I have written from time to time about the increasing pressure on leaders of organizations, including corporations, to “engage in the public square” in ways that would have been highly unlikely not so very long ago. As reckonings on multiple civic or societal issues continue, it is hard to recall a more challenging time for leaders to assess their tolerance for risk – or their aptitude for engaging in substantive debates on climate change, racial equity, economic disparities, and geo-political dynamics, just to start the list of potential topics. Communications professionals need to take up the challenge of helping organizational leaders navigate these challenges.

On Monday, the New York Times provided a great analysis of the recent uptick in ‘CEO Letters,’ an increasingly common form of collective action for business leaders. On one level, it is easy to discount the decision to join a large group of executives in sending a shared message into the atmosphere (they are rarely demands for explicit action or addressed to explicit decision-makers). As one signature of many, there is little-to-no-risk of being held accountable if change does not result. But it should be noted that those letters do reflect a shifting calculation – or perhaps better described as an updated balancing – on the weighting corporate leaders are assigning to their various stakeholders.

For the past thirty years, the demands of institutional investors were inarguably the driving force of publicly-traded companies’ calculations related to emerging issues and controversies. That prioritization was even documented by the prestigious Business Roundtable in 1997 in the form of a CEO letter, stating that the purpose of corporations is to benefit shareholders.

By 2019 that same group, representing almost two hundred chief executives, issued a new CEO letter and declared that corporations exist to ‘create value for all our stakeholders.’  It was perhaps a belated acknowledgement that the social compact between private enterprise and public good is due for significant review, reflection and re-articulation. What are the benefits that businesses derive in our society (tax laws, public infrastructure, etc.) and how do they operate in exchange for those benefits?  While politically progressive voices may have attracted the most attention in recent years, the concerns were mounting more broadly: about income disparity; about the shrinking (some said collapse) of the middle class that was a hallmark of U.S. growth for two generations.

And then 2020 happened. The fault lines of the prevailing social compact were laid bare: “essential” employees paid below minimum wage; a booming stock market spurring executive compensation while millions of other people lost their livelihoods; the threat of the pandemic spread unevenly between people with access to health care and those without. In parallel, new levels of concern about American competitiveness rose across a range of critical industries, as well as acknowledgement that global supply chains create vulnerabilities that might need to be addressed. And so, perhaps, we have an extraordinary opportunity: to re-imagine some aspects of the social compact between corporations and the public, in ways that serve both the common good AND strengthen our competitiveness as a nation.

But it will take meaningful engagement from multiple players, not the least of which are those who speak for our corporate sector. There are risks associated with engagement in the public square. But at this extraordinary time in our history, the risks of missing the corporate voice in re-imaging our future are more concerning.

Based on conversations with clients and professional colleagues, I think we all know that workplaces will not return to what they were in March of 2020 – we have learned things about ourselves and our society that are shaping what happens next. I also believe most of us are still grappling with how ‘what is next’ will look and feel. Some organizational leaders sound like they intend to get as close to their old template as possible; but responding to the pandemic is not the only transformational influence that we need to factor into our plans. The systemic disparities laid bare over the past 15 months have created additional new considerations for talented people, and organizations – of all sizes – that miscalculate the seriousness of the emerging consciousness fed by those considerations will pay real penalties in recruitment, retention and organizational performance.

Racial equity is, of course, the big driver of new urgency, as it should be. That we may finally be grappling at scale with the human and economic consequences of systemic racism is a reason for pride in our collective capacity for fairness and justice. But it must be acknowledged that we are at the very beginning of some really challenging work, and we are so far talking baby-steps. Righting 400-plus years of an economy built on the enslavement of some people and the dispossession of others is going to take some serious realignment of power, of opportunity, of wealth; all with the goal of ensuring our competitiveness for the next century. And those who control those things (power, opportunity, wealth) now are not going to give them up easily – no matter how enlightened and well-meaning they come into the work. Importantly, multiple surveys and studies highlight the increasing expectation of employees and customers that companies must take at least some of the responsibility for progress to improve access to capital, opportunities to build generational wealth, eliminating disparities in health and educational attainment that are the culmination of generations of racism. This is work that business has historically viewed as ‘extracurricular,’ with commitments made that fit into its capacity to deliver financial results. To be held accountable for these societal goals is a new playing field for most business leaders.

Beyond racial equity, we should also be noting heightened activism around the stratification of wealth that has occurred over the past thirty years – and then made glaringly obvious by the pandemic. As we have all learned in the past twelve months, health of ‘the economy’ cannot really be measured by watching the Dow Jones averages. Most working people rely solely on their salaries or wages – which have not come close to keeping up with the growth of the wealth reflected in top corporate and start-up compensation that is tied to stock price performance. When I worked in corporate America (1990), the compensation of top executives was 60 times that of the average compensation for their employees. Today, it is common for that ratio to be more than 400 times. Measured another way: average total CEO compensation grew 1000% from 1978 to 2018; the S&P market grew 700% over the same time frame.  Average wages for workers over that time frame: up just under 12. Political leaders and social activists are paying new levels of attention, however. Leaders wanting authentic relationships with colleagues at work are increasingly needing to grapple with how to create a sense of ‘team’ with such stratified approaches to value.

Technology, as well, has continued to create possibilities for re-thinking what it means to work for an organization. The fact that millions and millions of us did not miss a day of work over the past year is truly remarkable; that many companies have concluded that their employees were MORE productive working remotely is transformative. But the reality that millions of other workers were required to show up on the frontlines of factories, hospitals, warehouses and processing plants irrespective of pandemic risks is another recognition of disparities that we cannot ‘un-recognize.’ Both technology and labor organizing can and will be deployed to lessen the risks that too many workers were exposed to last year, because we had not effectively imagined those risks and what it would take to mitigate them.

After more than thirty years working to help organizations ‘take responsibility for being understood,’ I expect the next few years to be an extraordinary period of re-invention in organizational life. Effective communications about and around these dramatic developments will be critical to future success. It is what we’ve specialized in doing throughout the history of our firm: using the power of effective communications to navigate change. Let us know if you’d like to explore working together in these exciting times.

At Tunheim, we have a mantra that guides our communications work for clients: “Well-understood organizations have the best opportunity for success.” This is particularly true in a time of disruption and change.

There has been a lot written about how much has changed in the past 12-14 months. Arguably, the period between February 2020 and April 2021 has been the most consequential in recent history. We had three seismic events that impacted every aspect of our lives; the pandemic changed nearly every daily norm; the murder of George Floyd, the trial and verdict brought about an ongoing cultural and social reckoning that has forced many of us to face long-ignored systemic injustice and; the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath continues to challenge our system of self-governance. The implications from these events will endure for some time and, despite our collective want to return to “normalcy,” not much will ever be the same.

For business, disruption and change have become the new normal. The economic collapse in 2020 caused severe disruptions and had acute adverse impacts on many sectors. For the businesses that have survived or even prospered, large and small, all have been compelled to adapt and change not only to dynamic economic conditions but also from the monumental shifts in our social and cultural norms.

Successful organizations have historically focused on understanding the stakeholders critical to their success. Today, however, in this time of transformational change and disruption, businesses are faced with an essential imperative; be intentional about ensuring your stakeholders understand you. The risk for being misunderstood can be significant and has the potential to be catastrophic if not managed correctly.

Just last month, Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines found themselves hustling to ensure their stakeholders understood their positions on Georgia’s voting reform law after some troubling headlines. Both companies recognized that a failure to speak out with clarity would not only stain their reputations with important stakeholders but also have the potential for significant impact on their bottom lines.

Major League Baseball made a similar, albeit, a more decisive move. It recognized that critical stakeholders, internal and external, needed to understand its commitment to an important organizational value by strongly embracing voting rights and moved this year’s All-Star Game.

Its not just large organizations that need to be understood. Stakeholders for nearly every size business demand accountability from leadership now more than ever and expect an elevated level of responsibility for establishing a public character that reflects their interests.

Today we see a renewed focus on organizational values and big investments in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) activities. In addition, businesses are placing greater emphasis on Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) as well as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). A public embrace of these initiatives has become essential and “must do” investments, not only because they are significant drivers for building and maintaining a reputation with important stakeholders but because they are a necessity for doing business.

My colleague Kathy Tunheim, often says, “businesses earn the reputation they deserve.” At the heart of that truth is the critical need for organizations to be proactive in defining themselves so as not to be misunderstood by the stakeholders necessary for their success. Success is no longer just about profitability and shareholder value. Success is defined by what stakeholders determine it to be.

For the past thirty years, Tunheim has helped organizations define and execute their narratives to ensure that stakeholders understand who they are, what they do and what they stand for. Let us know if we can help you.

As communications consultants to organizations large and small, we know that there continues to be trepidation for some about how best (and whether) to raise awareness of their organization’s commitments and actions related to environmental impact. Let us review the lay of the land. It is now well understood that Millennials and Gen Z are motivated to purchase from brands that do good. This has driven the adoption of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) factors to guide and evaluate an organization’s impact.

Sustainability is no longer a buzz word; it is now a business imperative. But for many organizations, especially large, complex corporations, there are a number of reasons to pause before communicating aggressively about environmental impact.

The largest being a gap between the organization’s intent and current environmental impact, which is increasingly something that the marketplace (and regulators) can measure. The potential to fall short of public commitments raises reputational stakes, at the very least. The reality for most organizations, in most industries, is that there is hard work – and considerable investment required – to make measurable progress. Stakeholders are likely not in full alignment, either, and so the communications challenges of both setting expectations and meeting them will be complex.

Pivoting to What You Can Say

Whatever your organization’s reasons for anxiety on the topic of environmental commitments, they are likely valid. There will always be reasons to wait. There will always be risk in communicating on topics that have been politicized. But it is also a risk to wait (see Delta Airlines, Home Depot and Coca-Cola on voting rights). Younger generations are increasingly motivated to protect the environment, so finding ways to manage your organization’s narrative is a part of actively engaging a critical stakeholder segment. Here are three tips to communicate your organization’s environmental impact:

Announce intent.

Pick a goal to decrease specific environmental impacts by a future date. This will have to be driven by the C-suite as it will require action plans for all aspects of the company that are connected to the goal. These future goals can be a great way to motivate your organization to get behind a positive change and allow for time to make the changes in sustainable ways for the future of the business.

Incorporate organizational values.

It is always a best practice to allow your organization’s values to drive decisions related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Use your corporate values to determine what and how to communicate the organization’s commitment to the environment.

Start by taking small action and communicating with your closest stakeholders: Your employees.

Your employees understand you better than any external audience will. Take some actions and begin to share those stories with your employees. Create space for feedback and engagement and learn from what you hear. We are living in a time where opting out on critical issues can be perceived very negatively. Do not let your organization get caught in that risk. Rather, take the opportunity to gain clarity on your organization’s commitment to the environment and take steps that make sense for your organization.

Tunheim seeks to help organizations be understood by stakeholders who are critical to their success. A necessary component of being understood is taking responsibility to communicate and to listen. What holds your organization back from communicating its commitment to the environment? If you need help, we would love to hear from you. Contact us.

“Situational awareness” is not a term that I remember using earlier in my career; I’ve always associated it with physical safety, as in worrying about walking alone to my car in a dark parking lot. But in the past year, it has become a concept central to all the communications counsel I now share with clients, colleagues and friends. Context has always mattered, of course, in terms of effectively communicating. But the extremely dynamic nature of the world in which are now living puts the idea of context on steroids.

Being keenly conscious of the environment and the people around us has become essential to how we hear, how we process, and certainly how we attempt to articulate what we mean. Call it ‘woke,’ call it hyper-partisan, call it weaponized by social media – but the reality is that communications has perhaps never been more sensitive to context.

Word choices also matter, as they always have – but never more than now. Staying on top of the fast-evolving etymology of our language is critical work – a term or phrase can have taken on new meaning or inference in just a news cycle or two, depending on who used it, who reacted to that usage and how that exchange was interpreted. Some of the evolution is formal and documented: The Associated Press’s announced decision to capitalize Black now in reference to people’s identify is a great example. But much of the new guidance is less explicit, though no less important. For example, identifying as a progressive or a conservative has almost no meaning in current reportage, as the common ground beneath those long-used monikers has eroded, leaving tension and growing wedges in understanding. It can be a grievous or embarrassing mistake to assume you are using the right labels on people or policies. There is a regular viral gathering now called “No Labels” trying to navigate the challenge.

This dynamic matters in interpersonal exchanges: ‘are you vaccinated?’ is heard by some as a query seeking insight far beyond the obvious; it may also reflect a suspicion of your political persuasion or your faith in the system, which will alter the rest of any conversation that might follow.

The dynamic matters in business communications, as well. How organizations are volunteering (or not) their current commitments on racial justice or on returning a workforce to the office are also being heard and viewed through highly-developed filters, sensitive to poorly-developed consciousness about the high standards expected of institutional players at a time of such reckoning in our society. What an organization means to say is not enough: being understood as you intend to be understood takes levels of commitment to accepting context that many institutional players will resist or miss. For example, what does a company think about changes in access to voting rights? Can you prove it?

The dynamic matters on a global basis in newly-elevated ways, as well. As allies, antagonists and enemies adapt to a changed world order – brought on by nationalist politics as well as pandemic – we shouldn’t expect to be understood so easily as we perhaps have been allowed to assume. The long-used shorthand of diplomacy – the accepted expectations of how various countries and their leaders will behave – has been undermined by so much disruption.

Taking responsibility for understanding, and for being understood. Hard work, but essential work.