Minnesota CEOs chose deescalation over outrage. Did it work?
It was eight weeks after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had begun searching the streets of Minneapolis for immigrants, triggering protests and clashes, when the state’s business community finally issued a statement: On Jan. 25 the CEOs of 60 eminent companies via the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce called for “an immediate deescalation of tensions.” By then the ICE agents had killed two U.S. citizens, Renee Good, a mother of three, and—the day before the letter was released—a registered nurse named Alex Pretti.
Here’s how those CEOs’ statement was received: It was called “milquetoast,” “hollow,” and “meek,” by commenters on social media. Many pointed out that it didn’t condemn ICE or even name Good or Pretti. It didn’t call for halting the enforcement operations that led to the killings, or ejecting ICE from the state. A participant in drafting that brief, bland statement tells Fortune that calibrating the message and language so that all 60 companies could get on board took two weeks.
All of which raises a question: Is “speaking up” really worth it for business leaders? In today’s political environment, should companies weigh in on major divisive events, using business’s influence and high profile to tamp down violent emotions? Or has that become a no-win move?
It’s a judgment call that’s not new to CEOs. But the ambiance was much different in 2017, when neo-Nazis marched at a white supremacist event in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a protester was killed and 14 others were injured. When President Trump blamed the bigotry and violence “on many sides” and said there were “very fine people on both sides,” Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier immediately resigned from the American Manufacturing Council that Trump had created. Three more CEOs resigned the next day, and five more left the following day. The CEOs who left included Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich, Inge Thulin, the chairman and chief executive of 3M, and Campbell Soup Co. president and chief executive Denise Morrison. With only 13 members remaining, Trump disbanded the council.
Nothing like that is happening now. A few major companies—Apple, OpenAI, LinkedIn—have sent heartfelt, low-key messages to employees. Apple’s Tim Cook, for example, said he was “heartbroken” by the events in Minneapolis—even as he came in for criticism for attending a screening of Melania, a documentary about the First Lady, on the day of Pretti’s death. But most CEOs are keeping their heads beneath the parapet. When CNBC surveyed 550 C-suite executives a few days after Pretti was killed, only 34 responded.
The reasons for CEOs’ caution about taking a stance are sometimes practical, for leaders responsible for the livelihood and investments of many—and they go beyond the past two months of ICE agents in Minneapolis. Executives and directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, and pushback from Washington might be very bad for company stock—or even lead to business risks that could affect employees. On the other hand, a CEO may well think it’s good for the company to show employees, customers, and shareholders that it can take a strong moral stand.
We are in “an age of deep polarization and division,” says Matthew Levendusky, a professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania. “Wading into politics will anger some employees, shareholders, or board members, so it’s best to say little to nothing on controversial political issues unless they strike at the heart of the company’s interests.”
The other reason companies don’t want to speak out on situations like Minneapolis is simple: the danger of retaliation from a president who has shown vengeance to those who criticize him or his actions.
“Man, they aren’t going to speak,” says former Medtronic CEO Bill George, referring to the many CEOs he knows nationwide. “They are very afraid of being attacked, of retribution. The fear of Trump is great, and it’s not going away.”
CEOs today often go beyond avoiding Trump’s ire, making a point of currying favor with gifts, dealmaking, or donations. “Look at the companies that donated to his inauguration or the new ballroom,” says Levendusky. “It likely wasn’t high-minded patriotism that generated those donations.”
As a practical matter, a wide range of many corporate decisions will include the Trump factor—maybe even decisions on how to write a “milquetoast” statement. “It was viewed as a very weak statement,” George says, “but hey, sometimes you get the job done.”
And even if the Minnesota business leaders’ statement wasn’t as forceful as it could have been, it’s possible it still made a difference in a crucial and delicate moment. The word “deescalate,” George points out, may have been wisely chosen: “That’s exactly what Trump did the next day,” he says. “Did it have an impact? You’ll never know, but I think it had some. I think he decided they got the wording right.”
The bottom line on those Minnesota companies, in George’s view: “You could say they were writing for the general public. In this case they might have been writing for an audience of one.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com