie: if you don't have a D&I program, you're implicitly a racist/sexist organization).
But this is, fundamentally, political propaganda writ large. You do not need to pay advocacy speakers to come and preach to your employees about the importance of having female executive leaders in order to actually empower females to have leadership roles within your organization. You do not need to have committees meeting regularly to discuss how you can advocate for minority empowerment to actually employ people in minority groups in equal capacity to people in majority groups. In many cases, those efforts are far more virtue signaling and appeasing the loudest voices, as opposed to making tangible changes in business practices (if changes are even warranted).
In essence, what Basecamp's CEO is doing is no different than what Buffet said in response to the advocacy proposals: "I don’t believe in imposing my political opinions on the activities of our businesses." Admittedly, for Basecamp, the stance is much more disruptive, since previously the company was implicitly imposing political opinions on their employees, via committees, internal advocacy programs, and explicit organization political stances, but the sentiment is the same.
Moreover, the companies which are choosing to explicit curtail their internal political advocacy seems to be going about it the "right way", by and large. Coinbase offered buyouts for employees who disagreed with the direction, an implicit acknowledgement that one of the fundamentals of the organization had changed, and they would understand if employees felt that change altered their comfortability with working there. It's unclear if Basecamp is offering something similar, but they seem aware that the change may cause some people to leave, and accepting of that reality as an inevitable consequence of their direction (in the same way, presumably, as they would have previously alienated people who didn't believe in explicit political advocacy by the company).
Additionally, and perhaps tellingly, Basecamp is being slandered by many people as a result of this decision, with many comparisons to vilified right-wing organizations and movements (eg: "I guess they will recruit from Parlor now"). I know nothing about the actual politics of the company's leaders, but the implicit associations seem to be just more reflection of the divisive politics and the "with us or against us" prevailing mentality of such than any specifics of their situation. I think that sucks, personally: I think it's bad for the company, and I think it's bad for the country as a whole.
I would say also that these types of trends sometimes "sneak up" on people, myself included. I hadn't really considered how much internal advocacy for political causes my company does, for example, until viewed in the light of the stances that other organization were taking, and provocateurs were advocating for. It's easier to see the harmful effects of polarization and divisiveness in the individual ideological bubbles and spheres; it's harder to see the slow pervasive and insidious push of ideology within institutions, where people are more compelled to accept the messaging whether they agree with it or not. Moreover, it's often hard to articulate why this ideological creep might be bad, without being written-off as someone who is simply opposed to the ideology being pushed (indeed, such is the nature of the divisive politicizing system, and it will happen even if you actually personally support the ideological initiatives, as can be seen to play out in the NY Times article linked above).
Anyway, those are my thoughts, for what they are worth. I don't have answers per se (hence "thoughts", not "solutions to these problems"), although I think it's often informative to step back and consider the systems and effects we often take for granted in our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment