University of Wisconsin Green Bay, Department of Communication
Charlotte Tenebrini Steckart | Vicente Estrada | Anna Hansen
Professor Philip Clampitt
March 21, 2024
Table of Contents
Executive summary
Intro/overview of the case
Statement breakdown
Argument Analysis
Target Audience
Declared winner
Toulman Model
Argument effectiveness
Define our scale/tool kit
CEOs
Lessons learned/So what? - Anna
References
Executive summary:
In this paper, we examine the two sides of whether CEOs should be able to make their opinions known on politically contentious topics. We came to the conclusion based on the argument breakdown and audience analysis that they should not for various reasons.
Introduction of the Case:
Should CEOs make their opinions known on politically contentious topics? This was the topic of the debate our group chose to analyze. The heightened use of social media by the majority of people in the United States brings conversations about many highly politicized topics. Now more than ever, everyone must be politically correct online, especially those in the spotlight like CEOs. Individuals and companies can easily be canceled - "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive" (Rowling and Chomsky) for saying anything that someone may disagree with or find offensive. It can be difficult for anyone to manage, and CEOs are no different. Some examples of politically contentious topics include Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter, Pro Life vs. Pro Choice, and climate change. To comment or not to comment is the big question, and on topics like those mentioned above, depending on what is said it could cost someone their reputation and the company itself.
Statement breakdown:
CEOs should not make their opinions known about politically contentious topics. The burden of proof relied on the opposing side. The CEO is the face of a company. What they say or do will have a lasting impact on the company for years to come. Our statement is a question of policy because it is based on how CEOs should conduct their business.
Argument Analysis
The Affirmative side of this argument:
First, on the affirmative side of this argument, we can assess based on our research that when CEOs talk about their opinions publicly this creates a polarization in the company itself between workers. It alienates people who disagree with the CEO. Second, there is a strong possibility that many employees who disagree with the CEO’s opinion will leave the company entirely, creating a monolithic work environment and reducing diversity. Diversity in the workplace in many companies is something that is highly valued because it leads to greater thinking. Thirdly, we found that a common saying “actions speak louder than words,” relates well to this topic. One could argue that it would not matter what stance a CEO takes on a politically contentious topic so long as the company continues to act according to its business goals and values. For example the cosmetic brand e.l.f’s CEO does not speak on political topics but instead has formed the company to represent certain beliefs and uphold values making it so they do not have to speak to inform the public on where they stand because their business model already does it for them. Furthermore, we need to acknowledge that the worst thing a company could do to itself is damage its reputation. Many companies that have reputations from previous CEOs still suffer consequences even though that person may not work there anymore. A good example of this would be Lulu Lemon’s previous CEO and founder Chip Wilson who is known for fat-shaming models in the company (Lemire). Lastly, many feel that issues should be decided upon and contested in the voting booth so it should not matter what a CEO's opinion is because if American citizens want to change something they can do so while deciding who to vote for. A CEO voicing their opinion could damage business and may have negative ramifications on society. Political statements, especially those of a controversial nature, can exacerbate societal tensions. This can have a ripple effect, especially for high-influence CEOs.
The Opposition side of this argument:
On the opposing side of this case, many employees would argue that they want to know where their CEOs politically stand on contentious issues. This knowledge could increase companies' retention rates. Communicating one's beliefs is the mark of a good leader in many people's eyes and confidence in relevant political stances, to some extent, begets confidence in company values and employees. Many also think that neutrality on topics that impact certain customers and communities over others is problematic, especially when it directly contradicts a company's mission statement and values. This goes hand in hand with why people feel speaking out on their beliefs is the right thing to do hence why employees and customers would want to know where a CEO stands on politically contentious topics.
Target Audience Analysis:
When analyzing our audiences we decided to focus on 4 different categories of people; employees, CEOs, consumers, and political figures/government. We did this by creating a KISS chart for each of these audiences.
With our first group of people, employees, we know that most are probably working because they need to make money in their field. Additionally, they may also want to have further experience in their field to be presented with more opportunities for career advancement. Based on this we can infer that they would not want/enjoy working for an employer whose beliefs are very different from their own. This is of course if they had the option not to which many do not if they are depending on income. By learning these things we then assessed what to do with this group. If a CEO wants to voice their opinions let them but only in a controlled setting (e.g.: press conference). With all of this in mind, we know what not to do, which would be to give the CEO a soap box and a microphone, without the backing of a competent PR team to manage advising and possible fallout.
With our second group of people, CEOs, we know that they are citizens with the right to exercise free speech as much as any other citizen. They also may have valuable insights into the nature of an issue with their extensive business experience which is something we should not ignore. Based on this we can infer that the value of monetary gain and the value of company success in conjunction with personal political beliefs and their application in the workplace are placed high on a CEO's list of priorities. So what we should do is not let them share their beliefs publicly. As a PR team, we should encourage them to keep their vote to themselves and act according to business goals and values. However, we should not make them feel like they cannot have an opinion at all. It is a very thin line a CEO has to walk.
Our third audience is consumers, we know that some consumers deeply care about activism and politics whereas some do not. Based on this though we can infer that for the consumers who do care about those things if something goes against their core values, they may choose to boycott the company involved. So what to do in this case would again like the CEO at e.l.f to let the business goals and values reflect in their actions. An example of this is that if a brand is promoting something vegan they would choose a vegan-sourced product, meaning the CEO would not have to say anything about being vegan or not. They could essentially stay out of it. So what not to do in this case would be to state their opinions publicly.
Our last audience is political figures/the government. We know that political figures get endorsed by big companies and CEOs. This is motivated by a company's desire to put into place legislation in its favor. This topic alone could be an entire debate topic on ethics within itself but for the point of this assessment, we will not dive further into this. Based on this we can infer that they want companies that are going to endorse them as political candidates. It would be in their favor if CEOs spoke about their opinions on the political figures they were choosing to endorse and the ones they are not. So based on this we know that political figures should not be endorsed by CEOs because if the CEO’s company does something controversial it will reflect badly on the candidate that accepted their endorsement.
Declared Winner:
Based heavily on our argument analysis and audience analysis we concluded that our declared winner for this argument is the affirmative side.
Toulmin Model:
Our group decided to use the Toulmin Model to help us further analyze and understand the argument. From the Toulmin Model perspective, this case is classified as a question of policy because it involves deciding how CEOs self-regulate or are otherwise compelled to decide on rules and guidelines for how involved they should be in politics. Using this model helped us as a group to think about the different pieces of the argument. Looking at the debate through the Toulman lens we asked the question: how does one balance corporate rights with social responsibilities as the figurehead of a company? This question made it clear that while we had picked what we thought to be the stronger side of the argument, this debate is complicated and no one side can truly be completely correct for every situation.
Argument effectiveness:
We analyzed each side's major arguments to help us decide which side of the debate we deemed strongest. For the affirmative side, the arguments included the following, the stronger arguments are listed first :
Creates polarization/ contention with employees - alienates opposition - this argument was deemed the strongest because polarization is a big issue within corporate culture and can lead to huge consequences for the company’s image for employees and customers.
Actions speak louder than words - This argument we found strong as well, it is a simple argument just meaning that a CEO would not have to openly voice their opinions on contentious topics if the CEO / company is already participating or following certain political topics.
Disagreeing employees may leave the company - creating monolithic companies - Another strong argument as constant turn around of employees is never good for company image. For employees or consumers.
Companies should stay out of issues that are to be decided upon at the ballot box. We decided this was the weakest of the arguments we chose to include. While it can be true for some situations, some of these topics will not be solved by voting alone. The different situations that could be brought up during this debate bring down the strength of this argument.
For the sake of the debate, we decided to evaluate the arguments based on which arguments would bring the most consequences to the CEOs and companies and whichever arguments would have the largest effect on the business's success going forward. The arguments for the opposition include the following:
Could damage business and does society no good - As a group we deemed this one of the strongest arguments on the opposition, as it is a simple argument and would be difficult to form a rebuttal against.
Neutrality on topics impacts customers, employees, and communities and contradicts mission statements and company values - This is another strong argument for the opposition - not following mission statements or aligning with previous political standings could lead to negative impacts on customers, employees, and even the communities around the company.
Employees want to work for a company that aligns with their values - While this may seem like one of the stronger arguments it could move employees away from choosing to work with the company. There is an easy rebuttal in the fact that a lot of people don't have the luxury of choosing a job based solely on their values.
Communicating beliefs in an uncontroversial way is the mark of a good leader - Like the previous argument this one could be a decent argument within the debate but it is easily argued that one may have a differing opinion on the definition of a good leader.
Simply the “right” thing to do - Once again this was an argument that had an easy rebuttal. This argument depends on the individual's definition of the right thing to do.
After deciding on the effectiveness of each argument on either side of the debate it became easier to decide if the affirmative or the opposition formed the stronger side of the debate. While the affirmative had more stated arguments to analyze they were not as strong as the arguments listed by the opposition. Based on that evaluation by our group we were able to decide which side of the debate was going to be our hypothetical debate winner.
What is a political influencer?
We classify certain CEOs as political influencers because they have a big platform to share their opinions if they want to. Because of the number of followers and eyes on them, they are bound to influence the public's opinions on who to vote for in election season or what is trendy and what isn’t. We also wanted to acknowledge that there is a difference between commenting on something and endorsing it. You can comment by saying “Climate change is a serious matter” but aligning with it would be picking a side for example, “Climate change is humankind's fault and we should all stop using fossil fuels.”
CEOs:
After analyzing the debate we decided it would be helpful to take a look at real examples of CEOs navigating either side of the argument. First, we looked at the CEO of e.l.f. She stated “I am pleased to share e.l.f. Beauty’s Impact Report which details our environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives and accomplishments. I am proud of how we acted with purpose and furthered our positive impact in FY 2023.” Tarang P. Amin Chairman & CEO of e.l.f. This quote emphasizes the company and CEO’s deliberate actions and their commitment to making a positive impact beyond financial objectives. E.L.F’s CEO was able to position the company's standpoint to align with its audience but did it in such a way as to not share the CEO's personal opinion on the topic. Even further, the quote proves that the company is not just verbally aligned with these political issues but has taken action which proves how strong the argument that actions speak louder than words is in this debate.
Elon Musk was another CEO we analyzed for the project. We chose Musk as he has been huge in the public eye in recent years and he has undoubtedly become an incredibly influential CEO. Musk is best known for his purchase of the social media site Twitter, which he renamed X. The posts and vocal opinions expressed by the CEO turned a lot of Twitter employees and users away from the platform, which is a big deal as Twitter has been one of the largest social media platforms for quite some time. Through the deep dive we took on Elon Musk we were able to discern that speaking out publicly on contentious topics can bring about significant consequences for the company and the image of the CEO.
So what?
While analyzing this debate we started to notice that it may be a false argument. The nature of this debate revolves around politics, which is already a convoluted topic to start with. Adding in more layers to an already complex argument will not lead to a black-and-white outcome. As a group, we analyzed all of the debate information and arguments rationally and without bias. However, we found that even with our evaluations it was still difficult to pick a true winner of the debate without seeing the important facts not included within the given debate article.
Lessons Learned:
After analyzing this debate, the group came up with three lessons learned that we all took away from this project.
From one side a single argument may seem strong, but it can be easily refuted by a stronger argument on the opposing side.
It can be difficult when analyzing a debate to put aside one's own biases and opinions
Real-world examples help to bolster otherwise fragile arguments
Works Cited
Lemire, Sarah. “The Lululemon Chip Wilson Comments Controversy, Explained.” The Today Show, 8 January 2024, https://www.today.com/popculture/news/lululemon-chip-wilson-controversy-explained-rcna132284. Accessed 21 March 2024.
Gambardella, Tom. “CEO (Chief Executive Officer).” TechTarget, https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/CEO. Accessed 21 March 2024.
Yashina, Natalya. “Chief Executive Officer (CEO): What They Do vs. Other Chief Roles.” Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp. Accessed 21 March 2024.
Peterdy, Kyle. “CEO (Chief Executive Officer) - Overview, Responsibilities, Characteristics.” Corporate Finance Institute, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career/what-is-a-ceo-chief-executive-officer/. Accessed 21 March 2024.
“What Is a CEO?” The Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/terms/c/ceo/. Accessed 21 March 2024.
コメント