‘It’s all lip service… a non-statement’

With a large group of Minnesota CEOs calling for “calm” and “cooperation” after recent tragic events in the state, the activities of ICE and related officers working for the U.S. government were once again in the headlines.

Executives from big-name employers such as 3M, Best Buy, Target, Cargill and the Mayo Clinic talked about much-needed answers to the problems:

“In this difficult moment for our community, we call for peace and focused cooperation among local, state and federal leaders to achieve a swift and durable solution that enables families, businesses, our employees, and communities across Minnesota to resume our work to build a bright and prosperous future.”

While the letter does not detail a specific incident that prompted the appeal, it follows two recent shootings that saw U.S. citizens killed by officers working for the federal government in its immigration operations in the state. Both victims were bystanders who were not targets of the operations.

'A remarkably gutless attempt'

At first glance, the CEOs’ letter looks commendable: High-level executives, pillars of the community, speaking out against the turmoil unfolding in Minnesota, and calling for change.

But a deeper dive into the messaging chips away at the wall of resolve conveyed by the business leaders. For one, they don’t specify if they’re talking about the tragic shootings of the two victims or name the highly controversial type of enforcement involved — ICE — in briefly outlining their concerns. They speak only of “recent challenges” in the state, “tragic news” and “this difficult moment.”

Plus, their stance on the escalating violence is not especially biting, in calling for “an immediate deescalation of tensions” and “peace” and “cooperation.”

A quick glance at Reddit reveals broad criticism of the CEOs’ messaging:

• “I would say at this point demanding ICE leave Minnesota is about the least any person or organization could say” (BadgerOk2814)
• “A remarkably gutless attempt to cover their asses so they can look employees in the eye and say, "See? We responded. Now shut up and get back to work!" (MuiOne)
• “It's all lip service. ‘Don't boycott us! We're helping!’ This is hot garbage.” (greybeardblueeyes)
• “If I were a shareholder I'd be concerned that my CEO has no brain, spine, or heart.” (ImportantComb5652)

The same is true looking at Instagram posts:

• “This is far too little, far too late. A non-statement” (mariaopatz)
• “What a weak ridiculous letter saying nothing” (davandreo)
• “LOL talk about some corporate ‘thoughts & prayers’” (andreasvulpes)

There may well be some ICE supporters who feel the CEOs are taking an appropriate stance or even going too far in expressing their concern. But I’m inclined to agree with most of the comments critical of the subdued positioning of the Minnesota letter.

CEO activitism not new

It’s not a new practice, of course. Executives have often taken a stand when compelled by personal or corporate reasons to do so, and the proliferation of social media can make for a broad audience.

Take, for example, Michael McCain, then CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, who back in 2020 expressed anger at U.S. actions overseas on his company’s Twitter feed. Referring to the “needless, irresponsible series of events in Iran” by “U.S. government leaders unconstrained by checks/balance,” he cited a “narcissist in Washington” who “tears world accomplishments apart; destabilizes region.”

“The collateral damage of this irresponsible, dangerous, ill-conceived behaviour? 63 Canadians needlessly lost their lives in the crossfire, including the family of one of my MLF colleagues (his wife + 11-year-old son)!” said McCain, referring to the downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.

“We are mourning and I am livid,” he said. “I am very angry, and time isn’t making me less angry.”

Or more recently there was the CEO of tech startup Scale AI touting the hiring principle of “MEI” — merit, excellence and intelligence — instead of DEI.

"That means we hire only the best person for the job," he said in a blog. "We treat everyone as an individual. We do not unfairly stereotype, tokenize or otherwise treat anyone as a member of a demographic group rather than as an individual."

No group “has a monopoly on excellence,” he said. “A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas… We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the 'right' or 'wrong' race, gender, and so on.”

Many others have made public statements around issues such as anti-Black racism after the George Floyd murder, environmental concerns or the pandemic and vaccines. And Elon Musk is no stranger to speaking out loud on a variety of topics.

Pros and cons of taking a stand

But the overall trend of business leaders expressing an opinion, vocalizing their endorsement or condemnation, is often a hot-potato one. When there are no easy answers, no black-and-white issues, taking a side – or even expressing yourself – as a top representative of an organization has its risks.

On the positive side, political statements from CEOs can make some employee groups feel validated, such as female employees during the #MeToo movement.

If a CEO speaks on issues that connect directly to company values (such as workplace safety after a major accident), that can also make a lot of sense and help generate pride or loyalty among staff.

And if there have been internal problems that have become public, such as toxic leadership, a CEO’s public stance to push for change by reviewing policies or updating training can also go over well.

However, there are definitely downsides to CEO activism. For example, political statements from the CEO — such as ones about the importance of diversity and inclusion — can make some groups feel attacked or invisible. For HR, that can mean employee complaints, lower engagement and possible turnover.

An unexpected, high-profile comment by someone in the C-suite can also pull attention away from ongoing initiatives at the company, such as those around DEI or employee wellbeing. Say, for example, the CFO complains about unmotivated or unappreciated employees. HR may then be forced into reactive damage control such as listening sessions, conflict mediation or policy clarifications.

Taking a stand can also narrow your talent pool by pushing out strong performers or job candidates who don’t agree with the CEO’s political stripes.

Lastly, the messaging may raise further questions and appear inauthentic, as seen with the Minnesota letter. What compelled the CEOs to speak out? Was it more about losing business than supporting a hard-hit community? Do some of these companies have relationships with government? Why didn’t they take a tougher stand?

That’s not to say executives should not speak out on important issues, only that they should choose their words carefully and, if they’re taking a stand, take a stand – don’t soft-pedal the message.