CHATTERJI AND TOFFEL
Executives must balance the likelihood of having an effect
and other potential benefits— such as pleasing employees and
consumers— against the possibility of a backlash. As part of this
assessment, CEOs should explicitly consider how their statements
and actions will be received in a politically polarized atmosphere.
A 2016 Global Strategy Group report shows that when companies
are associated with political issues, customers view this connection
through the lens of their party affi liation. (See the exhibit “A polar-
ized response.”) According to the study, twice as many Democrats
viewed Schultz’s Race Together campaign positively as viewed it
negatively, but three times as many Republicans viewed it unfavor-
ably as viewed it favorably. Cook’s advocacy for gay marriage pro-
duced similar responses. Championship of less divisive issues, such
as parental leave and STEM education, however, is more likely to
improve the brand image of the CEO’s company among both Demo-
crats and Republicans, the study showed.
CEOs should also consider the extent to which the public believes
a CEO voice is appropriate on a given topic. The Global Strategy
Group study found that Democrats and Republicans both thought it
was fi tting for companies to take public stances on economic issues
like minimum wage and parental leave. However, there was much
less consensus about the appropriateness of weighing in on social
issues such as abortion, gun control, LGBTQ equality, and immigra-
tion. (See the exhibit “Is it appropriate to take a stand? What con-
sumers think.”)
Immigration has proven a particularly complex issue, as the
experiences of Chobani’s CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya, and Carbonite’s
CEO, Mohamad Ali, illustrate. Immigrants to the United States
themselves, both publicly opposed the Trump administration’s
restrictions. Both have been praised for their stances, but Ulukaya
was also threatened and his company faced a boycott, while Ali’s
remarks prompted no discernible backlash. This diff erence could
be attributed to Ulukaya’s focus on the moral need t o provide job
opportunities for refugees, whereas Ali placed more emphasis on
immigrants as job creators whose work also benefi ts native- born
citizens. It’s important to note, however, that while speaking out