This week Citigroup joined the line of corporations that have backed away from issues that inflame the second Trump administration. The bank announced that  it abandoned a policy that placed conditions on loans to commercial firearms dealers . Citi also took pains to “ clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation ,” drawing an equivalence between this and its longstanding anti-discrimination policies on race and religion. The commercial firearms policy was a legacy of Trump’s first term. In 2018, Citi  responded  to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, by mandating that its firearms-dealing customers raise the buying age to 21, conduct background checks, and discontinue the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. Citi was the first of the big banks to announce a commercial firearms policy.  JPMorgan Chase  and  Bank of America  followed suit with their own policy changes. Then-CEO Michael Corbat framed the adoption of the policy as a decision driven by values. “Banks serve a societal purpose—we believe our investors want us to do this and be responsible corporate citizens,” he  said . Citi spun this week’s retreat into a declaration of victory: “The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn’t address the manufacturing of firearms. Many retailers have been following these best practices, and we hope communities and lawmakers will continue to seek out ways to prevent the tragic consequences of gun violence.” *** While writing  Speaking Out: The New Rules of Business Leadership Communication  between 2021 and 2023, I understood that the political and social issues facing businesses at the time would change. The book documented the so-called woke backlash in real time as it was hitting brands like Disney and Bud Light. I was also aware that corporate engagement with political and social issues has waxed and waned over decades. Issues that emerged on corporate agendas in the wake of the social unrest of the Sixties faded from view by the Reagan years. I expected the current era to prove no different. What I failed to anticipate was how a second Trump administration would differ so much from the first. Corporations in a wide range of sectors had spoken out during the first term on issues ranging from civil rights to carbon emissions to immigration policy. The culture of intimidation and reprisal that took root last November made it clear that the rules were different this time around. Some corporate leaders have raised their voices over the past six months to take issue with tariffs affecting global trade or to express their continued commitment to diversity policies. For now, though, most are keeping their heads down. Michael Corbat’s responsible corporate citizen is a distant memory.

Many pushed back on policies and white supremacy last time. Will this time be different? U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , 2017. Public domain, via Wikimedia. Leaders of the US’s largest corporations were quick to offer public congratulations to President-elect Donald Trump after the election. It was a simple courtesy to start off on good footing with the incoming administration. That was the easy part. The real question is what they’ll say once Donald Trump begins to govern again. A look back at his first term is instructive. After the Trump administration announced a travel ban against migrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries in 2017, more than a hundred tech CEOs signed an amicus brief protesting the ban. Several also made personal statements. Apple CEO Tim Cook drew on the background of Apple founder Steve Jobs’s birth father.  “Steve was the son of an immigrant. Our company has immigrants in it that are key to the innovation of our company,” he said . Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella contrasted his own immigrant experience, which he characterized as the fulfillment of the American dream, with the Trump policy, which he called “abusive and cruel.”  He also linked his remarks to a  detailed statement by Microsoft president Brad Smith  that advocated for specific actions by the US government to reform the immigration system. CEO criticisms of the President did not remain not limited to differences over policy.  After Trump’s remark that there was “blame on both sides”  for a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counter-protester,  Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier announced he was leaving the administration’s American Manufacturing Council .  Others followed , and the council collapsed as a result. Nobody expects business leaders to be in lock step with any administration. Just a week after the election, Exxon CEO Darren Woods differed with Donald Trump’s position on leaving the Paris Accords. “ I don’t think the stops and starts are the right thing for businesses,” Woods said. “It is extremely inefficient. It creates a lot of uncertainty .” Woods’s logic was Negotiations 101—it’s better to be at the table than on the menu—in the interest of delivering shareholder value. But it also showed a willingness to disagree publicly with an incoming President who places a premium on loyalty. More thorny issues are already on the horizon for businesses. CEOs and their comms teams should be ready to protect employees if the new administration walks the talk on mass deportations of immigrants or new restrictions on access to health care treatments (abortion, IVF, stem cell therapies) or the civil rights of LGBTQ+ people. In the current environment, a lot of teams will likely focus on managing these challenges internally. It remains to be seen if pressure will build for corporate leaders to respond externally as well. Note: a couple points above were quoted by Axios—here’s their  full story .

Most Republicans and Democrats Say Yes Strong majorities of Americans on both side of the political divide agree that CEOs should use their influence to stand up for a free and fair election, according to a  recent survey from Weber Shandwick . Yet with a few notable exceptions, most corporate leaders have bent over backwards to steer clear of partisan politics in the final days of a white-hot presidential election. While media coverage has focused on decisions by owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post not to make candidate endorsements, other business leaders have gone to pains to downplay the importance of the election. BlackRock’s Larry Fink recently told a financial audience that as far as markets are concerned, “ The reality is, over time, it [the election] doesn’t matter .” * For companies that depend equally on customers in red states and blue states, there's a simple logic to staying above the fray. Taking sides also risks alienating the next presidential administration, which could have long-lasting implications for firms in highly regulated industries. But there is a business case to be made that  corporate leaders should be vocal defenders of democracy—even if they don’t take sides . The bedrock beneath the American economy is a political order based on the rule of law, free and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power. If this system fails or loses its legitimacy, it could threaten the stability and predictability that businesses depend on. This is so fundamental to business interests that the Business Roundtable issued a  statement  urging “all Americans to respect the processes set out in federal and state laws for electoral determinations and an orderly transition.” While  the public’s appetite for businesses taking stances on political and social issues has decreased  over the past couple years, the Weber Shandwick survey finds that  strong majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support business leaders condemning election interference (71%) and election-related political violence (74%), and using their influence to stop or discourage election interference (69%) . The last time democracy was on the line, private sector leaders filled a void in public leadership. In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, dozens of corporate leaders took public stances against election deniers. And when Georgia lawmakers took up a bill that made voting harder rather than easier,  Black business leaders used their voices  to get their peers to sign on to a two-page paid spread that appeared in the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, and USA Today. Those were unprecedented times. Four years later, the warning signs that democracy is under threat are unmistakable, from  incendiary rhetoric  to actual  ballot boxes on fire . CEOs should be ready to stand up proactively rather than reactively for the system that anchors their businesses. * Fink would do well to recall the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes: “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”

What Mark Talks About When He Talks About Free Speech (Photo:  Anthony Quintano ) Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's recent  response  to a House Judiciary Committee investigation into content moderation of online platforms included a couple of political bombshells. The most striking was an accusation that the White House sought to stifle free speech on its Facebook platform. “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree,” Zuckerberg wrote in an August 26 letter to the committee. He went on to say that he thought “the government pressure was wrong,” and that he regretted not being more outspoken about it. At first glance, this was a free shot on goal at a lame-duck administration. Zuckerberg won't have Joe Biden to kick around for much longer. But it still leaves the question of why he framed the issue in Republican terms—"censorship"—when there's roughly a 50-50 chance that the next administration will agree with the Biden administration that social media platforms have a responsibility to stop the spread of misinformation. In short, he must see more upside in appealing to Republicans than downside risk of blowback in the event of a Harris administration five months from now. Zuckerberg grounded his remarks in the organization's mission: "Our platforms are for everyone -- we're about promoting speech and helping people connect in a safe and secure way." Apparently Meta's definition of helping people connecting safely does not extend to public health. It's clear that times have changed since January 2022, when  Spotify lost $4 billion in market cap  after Neil Young pulled his music from the platform for hosting episodes of Joe Rogan’s podcast that spread misinformation about COVID vaccines.  Spotify CEO Daniel Ek’s equivocation in a town hall meeting  with employees—“We have to find the best possible way to balance creative expression with the safety of our listeners”—did nothing at the time to change the narrative about Spotify or the short-term direction of its stock price. Zuckerberg also waded into the Hunter Biden controversy, recounting that the FBI had warned Meta in the run-up to the 2020 election about a Russian disinformation operation regarding the Biden family. He noted that Meta waited for fact-checkers to review the story and temporarily demoted it on the platform while waiting for a response. "In retrospect, we shouldn't have demoted the story," he concluded. He likely anticipated that his letter to the House Judiciary Committee would have minimal impact on markets, and if so, he was correct. Since his letter made headlines, Meta's stock has been down slightly compared to the NASDAQ 100 index. Veteran Meta watchers can speculate about whether Zuckerberg would have taken the same position if former COO Sheryl Sandberg were still around to temper his political impulses. His letter aligns Meta with the libertarian wing of Big Tech more clearly than in the past. It remains to be seen if this represents a long-term shift that will benefit both shareholders and the users of Meta’s platforms. (Originally posted on Substack on August 28, 2024)

When writing about business leaders who speak out on political and social issues, I generally steer clear of well-known edge-case billionaires because it's hard to learn much from them. Their appetites for public attention are exceeded only by the wealth that insulates them from the consequences of their words. But I'll make an exception for Bill Ackman. Ackman, founder of Pershing Square Capital Management, is a hedge fund manager more than a CEO. He  made headlines last fall for his tweets about Israel, the responses of top-tier university presidents to antisemitism on campuses, and DEI . As his outrage won him newfound fame among the anti-DEI crowd, his social media presence ballooned to 1.3 million followers on X. Ackman's statements did not have anything to do with to his core business. They were his personal views. The only reason anyone paid attention was because of his considerable power and influence. With his social media star rising,  Ackman announced plans for the IPO of a Pershing Square investment fund . He no doubt envisioned an army of armchair stock pickers eager to buy shares in their new standard bearer's brand and benefit from his investing acumen. It shouldn't have surprised anyone that Ackman pursued this path. In 2022, he and Peter Thiel bankrolled entrepreneur-turned-culture warrior Vivek Ramaswamy as the founding CEO of Thrive, an upstart asset management firm intended to challenge the big institutional firms that preached the gospel of stakeholder capitalism (read: BlackRock).  Strive branded itself as "emphasizing excellence over politics."  Apparently Strive’s backers’ distaste for politics only went in one ideological direction. Alas, the professional investor set was not impressed with Ackman’s plan to go public, and support for the offering softened to the point of collapse.  As Felix Salmon pointed out , investors did not fare particularly well when Ackman tried a similar gambit in Amsterdam a decade ago.  On July 31, Ackman announced that he was pulling the Pershing Square IPO . From a communications standpoint, there’s a big difference between being a highly opinionated manager of a private hedge fund and a CEO of a publicly traded company: a CEO cannot afford to become a meme stock.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the psychological stresses that accompanied it, Americans are increasingly open about mental health. A recent Pew Research Center survey finds that majorities are very comfortable talking to a close friend (57%), immediate family member (52%) or mental health therapist (50%) about their mental health and emotional well-being.[1] While this represents positive progress, it also means that four in ten Americans are still reluctant to talk about this. Over the past few years, some business leaders have related their first-hand experiences with mental health to help reduce the stigma associated with the topic. In doing so, they have also adopted a style of open communication that represents a sea change from the days when executives maintained strict boundaries between their personal and the professional lives. In December 2020, EarnUp co-founder Matthew Cooper announced he was stepping down as a CEO because of ongoing mental health challenges. He emphasized that he was going public about this to help break down barriers. “While nearly half the population will experience mental illness in their lifetime, we still live in a culture that generally keeps discussions about mental illness in the shadows. This silence is rampant across many areas of society, but corporate life maintains a particular type of secrecy and shame around the topic,” he wrote.[2] In a similar vein, other executives seek to dispel the archetype of the CEO as superhuman. “That might mean talking about the fact that I'm queer, that might mean talking about the fact that I'm an immigrant or that might mean talking about my struggles and mental health,” Emma McIlroy, co-founder and chief executive of women’s fashion company Wildfang, told Forbes.[3]  McIlroy, who previously worked for Nike, sought to normalize discussions of mental health among entrepreneurs. “Somehow, mental health challenges are seen as a weakness or something to feel guilty or ashamed about, even though so many people are affected. The only way we're going to remove the taboo is by talking about it.” Entrepreneurs and founders are not the only business leaders who have spoken out about this issue—executives at S&P 100 firms have also used their platforms to draw attention to it. Karen Lynch, CEO of CVS, shared about how she wrestled for years with the stigma associated with mental illness. “At twelve years old, my mom died by suicide, and I wouldn't talk about it for decades,” she said. “And people need to talk about it because that's how people are going to get the access and the help that they need.”[4] Amy Gilliland, president of General Dynamics Information Technology, made a similar point after a company employee died by suicide. In a sector in which keeping secrets is an inherent part of the job, she noted that silence perpetuates the problem. “The most important thing for people to feel empowered to come forward and say they’re not okay is to remove the stigma of mental health,” she said in a prime-time television interview.[5] For Charles Lowrey, president and CEO of Prudential Financial, the pandemic served as an inflection point that required a new approach to communication. When lockdowns drove companies to remote work overnight, he kept in touch with his workforce through weekly recordings made on his iPhone. “I talked about my feelings,” he said. “Leading during a crisis means a combination of strong leadership on one hand, but also incredibly empathetic and potentially vulnerable leadership on the other hand. Because people wanted to know you were feeling the same thing they were.”[6] While some leaders are understandably hesitant to talk about their own lived experience, these examples show that it can be done gracefully when the clearly stated purpose is to benefit employees, customers, investors, or other stakeholders. [1] Pasquini, Giancarlo, and Emma Kikuchi, “Who do Americans feel comfortable talking to about their mental health?” Pew Research Center, May 2, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/02/who-do-americans-feel-comfortable-talking-to-about-their-mental-health/ [2] Cooper, Matthew, “I’m stepping down as CEO due to my mental health—and I want to talk about it,” Quartz at Work, December 18, 2020, https://qz.com/work/1947585/earnups-matthew-cooper-im-leaving-as-ceo-due-to-mental-health. [3] Macaela MacKenzie, “Why CEOs Need to Talk About Mental Health,” Forbes, May 15, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/macaelamackenzie/2018/05/15/mental-health-awareness-month-why-ceos-need-to-talk-about-mental-health/?sh=361d245e53c2. [4] Karen Lynch, speaking to Hope King at the Axios What’s Next Summit in Washington, DC, March 29, 2023. [5] Amy Gilliland, speaking with Geoff Bennett on PBS News Hour, October 28, 2022 (1:50-2:05), https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1578864723118161920 [6] Alina Tugend, “For CEOs, Communication Has Become a High-Wire Act,” New York Times, December 7, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/business/dealbook/ceo-communication.html?

A look at the data reveals a more nuanced story In the wake of the controversy over the Congressional testimony of the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT about campus anti-semitism, opponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are saying it’s time to kill off corporate DEI efforts. Much of the recent heat has come from high-profile billionaires like Bill Ackman and Elon Musk, but the conversation isn’t over. The DEI backlash has been gaining steam among Republican politicians for a while. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed a law in May 2023 banning DEI in Florida’s public colleges and universities. Two months later, after the Supreme Court dismantled affirmative action in university admissions, thirteen Republican attorneys general wrote an open letter to the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies warning them “to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or otherwise.” These politicians and their allies are doing their best to make “DEI” a toxic term, not unlike their efforts to turn “CRT” and “woke” into 21st-century dog whistles. One challenge posed by the acronym itself is that “DEI” has become a catchall, even though organizations of all shapes and sizes have widely varying names for and approaches to diversity work. [1] Beyond this air war being waged by politicians and billionaires, there’s no question that corporate DEI faces difficulties. Concerns about litigation and lawsuits are real. At the ground level, a little-noticed Edelman survey from last spring revealed three key challenges, two of which point to a generation gap between Boomer and Gen X executives and the rank-and-file young Millennial and Gen Z employees that they manage. [2] First, executives have an inflated sense of how they’re doing on race and diversity. Three out of five (60%) executives feel like their organizations are making meaningful progress addressing racism and racial inequality in the workplace, while fewer than one in five non-managerial associates (18%) share this assessment. Over half of executives (56%) trust their CEO to tell the truth about racism and DEI matters in their organizations, while associates are more than twice as likely to trust racially diverse coworkers (39%) over the CEO (15%). Second, most executives feel like they are walking on eggshells. Three-fifths (61%) are uncomfortable talking about race and racial issues and worried that they will accidentally say something racist, while associates (43%) are less likely to share this concern. Part of this spread probably results from demographics: today’s executives are whiter than the young professionals they manage. Finally, many heads of DEI face internal credibility gaps. Only one-fifth of executives (20%) trust their DEI heads to tell the truth about racism and DEI matters in their organizations. This raises an obvious question: why don’t the vast majority of executives trust the DEI leaders in their own organizations? This gap is not limited to executives: fewer than one in three associates (28%) or mid-level (31%) employees express trust in DEI heads. There is clearly important work to be done. But even with these problems, reports of the death of DEI have been exaggerated for at least a few reasons. First, diversity helps the bottom line. Teams with divergent thinkers get better outcomes than like-minded groups, and one of the best ways to build that kind of team is to bring together people with varied backgrounds and life experiences. In 2023, McKinsey found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 39% more likely to financially outperform those in the bottom quartile. The same (39%) holds true for companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity versus those in the bottom quartile. [3] Second, DEI is necessary as a talent strategy. Gen Z is the most diverse generation America has ever had. Companies that want to attract and retain the best people will have to offer equal pay for equal work and provide work environments free of discrimination and harassment. The Edelman survey found strong support among employees from all racial backgrounds for employers ensuring diversity across all functions and levels (73%), ensuring Board and C-Suite diversity (67%), ensuring pay equity between racial and ethnic groups (80%), and removing biases in hiring practices that disadvantage certain candidates (77%). [4] Third, DEI is already deeply embedded and supported. A November 2023 survey by Littler of 300+ US C-suite executives found that 57% say their organization’s commitment to DEI has increased since 2022. [5] Employee resource groups (ERGs) and affinity groups, which have been established in corporations like Microsoft and Xerox for decades, are now typically funded and managed through the DEI function. Edelman found that two-thirds of employees (68%) expect their employers to maintain ERGs or affinity groups. [6] DEI is also baked into corporate accountability measures. As of 2021, more than three-quarters of Fortune 100 corporations publish their EEO-1 filings, which are mandatory annual reports on workforce diversity that must be submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [7] It’s hard to imagine corporations going backwards on this. So what’s next? Today’s backlash has not yet reached its peak. It will no doubt provide an excuse for some firms to cut budgets and programming. All eyes will be on the courts. And as with “greenhushing” [8]—a recent phenomenon in which corporations maintain efforts toward net-zero carbon goals while deliberately opting not to publicize them—companies and their executives may say less publicly about diversity while doing what they deem necessary to build the best possible team. As a brand, DEI may get a makeover and a new name. But the current moment also represents an opportunity for dialogue within corporations about how to operate in a society that’s highly diverse and getting more so every day. If handled effectively, these conversations should result in strong, credible DEI initiatives that support employees and ultimately lead to stronger performance. Notes: 1. I have used “DEI” generically throughout while acknowledging these limitations. 2. Edelman, 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Business and Racial Justice, pp. 9, 14, 18. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2023/trust-barometer/special-report-business-racial-justice 3. McKinsey, Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact (December 5, 2023), p. 11, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact? 4.  Edelman, pp. 21-22. 5. Littler, Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity: C-Suite Report (January 2024), p. 3, https://www.littler.com/files/2024_littler_csuite_survey_report.pdf 6. Edelman, p. 23. 7. Dieter Holter, “Companies Make EEOC Diversity Disclosures Public Amid Investor Pressure,” Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-make-eeoc-diversity-disclosures-public-amid-investor-pressure-11630490400 8. Nadia Kähkönen, Elliott Bourgeault, and Isabel Hagbrink, Net Zero and Beyond: A Deep-Dive on Climate Leaders and What’s Driving Them (South Pole, October 18, 2022), p. 4, https://www.southpole.com/news/going-green-then-going-dark