Freedom of expression is thick in the air these days, its content, context, rightfulness, meaning. Interpretations of democratic principles and scrutiny of rhetorical tactics are the stuff of constant debate, and it seems to me that while there will never be complete agreement on every point, the existence of these conversations is the point. The conversation itself indicates successful democracy. Engaging in disagreement, understanding specifics of history, using them in appropriate context, weighing points of logic as applied to specific situations, are all skills to be exercised.

Talking politics in business circles

I congratulate our colleague Tommaso Bondi on the acceptance of his latest paper, “When (Not) to Talk Politics in Business: Experimental Evidence,” joint with Vanessa Burbano (Columbia GSB) and Fabrizio Dell’Acqua (HBS), at Strategic Management Journal. The paper extends a timely consideration of the interactions between firms’ expressions of opinion or stance on political events, and with individual reception of firm messaging.

The authors wanted to know if a firm’s expected political leaning affected individual interpretations of the firm’s communications. They also wanted to know if individuals reacted differently to communication of a stance that’s backed by a monetary commitment versus a stance that is not. Then, differentiating between the strategic choice of communicating an explicitly apolitical stance versus staying silent, they went on to ask which individuals preferred, and under what circumstances?

They created three fictitious firms, and pre-tested how each was likely to be perceived: an oil firm in Alaska was perceived as Republican, a California tech firm was perceived as aligned with Democrats, and a Pennsylvania food company was expected to express centrist positions. They randomized each firm’s political communication for both a symmetric issue (the 2020 presidential election) and an asymmetric issue (the storming of the capitol – which was disapproved-of by 70% of US voters). Each firm had four choices: remain silent, issue an explicitly apolitical statement, defend the storming, or condemn the storming.

The authors did find differences in perception based on the firm’s expected ideology, and on the attitude of the perspectives expressed, and whether a monetary commitment to the stance is present. If firms are expected to be political but issue apolitical communications, they earn credibility. Firms expected to be neutral, however, do not benefit from being apolitical. “Overall, the results suggest that overall individuals do not want firms to talk polarizing politics in business.”

Well done, Tommaso!

And what about employee voices?

This dovetailed interestingly with the topic of our most recent Cornell Convenes roundtable discussion on October 9. The SC Johnson College co-hosted, with the ILR School’s excellent Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS), on the topic Leadership in a Polarized Workplace. We gathered over 30 corporate HR leaders who had had much to say about the levels of opinionated expression they see in the workplace – significantly more pronounced than in previous decades, and generally considered to be generational or cultural. In a moment where Tomassi et al see that tolerance of firms’ communication on political issues is perhaps evaluated with a different kind of scrutiny or permission, these professionals testified to the need for preparing students for a polarized workplace by balancing freedom of expression in academia with the need for professional responsibility. Younger employees seem more likely to express their opinions and to demand similar viewpoints from their employers’ communications, while older employees are more likely to keep potential points of disagreement closer to the vest.

For me, perhaps the most interestingly thorny insights came during the “Deans on the Hot Seat” panel that Alex Colvin and I held. The HR professionals present — who hire our grads and who intend to continue doing so — had clear guidance on the skillsets they’d like to see more of in their new hires. A full report is in the works, but I can say that more than a few mentioned that recent grads are often good at following rules and procedures, but struggle with expressing themselves openly and willingly engaging in conflict. Several attendees stressed the building of resilience. Leaders who will actively listen, show up authentically, and interact with diverse views will contribute to a less polarized world. Classes like Alan Filipowicz and Risa Mish’s Leading Teams and Advanced Critical Thinking are powerful tools in training leaders who know their own minds and can allow others their opinions as well.

And I couldn’t leave without mentioning:

It’s a heady and celebratory autumn for us. In October alone, the Smith Family Business Initiative marked its 10^th anniversary, and the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise celebrated its 20^th anniversary. Both are engines of change that contribute immensely to our students’ readiness for the workplace. Far from being “sidecar” organizations, these entities are adding to the core of our institution, becoming more into central to the educational community we revere.

And these celebrations of enduring work came with great conversations, food, and wine. At the Smith Family dinner, Cristina Mariani-May of Banfi Vintners shared her life story as a family business story, complete with a buyout of cousins and a sunny hardworking life in Italy.

The next night, CSGE founder Stu Hart joined a group of about a hundred guests, and he and I debated a bit about his passionate book Beyond Shareholder Supremacy: Remaking Capitalism for a Sustainable Future. Stu argues that traditional business education is unresponsive to the world, and I came back with my own bruises from the wrestling match between inertia and change when trying to integrate responsible business practices into their core curricula. Stu and I don’t always see eye-to-eye, but we agree on this: active involvement in a center on sustainability, a university-wide initiative on sustainability, or to a global association like UN PRME or RRBM can galvanize faculty in their teaching and research.

And coming up: The Cornell-OFR Climate Finance and Risks Conference is happening this Friday, October 25, 2024. I’ve been developing this with OFR’s Dasol Kim and our own Alissa Kleinnijenhuis to feature timely research and deep insight from Janet Yellen, Mark Carney, Johan Rockstrom, and many more. Click here for gratis registration.