Content uploaded by Abhinav Gupta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abhinav Gupta on Dec 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Feature!
Business!Disruption!From!the!Inside!Out!
By Forrest Briscoe & Abhinav Gupta
Stanford)Social)Innovation)Review)
Winter)2021
)
)
Copyright)Ó)2020)by)Leland)Stanford)Jr.)University)
All)Rights)Reserved)
)
Stanford Social Innovation Review
www.ssir.org
Email: editor@ssir.org
48 Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021
I
n recent yea rs, prominent Amer ican businesses h ave landed
in the headlines not because of t heir new products but
because of their employees’ ac tivism. In 2019, for example,
4,0 00 A mazon employees filed a shareholders’ resolution
criticizing their company’s exacerbation of climate change.
A year prior, 20, 000 Google employees wa lked off the job to protest
the compa ny’s lenient sexual harassment policies . This year, Disne y
employees eng aged in a car ra lly to ra ise safety concerns about the
company reopen ing its theme p arks in the midst of the coronavirus
pandemic, and Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout over
the platform’s tolerance of racism and hate speech.
These events represent a risin g wave of employee ac tivism—
when e mployees ad vocate for so cial chan ge inside, and sometimes
even cr iticize, their own org anization. Th is trend has h ad a range of
consequences for both employees and t he workplace. In response to
the 2019 employee shareholders’ resolution, for example, Amazon
pledged to eliminate its carbon emissions by 2040. G oogle, however,
was less recept ive to its employee walkout: It altered its employee
handbook to discourage future activism. In addition, many of the
Employees increasingly want their employers to become more responsible corporate citizens. Here
is a playbook for how employees can be eective change agents and how leaders can respond to
employee activism.
,
BY FORREST BRISCOE & ABHINAV GUPTA
Illustration by Klaus Kremmerz
walkout’s organiz ers have since been pushed out; 45 employees
have documented their experiences of reta liation by the company,
including demotion.
Employees’ growing expec tations of greater corporate social
responsibility (CSR) has contributed to t heir activ ism, as employ-
ees want to work for compa nies that do more goo d tha n har m to
society and the env ironment. Many workers spea k up and even put
pressure on their employers to inc rease their CSR efforts. Tellingly,
a 2019 Weber Shandwick sur vey found that 75 percent of employees
in the United States agre ed with the statement that “employees are
right to speak up against their employers.” On ly 14 perc ent did not
agree, and 11 percent sa id t hey were u nsure.
Despite widespread employee support, employee ac tivism is
controversial among many corporate leaders. To i mprove their
odds of succeeding, employees need to deepen their understand-
ing of what effec tive ac tivism looks li ke. Add itionally, ma nagers
need to k now how to engage meaning fully with employee act iv-
ism, b ecause it w ill continue to have an increasing significance in
organ izational operations.
Far from a one-size-fits -all method, employee activism e xists in
various forms, ex tending from internal lobbying to issue selling to
collectively organized business disruption. In this article, we offer
insights into the f ull sp ectrum of tod ay’s employee activism and,
Inside
Out
Business
Disruption
from the
50 Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021
takin g into consideration the risks, provide a playbook for employ-
ees to engage in it. We also offer adv ice to managers who face this
activ ism and w ant to offer support.
THE RISE OF EMPLOYEE ACTIVISM
We define employee a ctivism as employees engaged in c oordinated
action to address a societa l problem connected to the company t hey
work for. T his may entail promot ing or countering ch ange in their
organi zation or using the org anization as a plat form to brin g atten-
tion to an iss ue in so ciety at large.
Employee activism includes all kinds of people, from factory
workers to w hite-collar personnel to senior executives. Activis ts
include both full-ti me and par t-time employees, and even inde-
pendent contrac tors who are not technically considered employees
(think Uber drivers). E vidence from Weber Sha ndwick’s 2019 sur-
vey ind icates th at as many a s two in five employees in med ium-siz e
and la rge firms have engaged in employee activism of some kind: 38
percent said that they h ave “spoken up to supp ort or criticiz e [their]
employer’s ac tions over a controversial issue that affects society.”
Today’s employee ac tivism can be traced back to the 1970s, when
early employee activist groups started forming inside American
corporations . Usually founded by women and/or minorities, these
pioneering groups sought both to form a c ommunit y inside their
employer organ ization and to find new ways of advocating for equal
rights a nd antidiscrim inatory policies. With names l ike the Corpo -
rate Few (spearheaded by Black manag ers at Xerox) and Women of
AT&T, the se employee groups often met outside work hours a nd
connected on the edges of conferences and indust ry events. Ma ny of
them worr ied that mana gers would disapprove of their ex istence or,
worse, inter pret them as u nionization threat s and retaliate by firing
those employees or subjec ting them to ca reer penalties.
Start ing in the 199 0s, many employee ac tivist groups e xperienced
a sea cha nge when manag ers bega n to view them not as agitators
but as cha mpions of effor ts. By gai ning t his new found leg itimacy
inside thei r organizations , employee activist groups bega n receiving
corporate sponsorship and were rebranded as employee re source
groups. At the same time, many employee activists started forg ing
stronger externa l networks, link ing into industr y-focused NG Os,
such as t he National Center for Women & I nformation Technol-
ogy, and w ith national NGOs, such as the Environmental Defense
Fund C limate Corps, i n order to mobilize groups with shared goals
across industries.
A defin ing feature of employee activism is collective action, the
process in which mu ltiple individuals partic ipate in c oordinated
actions to achieve a common goal. Collective action gives employ-
ees greater power than they could have achieved by operating
individua lly. Although collec tive action t ypically involves employees
from the same org anization, it ca n also include a mi x from other
sectors, independent NGOs, a nd community groups. For example,
the Hum an Rights C ampaign (H RC), the largest LGBTQ advocacy
organi zation in the United S tates, works with employee groups at
all major companies to gather and diss eminate inform ation about
companies’ LGBTQ sta nces a nd to push for adoption of more
inclusive policies.
Employee activ ists are motivate d by concerns ab out socia l prob-
lems that are often connec ted to their employer. In most cases, these
problems correlate w ith lead ing CSR issues. (See “Types of CSR
Issues” on t his p age.) Workplace CSR i ncludes company policies
that a ffect diversity a nd inclusion for tradit ionally underrepresented
groups, such as women, rac ial m inorities, and L GBTQ workers .
Environmenta l CSR spans issues from globa l carb on pollution to
local community recycling. Employee ac tivists are als o concerned
about business dealings w ith cer tain suppliers and customers—such
as those th at themselves have p oor CSR records, or that are usi ng
the or ganization’s products and ser vices to violate citize ns’ rights.
Employee activism is related to but d istinct from t he work of
labor u nions, which focu s on influencing company decisions about
wages and working conditions. While unions can also provide a
platform for activism on other social is sues, employee activ ists are
often wh ite-collar sa laried workers who, in the United States, may
lack interest in affiliation with a t raditional labor union. Moreover,
labor un ion activities are constricted by collective bargaining laws
and workplace policies, including rules about the formation of a
collective bargai ning u nit to represent workers in a given organi-
zation; t he way that unit’s leaders can be determined; and how they
are allowed to negot iate wit h mana gement, protest , set tle gr iev-
ances, and raise and spend funds. In contrast, employee act ivism
does not face such restrictions and can employ a wide variety of
different structures and t actics and adapt r apidly.
Whi le the v ast majority of e mployee activ ists are focused on CSR
issues related to t heir employer, another cate gory of employee activ ists
use their organization a s a platform to ampli fy their messa ge. Recent
examples include professiona l athletes using the popularit y and media
visibilit y of their te ams and leagues to raise aw areness about racial
injustice and police brutality and to express suppor t for the Black Lives
Matter movement. In these cases, the goal may not neces sarily include
makin g changes within an organi zation but may be to c all attention
to the pervasive problem of s ystemic racism in genera l.
A TROVE OF TACTICS
Employee activism involves a wide range of t actics to bring wider
attention to so cial iss ues and influence decision makers to make
FORREST BRISCOE is a professor of
management and Frank & Mary Jean Smeal
Research Fellow at Penn State University’s
Smeal College of Business.
ABHINAV GUPTA is an associate professor
of strategic management at the University of
Washington’s Foster School of Business.
Types of CSR Issues
Three categories of CSR issues showcase the range of concerns
that motivate employee activists.
ISSUE CATEGORY EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC ISSUES
Workplace CSR n Gender pay equity
n LGBTQ rights
n Discrimination
n Sexual harassment
n Inequality
n Board diversity
Environmental CSR n Carbon footprint
n Recycling
n Local pollution
Supplier or
customer CSR
n Working conditions
n Living wage
n Unethical use of
product/service
n Support for authoritarian
government
n Use of product/service to
violate civil rights
n Child labor
Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021 51
changes in line with activist s’
goals. A lthough news stories
often focus on headline -grabbing
actions, such as worker walkouts,
a growing body of research sug-
gests that employee activ ists are
much more likely to pursue qui-
eter tactics that they b elieve to
be les s risky and more eff ective.
The fi gure on this page illu s-
trates the breadth of employee
activist tactics, organizing them
along a continuum bas ed on level
of disruptiveness. More d isrup-
tive tac tics are often intended to
unset tle bot h an orga nization’s
internal routines and its public
reputation, thereby pressuring
corporate executives to yield to
activi sts’ dema nds. Persuasive
tactics, in contrast, are aimed to
infl uence fellow employees and
executives throu gh com muni-
cation tools and approaches that
are often less visible to people
outside the organi zation and,
arguably, less aggressive.
Disruption tac tics include sab-
otage—f rom damagin g a company’s va luable assets (such as factor y
equipment or its website) to sully ing its reputation by sha ring d is-
advanta geous intern al in formation with external NGOs who then
publicize it v ia soc ial medi a. The persuasion end of the spectr um
includes ta ctics like internal “ issue selling ” to sen ior executives, by
deftly articulating the merits of en hancing a compa ny’s CSR engage -
ment. Cert ain tactics, such as employee wa lkouts and sit-ins, may b e
more d isruptive for manufactur ing plants or hospitals that operate
24 hou rs per day and less disruptive for organizations t hat are not as
dependent on the continuou s presence of their workforce.
Sociologist Doug McAda m ha s poi nted out that tactics can
also be organize d by novelty. As the figure above depicts, tac-
tics positioned h igh on the vertical axis are relatively uncommon
experi ments. In novative tactics can be adva ntageous for employee
activi sts becau se the y take the company by surprise and garner
extra media attention, adding to t he overall pressu re on corporate
leaders to change policy in line w ith activ ist demands. Such inno -
vative t actics appear to have contributed to the success of Amazon
employee ac tivists’ cli mate action demands—notably, tac tics that
were made possible because t hese employees also o wned shares i n
the company, which enabled t hem to fi le a shareholder resolution
criticizing the company’s stance.
Tactics t hat rely more on per suasion are arg uably more eff ect ive
at catalyzing change inside organizat ions. For example, in 2 018,
a group of Nike managers conducted an informal survey of cow-
orkers on perceptions of workplace climate. When pre sented with
the unofficia l f indings that corroborated activists’ claims about
the prevalence of sex ism and racism, executives felt compelled to
launch a formal investigation, wh ich led to the re placement of h igh-
level personnel a nd helped drive changes in policies for reporting
and handling workplace biases and t ransgressions. In this exam-
ple, ac tivism foc used interna lly and was spearheaded i n large part
by m anagement.
Newer tactics in the employee activ ist reper toire involve the
use of socia l media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. So cial
media is a powerf ul tool because it allows employees to mobilize
easily and qu ickly and, in doing so, to swiftly raise awareness ab out
company practices among customers, potential future employees,
and other stakeholders. At the same time, companies a re encour-
aging employees to become “pro-comp any” ac tivists by promotin g
the fi rm’s CSR eff orts on soci al media, in the hope that doing so will
increase goodwill among the compa ny’s stakeholders. For exa mple,
Dell’s employee advocacy program incentivi zed employees to share
brand-related c ontent online i n exchange for cer tifi cation as a “social
media and commu nity professional .” T his progr am is credited w ith
driv ing favorable attention to t he business; with in a year of launch ing,
it succeeded in brin ging more than 150,0 00 shares to Dell’s website.
FOUR MACRO TRENDS
Based on the spec trum of tac tics, we have identified four mac ro
societal trends that together have cont ributed to the growth of
employee act ivism this century. These trends reinforce one a nother
in several ways. For instance, new technologies that facil itate informa-
tion sharing have spread more awareness of urgent societal challen ges,
which, in tur n, has fueled rising workforce expec tations regarding com-
pany action. Simila rly, the global spread of empowerment principles
Employee Activist Tactics
Employees use a range of tactics to gain attention and infl uence decision makers in their organizations.
DISRUPTION TACTICS
(headline-grabbing)
PERSUASION TACTICS
(less visib le or controvers ial)
ESTABLISHED
INNOVAT IV E
Shareholder
resolution from
stockholding
employees
Unsanctioned
employee poll/
data collection
Provision of
internal info to
external NGOs*
Posting of
info on soc ial
media*
Disseminatio n
of info on
company
intranet*
Coordination
with activ ists in
peer companies
Unsanctioned
press
conference*
Sabotage of
company
assets,
equipment, etc.
Protest
demonstration
Employee
walkout
Petition
campaign
Educational
event
Internal
coalition
building
“Issue
selling” to
executives
*The disru ptiveness of t hese tactic s may
increas e depending o n the content share d
Talking with
news medi a*
52 Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021
may embolden more employees to publicize
problematic business pr actices u sing thes e
new te chnologies.
1. Rising workforce expectations
|
Accord-
ing to a 2 016 Ga llup poll , youn ger gener a-
tions of American workers, beginning with
Millenn ials, have higher expec tations for
finding meaning and pur pose in their work,
instead of focusi ng only on mak ing a living.
As these employees become a lar ger sha re
of the workforce a nd ga in more influentia l
positions, their desire for meani ng and pur-
pose is tra nslating i nto higher expectations
that their employers will b oost CSR efforts.
The same poll indicate s that Millenn ials’ and
younger-generat ion employees’ lower levels
of loyalty towa rd their cur rent employer may
also make them more willin g to take risks with
their jobs by engaging in act ivism.
2. Empowerment as a management princi-
ple
|
The benefits of empowerment—the idea
that ind ividual employees shou ld have more
authority to direct their efforts and to pro-
vide input to organizat ional decision-making
—have been taught in bu siness scho ols for
decades and have been widely embraced across indus tries. Encourag-
ing workers to speak up h as been a cons tant theme in management
think ing, from t he tota l qua lity management (TQM) movement
of the 198 0s to the contemporary interest in c reating a cult ure of
innovation a nd entrepreneurship inside firms . Perhaps not surpris-
ingly, then, when employees are encouraged to share their ideas and
concerns about improving a busi ness, they are l ikely also to include
their ideas and concerns ab out C SR.
3. Urgent societal challenges
|
Activ ism on issues like climate
change, water scarcity, and access to basic human rig hts focuses in-
creasingly on companies as powerful a nd capable agents of change,
instead of governments perceived to b e too politica lly polariz ed to
be e ffectua l. In t his context, employees are more likely to consider
both how their employers contribute to these social challenges and
how t hey could better add ress them.
4. New technologies
|
In t he past decade , social media platforms
have optim ized in formatio n exch ange to ma ke plan ning an d exec uting
activi st tactics even easier and fas ter. Employees ca n share informa-
tion about their organi zations, mobili ze and plan events toget her,
and coordinate ac tivities acro ss organi zations, industr ies, sectors,
and geographic locations like never before—a nd, on social media,
at no financia l cost. These tech nologies are enabli ng employees to
reach a broad aud ience. For instance, when Facebook employees
complained about the low w ages and ps ychological trauma that
the company’s content moder ators ex perienced, their grievances
were broadcast widely on socia l med ia, sp arking media attention
and resulting in a lega l settlement.
THE EMPLOYEE ACTIVIST PLAYBOOK
Framed by t hese macro trends, research on social movements has
provided insights into how employee activ ists c an b e effec tive
in driving changes in their organizations’ practices, policies, a nd
decision-maki ng str uctures. Below, we compile these insights into
a playbook that c an g uide thos e looking to succeed as employee
activ ists. W hile t he core ideas i n this playbook have some overlap
with expert adv ice given to managers a nd entrepreneurs seek ing to
drive change in busi ness, notable differences arise when t he subject
involves social issues. T he figu re above outlines the pr imary tech-
niques that constitute the playb ook and suggests recommendations
for al lied manager s who seek to support their employees’ a ctivism.
1. Analyze the conditions
|
If you are con sidering becoming an
employee activ ist, you should fi rst ask yourself i f it is the ri ght time
for action. Employee activists should weigh t he possibil ity of suc-
cess—which usually involves changing company policies—against
the risk of ret aliation from coworkers, man agers, and others w ithin
the organizat ion. The risk of retaliation is real and, at worst, can
mean losing a job a nd da maging one’s career by b eing l abeled a
“troublema ker” or “disr uptive.” Ca reer da mage can occur more
subtly, too —for example, when someone is pa ssed over for oppor-
tunities or is ostracized by company and i ndustr y peers.
Beyond an employee’s appetite for r isk or personal conv ictions are
also systematic factors that can affect outcomes and that act ivists
must heed and weigh carefully. For in stance, ac tivists should con-
sider how well their goals align with their org anization’s m ission,
purpose , and values. Organiz ations that have the stated mission of
“improving lives,” for instance, may be more amenable to engaging
in dialogue with activ ists who possess evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, CEOs who have openly discusse d their personal expe-
rience with discriminat ion may be more receptive to activ ism on
workforce diversity issues.
In add ition to study ing the overt aspects of firms’ missions and
values, employee activists should be attuned to other elements
Employee Techniques and Managerial Support
There are five techniques used by persuasion-based employee activists, as well as
five potential supporting moves for managerial allies.
TECHNIQUE EXAMPLES MANAGER ALLY SUPPORT
Analyze the conditions LGBTQ employees wait for arrival of
sympathetic CEO before presenting the
internal case for change
Oer advice on when to approach lead-
ership and when to wait (or, to resort to
public action)
Frame the issue Food industry employees pushing the
launch of new meatless products em-
phasize growing health concerns among
consumers
Lend your expertise on frames that fit
the organization’s values/logic
Repurpose processes
and spaces
Physicians in training at major hospitals
use cafeteria and resident call rooms in
o hours to coordinate action against
powerful surgeons and administrators
to improve working conditions
Oer space/resources for a pilot project
Provide access to relevant data
Utilize knowledge of
the organization
Employees pursuing new sustainability
equities product at Bloomberg identify
line manager in traditional equities unit
to back initiative
Provide insight into which senior leaders
are most approachable on the issue
Leverage networks Human Rights Campaign compiles
information from activists and HR
managers across major corporations to
create Corporate Equality Index
Reach out to peers at other companies
Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021 53
of organizationa l cult ure. In organ izations t hat priz e innov ation,
for e xample, leaders may also b e more willing to hea r about inno-
vations related to business and social issues. Activ ists may also
utilize industry trends as a resource, taking adv antage of execut ives’
tendencies to benchmark agains t peer companies. L eaders’ fear of
missing out on an industr y trend ta king hold in r ival firms can moti-
vate cha nge. Finally, employee ac tivists might consider whether they
have indi vidual leverag e with their employer. For example, employ-
ees wit h specialized knowledge, skil ls, or abilities that are costl y for
their employer to lose (or replace) may be more insulated from the
hazard s of activ ism. By extension, build ing a coa lition of essent ial,
invaluable employees should increase employees’ chances of receiv-
ing meaningf ul consideration from the leadership.
2. Frame the issue
|
The ability to f rame a n issue is essential to
put it into a context that elicits direct action from suppor ters and
bystanders. Generally speaking, framing entails highlighting a
problem for which activists have a solution, or highlighti ng an op-
portu nity th at activis ts can help the organization realize, through
speciali zed lang uage focused on a n organ ization’s mission, needs,
or profit. For instanc e, employee activi sts have fra med the LGBTQ
issue of same-sex-partner benefits by arguing that companies need
to adopt these bene fits to w in the “ war for talent” or emerge as an
“employer of choice.” In doing so, employees effec tively lin k their
goals to the corporate b ottom line.
Of course, activists may frame issues differently for di fferent
audiences. Workplace diversity movements, for e xample, have found
that some cor porate decision makers are more receptive to “busi-
ness ca se” fram ing, focused on the dol lar value of talent retention ,
while other business managers a nd owners are more resp onsive to
moral framing, focused on equ ality and fairness. The challeng e for
activ ists is to use framing t hat is powerf ul for specific aud iences but
also flex ible enough to adapt to changing conditions, such as in cases
of new leadership, new laws, or new social controversies. Fra ming,
therefore, requires cons tant exper imentation and recalibration.
3. Repurpose processes and spaces
|
Employee activism requires
collective act ion. Howe ver, workplaces are not a lways conducive
to activists’ getti ng toget her to devise tactica l effor ts a gainst the
employing organi zation. One basic challenge is to find a mut ually
convenient time for shari ng concerns wit h others. Perhaps a bi gger
obstacle is to identify a space—physical or virtua l—where employ-
ees can speak freely, without fea r of retaliation from senior leaders,
and can work tow ard a shared understa nding of t he problem and
prospective ways of addressing it.
Research suggests employees can be quite creative in repu rpos-
ing organizationa l inf rastructure to build momentum for a social
cause. For i nstance, when e mployee diversity groups were first
founded in the late 1980s , some activis ts used company listservs to
find one another across large cor porations. Employee activists have
similarly used meeting rooms, R&D facilities, and on line discussion
platforms for o ff-hours gatherings and brainstormi ng meeti ngs.
And professional conferences have frequently served as o ccasions
for act ivists to share in formation across companies.
Besides repurposin g org anizational and occupational infr a-
struct ure to build a coalition, employee act ivists can a lso util ize
existin g decision-ma king systems and thei r knowledg e of corpo-
rate de cision-making norms in service of their goals. For i nstance,
employees push ing to increa se sustainabi lity at Nike leveraged t he
existin g supplier rating system, which evaluated suppliers based
on business dimensions such as on-time delivery, cost st ructure,
and quality a ssurance, b y adding a new category e valuating se ts of
sustain ability prac tices in suppliers’ operat ions.
4. Utilize knowledge of the organization
|
Whi le knowledge of the
organi zation helps facilitate a ll the steps desc ribed above, activist s
have par ticular opport unities to use in sights into the interna l social
and politica l landscape of a n organization to recruit influencers and
build cross- sector coalitions. Employees who have studied the in for-
mal cultu re and office politics are uniquely suited to identify intern al
champions who a re sympat hetic to the cause and able to influence
others and overcome political resista nce.
For exa mple, when an enterprising m anager at media a nd finan-
cial data conglomerate Bloomberg LP attempted to promote t he
development of envi ronmental, social, and cor porate gover nance
(ESG) metrics, he received skepticism from some qua rters of the
company about t heir relevance to Bloomberg LP ’s over all st rategy.
Undeterred, he pursued the support of a prom inent line ma nager in
the t raditional-equities group who was unaffi liated with the compa-
ny’s sustainability and social responsibility initiatives, figuring that
this endorsement wou ld help influence ot hers in the core business
units. And he wa s right—with this line manager’s support, the in i-
tiative ultimately ga ined the wider support necessary for adoption.
Activ ists may also consider building a di verse coalition of employ-
ees and m anagers located ac ross an organi zation. Research on or gan-
izational change supports this approach, ind icating that g roups with
members from d ifferent levels, units, and regions tend to be more
effective in driv ing change, by providi ng a var ied set of perspectives
and i nfluence channels , as well as by demonstrating bro ad support.
Another way in which activists can effectively harness their
knowledge of an orga nization is by identifyi ng ex ternal re ference
points th at can ser ve as powerfu l examples to rec ruit others a nd to
convince the company about the merits of t he proposed change . For
instance, activists m ay identify org anizations th at are often u sed to
benchmark the company’s other business decisions, and invoke them
strategica lly when presenting t heir case for change.
In the 1990s, activist s pushing for workplace diversity demon-
strated this approach when the y recogniz ed that they could make
use of a best-practices benchmarki ng consort ium called t he May-
flower Group to influence decision-makin g in other firms . The
Mayflower Group included Xerox, Johnson & Johns on, Motorola,
FedEx, and more than a dozen other Fo r tu ne 500 compan ies con-
sidered leaders and early adopters of various managerial practices.
Riva l firms in their respecti ve industr ies watched May flower mem-
bers closely, so when several of them a dopted new diversity HR
practices, such as prov iding domestic-pa rtner benefits for LGBTQ
employees, activists in tho se riva l firms started claiming them as
proof that the new pr actices had mer it. Of course, success requires
activ ists to understa nd which exter nal reference points make com-
pelling benchmarks in their organization and the degree to which
consensus exists a round them.
5. Leverage networks
|
Just as business or ganizations can ben-
efit from ma intaining and participating in an e xternal network of
industr y associations , suppliers, and reg ulatory bodies, s o too can
activ ists receive an advantage from forging ties w ith NGOs, industr y
54 Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2021
groups, and employees in pe er firms. Perhaps a universal benefit of
part icipating in peer networks is the exchan ge of tac tical informa -
tion. For inst ance, acti vists may share e xperiences ab out what has
worked at other orga nizations and about the sha red challenges that
have arisen elsewhere, so t hat they can import that knowledge to
enhance their efforts. T his ty pe of activism intelligence c an play a
usefu l role in energ izing fellow activists and potential rec ruits, as
well as in bu ilding a robus t movement to garner the attention of
senior leadersh ip.
Besides the direct sha ring of knowled ge, activists can also share
data to create a repository of industry ratings for t racking progress
across org anizations. As considerable research ha s documented, cor-
porations want a good reputation and jostle to gain elite status in
popular rankings like For tu ne ’s Best Companies to Work For. Activ-
ists ca n leverage thei r networks to t ake advantage of this cor porate
tendency by compiling information on organizationa l practices and
rating corporations on para meters of i nterests.
The efficacy of t his approach is perhaps best demonstr ated by
HRC, wh ich utilizes its network to compile d ata on the employment
practices of the largest corporations in the United States a nd makes
these dat a publicly available in the form of a corporate equalit y index
and related a nnual rep orts. H RC obtain s the data from a range of
sources, including company websites, employee ha ndbooks and
surve ys, a nd inter views. It not only helps act ivists and potent ial
employees who a re members of the L GBTQ com munity identify
which companies are making substantive progress and which a re
laggi ng behind but also creates a sense of competition among com-
panies to do b etter. Activist s furt her fuel t his competition as HRC
continually adds new metr ics for what it takes to g et a perfect score
(100 percent) on the index .
In addition to coordi nating w ith fellow activ ists in peer com-
panies, employees can form ties with li ke-minded cou nterparts at
customer or client organi zations, since t hese are cr ucial sources of
revenue and command sign ificant attention a mong corporate le ad-
ers. For exa mple, social just ice advocates inside professional ser vice
firms, such as law firms, have often coordinated with key clients so
that a consistent message has come from inside and outside.
ADVICE FOR MANAGERS
Employee activism is here to stay, and it wil l likely continue to
grow a cross all s ectors in com ing years. Managers t herefore need
to adapt to this new reality— at mini mum, to avoid unnecessar y
costs and additional disruption to their organi zation, a nd, at
best, to play a proactive role in u nlocking new sh ared v alue that
employee activism can bring to the enter prise. We recommend
three steps that managers can take to engage more effectively
with employee acti vists.
First, managers can hone their understandi ng of how cur rent
social issues connect w ith their org anization’s pu rpose, m ission,
and v alues. They should think through the links be tween the bu si-
ness and each d imension of its CSR e fforts. In large companies,
this involves releva nt doma in mana gers, while in sma ller organ i-
zations it means that m anagers need to do this work independently
or confer with outside ex perts. Either way, this ca n help manager s
avoid b eing caug ht off guard as employee demands arise a nd can
help g uide responses to emerg ing act ivist na rratives.
Second, managers can culti vate relationships with intern al and
external stakeholders—including nonprofits, industry associations,
and lead ing experts on salient socia l issues. The work of relationship
building takes time, but it ca n pay dividends. Some ca n be formal,
others in formal, and employees may a lso serve as willing br idges or
conduits to ex ternal stakeholders. T hese ties can equip managers
with i nformation, alert them to emergin g social and industry trends ,
and help t hem to realize their own blind spots and biases. They can
also help managers to build credibil ity with employee act ivists and
can potent ially position the managers as valuable mediators bet ween
activists and senior leadership.
Third, effective mana gers learn how to listen to employee a ctiv-
ists and give t hem a forum in w hich to share ideas and concer ns.
Manager s who keep an open mind often realize th at some employee
ideas ca n benefit the org anization’s long-term i nterests, even if they
seem like unwelcome distract ions in the short ru n. Listening is not
the same thing as capit ulating to demands . Instead, it is a chance
to try to underst and di fferent stakeholder perspectives . Af ter lis -
tening, managers may also have a n opening to discu ss contrastin g
perspecti ves and/or pressures that the busi ness is u nder.
Some m anagers a re also deciding to serve as allies to employee
social activis ts, helping them toward their or ganizational- change
goals. Such allies are not necessari ly par ticipants in the activ ism,
but t hey can have a big influence on whether the act ivists a re suc-
cessful , as they leverage deep fa miliarity with the organization a nd
its leadership to help activists enact the playbo ok, as indicated in the
figure on page 52 . Most man agers who choose to become all ies wi ll
do so becau se of an alignment between their personal values a nd
activi st goals. However, bein g an ally also benefits business , because
employee activ ism can improve stakeholder relations and e ven spark
innovation, insofar as activists and their efforts can become a well-
spring for the identi fication of new products, services, customer
segments, and business oppor tunities. Thei r activism can also con-
tribute to sustaining organizational cultures th at help attract talent
and support the firm’s positive marketplace reputation.
In all scenarios, mana gers should try to avoid prematurely judgi ng
activist employees as misguided troublemakers. Maintaining civility
and transparenc y throug hout the process is imperative, and man-
agers need to model those qualities, e ven if discussions intensif y.
CREATING SOCIAL GOOD—TOGETHER
Employee acti vists are pa rt of an increasingly complex stakeholder
landscap e that business leaders face today. Far gone are the days when
manager s could cleanly di fferentiate between employee ideas about
“improv ing the business” and employee dema nds for “addressing
social issues.” Instea d, the two are blurring together.
For for ward-leaning leaders, this trend is an opportunit y to
harness the upside of acti vist employees . The advanta ges of this
activ ism could include harnessing their role in identifying new
products, services , and business opportun ities; sustaining organ -
izational cultures that help attrac t creative talent; and suppor ting
the firm’s positive ma rketplace reputation. D oing so might even
raise the possibility of regaining an increasingly imperiled status
for business leaders as creators of social good , while avoidin g tangi-
ble threat s to their b ottom line and improving t he viability of their
business for the long h aul. n
