Unchartered waters for CEOs

Stakeholder capitalism, social media, and the shocking behaviour of the new corporate citizen

The Trump presidency has been the catalyst in challenging governments, corporations, and individuals to revisit and re-evaluate the true definition of transparency and freedom of speech. That said, it would be an understatement to say that Trump's grand finale only accentuated the major divide among the masses regarding the above mentioned topics and what the new standards should be.

Having spent 17 years as a good 'corporate soldier' in big companies, I recently witnessed something in corporate leadership that was mind boggling and a real first-of-its-kind bottleneck in the system resulting from the chaos created by last November's US presidential elections.

The episode regarded a public dispute on social media between a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and one of his high performing employees.

Unchartered waters for CEOs

In the days immediately following the sacking of Washington by angry protesters regarding the result of the presidential election, the CEO of a US-based global leader in financial services like many of his other CEO peers across the globe released a post on LinkedIn expressing his concerns.

In the first part, he put at centre stage his disappointment in the violent acts that resulted from what traditionally is a peaceful means to celebrate democracy. In the second part, he passively promoted Joe Biden's victory by supporting that the elections were fair, that despite accusations there had been no foul play, and that it was time to move forward under the Biden Administration.

As one can imagine, the post rapidly collected an enormous amount of support from his Pro-Biden employees and other followers through the LIKES and comments received. Of course, the post also collected an equally enourmous quantity of interactions from those who were opposed to his position, many of whom were blatant and downright insulting.

Regardless of the insults, I imagine that the CEO was quite pleased at the digital reach his controversial publication obtained in that it generated an unusual level of engagement as he received almost 1,000 interactions in the first few days.

There was one thing however that I truly believe caught him and his leadership team off guard; a comment of disappointment and complete disagreement posted by one of his acting employees.

The person in question was not an average employee in that she was a Vice President, a woman who has been a leader in the company for the majority of her career and has worked in multiple country locations supporting major business transformation efforts.

As a continuous improvement consultant who spent many years 'challenging the status quo' in a corporate setting, I have been accustomed to being in disagreement with colleagues and often superiors. This however, as much of a rebel as I could have ever been, is an act that I never would have even dreamt of committing.

Since the VP's comment was posted, it has been mysteriously deleted and therefore I cannot provide the original text in this post.

In short, the comment challenged the level of credibility of her own CEO's knowledge in how the US presidential elections are managed stating that he (the CEO) was not in a position to make the statement he made. Furthermore, she highlighted that his post supported an initiative that is unconstitutional for she believed that the way in which the election was concluded takes freedoms away from the American people.

Unnecessary waste or lesson learnt?

Regardless of what was on his agenda that month, it is hard to believe that the CEO and his executive leadership team were not forced to pause and make an unexpected reflection on the occurrence of this issue and dedicate time in deciding how to respond to it.

Freedom of speech in its current form allows anyone the right to express an opinion. This includes a disgruntle employee being in disagreement with her CEO who decided that it was appropriate to use the company brand to share his opinion about his preferred presidential candidate on the Social Media.

Without a doubt, the incident itself from a productivity point of view slows business down in the short term.

From a quality and morale point of view, the incident may damage the relationship with everyone in the reporting line above and below that VP who may be involved if any actions are taken. It also weakens the loyalty of any employee who witnesses the incident and is not in agreement with the way in which the company handles it.

The catch 22

In this situation, if the leadership team decides not to react, the message will be interpreted by some that leadership is weak. It may also be interpreted by many that the CEO himself condones that public banter through social media channels with your colleagues is acceptable because after all, it is freedom of speech and social media is for everybody.

I imagine that if the Leadership Team decides to react directly to this incident involving their unsatisfied Vice President, whether she is merely 'scolded' or subject to a greater punishment, the upside risk for the company is huge for several reasons.

Firstly, in a time where innovation is crucial to any company's survival, by punishing an employee for being honest, the staff will no longer feel comfortable about being in open disagreement with management and will become silent in times when new ideas are necessary.

Secondly, it should be considered that the woman's original comment on LinkedIn was centred on her belief that her freedom of speech was being violated. Ironically, if she is punished for her comment by her employer, her belief will become a pure reality and confirmed by her employer's reaction.

In closing

As a continuous improvement consultant, there are still many unanswered questions, points to reflect on and lessons to be learnt in the above episode and the only real Call-To-Action this post offers is that it highlights that there is still major misalignment between governmental systems, the corporations who are leading the charge in global sustainability, and the technology that supports and connects both to their key stakeholders (all of us).

Repeating what most of the Lean Management community will highlight in screaming bold letters is that respect for people and putting focus on a system's limitations and not that of the people carrying out the process should always be the founding principle to approaching any disagreement.

The above episode is the result of the great misalignment in technology and the system (process) it supports that unfortunately put a CEO and one of his high performing Vice Presidents in sharp disagreement on a public stage in front of thousands (if not millions) of spectators.

Incidents of such are an opportunity to redefine the term 'freedom of speech' by acknowledging the waste it produces now that information can be recklessly amplified in unprecedented quantities through unproven forms of technology and social media.

It is also evidence that 'respect for people' and 'acts of kindness' are not extras but necessity and need to be incorporated in the policies of the governing bodies and the corporations that are responsible for our safety.

Personally speaking, it is most likely for the best that this incident occurred for it would have occurred sooner or later anyway and will continue to occur.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, most of us are in complete agreement that something is not right and change is necessary. The fact that the ex-US President himself was 'punished' and globally humiliated by losing his social media privileges thus catapulting the election saga into its next chapter and prolonging the flood of low-value content on page 1 of every news source in the free world tells us this. The incident is good evidence that the political system, the technology used to support it and what the masses believe to be their freedom of speech no longer work effectively together like they once did.

As we move more and more towards a global society built on stakeholder capitalism and increase our trust in the corporations that are leading us to a more sustainable future through innovation, we must make challenging the status quo modus operandi and be more open to relinquishing old traditions and ways of thinking that are no longer valid.

Prior to doing so however, the term 'teamwork' needs to be re-evaluated and increased awareness into the importance of individual 'sacrifice' for the better good needs to be more present in our day-to-day values. Only then will a more efficient system be operational and effective in allowing for non-confrontational continuous improvement to be the foundation of human progress.

Talking points