Work and Politics

[rowyn]

This article about CEOs emailing their employees about Romney makes me wonder: what exactly is it that makes this so creepy? That is not a rhetorical question; I am not disputing this point. It is creepy. It is the sort of thing creeps do. I think less of Mr. Romney for having suggested people do it.

But why? I will think this through in writing, because I think better in writing.

I'm not talking about ordering one's employees to "Vote for X", which would go from "creepy" to "is that even legal?" (Although really, how is your boss going to know who you voted for? Still.) This is CEOs sharing their political opinions with their employees , and is the sort of thing I would have no objections to in a context other than "CEO directly to employee". People, even CEOs, have the right to express their opinions on politics. I would have no qualms about a CEO writing a blog post or a newspaper op-ed about who he thought should be elected. But sending it as an email to his employees? Ewww. Creepy.

It's an unfortunate truth that politics affects business in many ways; I expect that the CEOs who tell their employees that Obama's re-election would "threaten your job" genuinely believe it. They think that Obama's policies will have a negative impact on their business which will cause them to lay off employees. It's not meant as a personal threat -- "vote for Romney or I'll fire you" -- but gosh, kinda sounds like one, doesn't it? Especially when it's part of a direct message to you. That's a big part of what makes it so creepy. It bugs me that the Huffington Post wrote the article and headline as if CEOs were making personal threats to their employees, but frankly, it's not hard to make that leap.

It also feels terribly unprofessional. This is not a business communication. The business climate in America maintains the polite fiction that business and politics are separate and that a person's political decisions do not affect their job. This is patently false on a macro scale -- of course the government we elect affects the businesses we work at -- but it more-or-less works on a micro scale. My ability to create reports or balance accounts is not impacted by who's president, or by the way I vote. I can understand business communications opposing or favoring specific laws targeted at their industry -- "this is how this proposed legislation on bankruptcy will affect our bank" --but talking about Democrats or Republicans in general is too far removed from any business purpose to be professional.

And if there's one thing a CEO ought to be, it's professional. Sheesh.

Comments

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Even if it's not meant as a threat, it still comes off as an implied threat. "The Boss" is a big, important figure to most people.

So I'd say that yes, it's very inappropriate behavior, regardless of the candidate.

-TG

[rowyn]

Yeah, my first thought was 'this article is doing the usual histrionic 'let's misrepresent this as a threat even though it isn't'. And then I thought 'but it's not like that subtext *isn't* there'. :P

[octantis.livejournal.com]

CEOs don't have to be professional, they're above that. They just have to be paid. Or at least, that seems to be the prevailing attitude anymore. -_- So long, dying company. I'm golden parasailing outta here. Oh well.

Thinking about it, I think it's more than just professionalism that should be in play here. CEOs are people, and should be able to express opinions, sure, but they are also in positions of extreme *power*. And the more power you have at your command, the more that, yes, you should be held to a different standard. There *is* a moral obligation. Great power, great responsibility. I dunno if that's in play with the e-mail situation, but I'd warrant it's a part of what makes it creepy. It's not exactly like a boss trying to be chummy by sitting on the edge of his secretary's desk and going, "Just between you and me, I think your job would be more secure if you wore a tighter sweater." But it smacks of it, and that's hella creepy enough.

[rowyn]

I think it's more like asking a subordinate, "Would you like to go out for dinner and a movie?" There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the question or sentiment, but in the context of 'boss asking subordinate', there is no way to ask it that is appropriate.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much. If we had a flawless way to communicate everything, it wouldn't be such an issue. We're stuck having to deal with nuances like our examples until we develop our psionic potential, I guess. -_-

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It's sort of like sexual harassment? Even if you don't mean to be intimidating there's just no way to say it that isn't going to come off as a threat.

And yeah, it's entirely possible that based on the results of an election a CEO would start firing people at random because of what they think it's going to mean regardless of whether or not there was any basis in fact for those beliefs.

[rowyn]

"Firing people at random" is not how I'd describe it. :P

But the stock market definitely reacts to election and even poll results, and that impacts business well before any actual policy results happen. *sigh*

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

An academic once codified the difference between lying and bullshitting.

A lie is a deception; the speaker says something untrue with the hope that the listener will believe it.

With bullshitting, both the speaker and the listener know that what is being said is false, and each knows that the other knows it. It is a show of dominance within the rules of a formal system in which the truth has no power unless it is spoken.

The conceit of: "I'm not threatening your job to dictate your vote. That would be unethical. I'm just giving you advice based on how I believe the outcome will necessarily affect the hard business decisions that will have to be made about your job, coincidentally, by me," is the latter. That is why.

[rowyn]

I am not really that cynical, I'm afraid.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I think that's definitely a good point.

I'm on the side of it being direly inappropriate for businesses to mix themselves in politics, especially to the extent of massive donations to Super-PACs. There just seems like some kind of dividing line between business and politics. That is: it's appropriate for a business to advertise (as themselves) that Proposition X would hurt their ability to serve their customers, but it's inappropriate for the business to donate massive money to candidate Y who promises to abolish the law that Proposition X creates. Educate the voter, don't buy the government.

[rowyn]

I am not wild about the way campaign financing works, but every way of regulating it pretty much just makes it worse. v_v For me, it's like this:

* People should have the right to free speech
* "Free speech" includes "the right to publish books, make movies, advertise, write blog posts, etc., without government intervention to stop you."
* The difference between 'I make a move about X' and 'I pay someone else so that they can make a move about X' is negligible; these are both forms of speech that I should be allowed to take part in.
* The difference between 'I make a movie about X' and ''A group of people makes a movie about X' is also negligible. People do not lose their right to free speech by speaking as a group.
* The distinction between a group of people organized as a business, or one organized as a union, or one organized as a newspaper, or one organized to promote a cause, etc., are ... perhaps not exactly negligible, but government is the very last body that I want making the decision about which group has a right to free speech and which doesn't -- and by the same token, the right to decide who fits into which group. The super-creepy logical conclusion of this is government deciding that only news organizations are the only kind of organization allowed to spend freely in talking about politics, which people think is reasonable until you realize that government is also the one deciding who is and isn't a news organization.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

It's a thorny issue, but you have to define where you want the limits-- what is professional behavior about, otherwise? I think it's a distinction between law and culture. Professional behavior is a cultural expectation: a doctor will heal and will not secretly work against his patient's best interests, a merchant will give fair exchange, and in general when you engage with someone in a role, they are going to perform that role, in the social contract you've agreed on.

Without that, society comes apart as people fail to live up to their social upbringings. So, the question is whether there should be an expectation that businesses and government will attempt to separate their interests. Government is made up of people, but these people are working in a cultural role... As another kind of professional, as it were.

Free speech has its limits, too. Lying-- shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater-- can be construed as harmful speech because it violates a social trust as well. While it's against the laws, there's an expectation that people will be truthful or will explicitly denote what they say is fiction in some way. So, extending it to campaign funding, it's cool with me if a business makes explicit its connection and how it benefits and loses in relation to laws... It's not cool if that information is being hidden, if we are being appealed to on principles or subject to displays of mudslinging that obscure the real impacts. Advertise away, but advertise truthfully.

Of course there can be argument about what is factual and what is just an opinion, but IMO the rule on professional behavior and demeanor is rooted in a mutual social compact, and that's what makes a lapse of professionalism disturbing.

[alltoseek.livejournal.com]

It's a lot like the CEO sending out a message: "You all should attend this super-duper church I go to. Your soul will be SAVED! Don't you want your soul saved?"

There's a reason the rule is don't talk about politics or religion :P

[rowyn]

Yeah. :/

[duane-kc.livejournal.com]

I think what creeps me out about this is the implied dom/sub "I have power over you, power you can't or don't wish to resist for fear of Consequences", that edges into abusive or coercive. I don't like this attitude in interpersonal relationships, in the workplace...yeah, it squicks me out.

[rowyn]

Yep, pretty much it. v.v