We devoted post 219 (Integrity Idea 048: Keep Controversy Within Your Mission) to the idea that faithful leaders seeking to lead with faithful integrity toward Biblical flourishing should consider putting in place policies and practices to ensure that the organization is prepared to take positions on controversial social and political issues that impact pursuing its purpose, values and culture but resists taking positions on potentially divisive issues that do not.

As in our two most recent posts (#237–“Real” Culture Revisited and #238–“Pay Today” Revisited), the news has inspired us to revisit an important idea.  This time it is an August 18, Wall Street Journal article titled Campus Protests Pushed Ivy League Presidents Out. How Leaders Are Holding On.

Ivy League Turnover

The recent WSJ article starts with the following observation:

Running a high-profile university during a war in the Middle East where students, faculty and alumni are at odds has turned into one of the toughest jobs in America to keep.

It notes that five Ivy League universities (remember, there are only 8!) have seen their presidents step-down in recent months, and nobody is happy:

Alumni want protesters to stop diminishing the brand of their alma maters. Faculty want an end to the disruption of classes. Parents want safety for their children.

But this was the sentence in the article that inspired us to “revisit” the topic of “Keep Controversy Within Your Mission”:

If a university had not already adopted institutional neutrality before Oct. 7, it was in a bind once the war began. 

The Importance of Policies

Policies are most helpful (i) when they are in place before the situation arises that they are intended to address and (ii) when they are followed consistently.

For example, it is generally recommended that (absent a disclosure obligation) public companies have a “no comment ” policy on market rumors, whether the rumors are true or untrue.  When issuing a “no comment” response, it is helpful to be able to say, “We have a long-standing policy of not commenting on rumors or trading activity in our securities.”  It is helpful both from the standpoint of credibility and from the standpoint of giving clear direction to employees.

The problem with truthfully denying the existence of a material development on any given day is that you may find yourself unable to repeat the denial in the future.  Purposefully following a denial with a future “no comment” will be a transparent affirmation that the development has in fact occurred.  Moreover, the company may have a duty to correct the “denial” if facts change and the market is still relying on the denial.

Inconsistently following a denial with a future “no comment” when nothing has changed (because there was no policy to guide responses) may, at best, cause market confusion.

Just as public companies benefit from a clear policy on what to say in response to market rumors, it seems clear that many universities would have benefitted from a policy on how they will address controversial social and political issues that have the potential to divide their community.  The WSJ article observes (emphasis added):

If, for example, presidents had previously condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or the murder of George Floyd, they often felt compelled to weigh in when Hamas militants murdered 1,200 Israelis in October or when the Israeli military responded by attacking Gaza. If they didn’t, their silence was noted.

Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt, has probably received the most attention for advocating a policy of “institutional neutrality” for universities.  Whether or not you agree with Dermeier, we believe his WHY is worth noting:

You have to be clear about what your purpose is, and then act accordingly.

Diermeier’s approach is also reflected in the comments of Dartmouth’s new president Sian Beilock who said she asked herself “What are we trying to do here?”

We could not agree more, and we believe “act accordingly” should include a clear policy on how the organization’s representative should respond when asked to take a position on controversial social and political issues.

The real-time moment of someone’s decision on how to respond is likely to be influenced by factors such as emotion, fear of failure, a desire to “succeed”, time-pressure, and worldly-pressure–all of which can push a person toward an action that undermines the purpose and values of the organization.   Having a policy defined before that moment will help the person stay “on mission”, particularly when they trust that the organization’s leaders will support the decision even if it is costly to the organization.

“Commenting on Controversy” with Faithful Integrity

For faithful leaders leading with faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing, we believe following Dermeier’s principle–being clear about your purpose and acting accordingly–means putting in place policies and practices to ensure that the organization is prepared to take positions on controversial social and political issues that impact pursuing its purpose, values and culture but resists taking positions on potentially divisive issues that do not.

Unlike a university which, in the words of Dermeier, is about being a “platform where ideas can really flow”, a business pursuing faithful integrity in alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles and priorities should be about providing goods and services in a way that maximizes Biblical flourishing by Humanizing People, Beautifying the World and Glorifying God. 1 Thessalonians and Ecclesiastes provide guidance for a faithful leader pursuing faithful integrity:

But we urge you, brothers . . . to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12)

Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes.  (Ecclesiastes 11:9)

“Aspire to live quietly” but “walk in the ways of your heart”.  Like decisions about where to land on the Covert-Overt Continuums, faithful integrity when “commenting on controversy” requires a continual prayerful balancing of the call to be courageous and the need to be wise.  Both the idolization and fear of “speaking out“ may lead to poor stewardship.  

There is no easy formula or algorithm for determining whether a particular social or political issue calls for wisdom to “shut up” or courage to “speak up”.  It is about ABIDING in the leading of the Holy Spirit–not STRIVING to look “faithful”.

When it comes to finding a place on the Covert-Overt Continuums, we suggested the balancing act of courage and wisdom is better thought of as “courage tempered by wisdom”.  We think the reverse is a better approach when assessing whether to “shut up” or “speak up” on controversial social/political topics–“wisdom tempered by courage”.

While overt expressions of Biblical faith such as prayer at meetings, workplace Bible studies and prayer groups, corporate chaplains, Bible verses on packaging, giving out Bibles to workers and customers, and including “God” or “Faith” in the mission and values, may turn some people away or even offend them, they are not nearly as divisive as publicly taking a position on a highly controversial social or political issue.

“Shut up” should be the default unless prayerful discernment reveals to faithful leaders that “shut up” is inconsistent with the best stewardship of its Re-Imagined Purpose, Re-Imagined Values and Re-Imagined Culture.  Then it is time to “speak up”.

• While all people in an organization need to be aligned with its purpose, values and culture, they need not be aligned as to controversial societal and political issues that do not impact pursuit of the organization’s purpose, values and culture.  “Speaking up” when not mission-driven risks undermining flourishing by unnecessarily dividing employees and being perceived as disrespecting the views of those who disagree.

• “Speaking up” on controversial societal and political issues when not mission-driven risks undermining the sustainability element of faithful stewardship by unnecessarily alienating the organization’s human capital–its people.

Ultimately, in determining whether “speak up” or “shut up” is the best stewardship of an organization, faithful leaders must prayerfully seek God’s guidance.  A Harvard Business Review article provides one practical framework for assessing whether “speaking up” is mission-driven.  Author Paul Argenti of Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business suggests focusing on three questions:

• Does the issue align with the organization’s strategy and mission?

• Can the organization meaningfully influence the issue?

• Will the organization’s stakeholders agree with it “speaking up”?

Policies as Authenticity

Where the organization’s Re-Imagined Purpose and Re-Imagined Values serve as a plumbline to keep the organization heading in the right direction, policies are part of its culture and can help translate that purpose and those values into a Re-Imagined Culture, serving as the guardrails to keep its people heading in the same direction (and staying out of ditches).

As we first described way back in post #43 (Righteousness–Need for Authenticity), “authenticity” is critical to faithful integrity.  Authenticity can be thought of as having four components:

• Identity: The organization is clear about its WHY–its purpose, priorities and its values.
• Sincerity: The WHY the organization professes is actually the WHY to which its leaders are committed.
• Consistency: The organization operates consistently in accordance with its WHY.
• Transparency: The organization is clear and open about its WHY and that WHY is understood by its owners, employees, customers, vendors and community.

A policy about when to “speak up” or “shut up” on controversial topics must be authentic, with each decision prayerfully being driven by faithful stewardship of the organization’s WHY. Leading with faithful integrity demands that such a policy not be driven by the personal opinions or politics of the organization’s leaders or by fear, guilt, public opinion, or legal obligation.

It must come from an understanding that the organization’s work itself is a sacred pursuit to be faithfully stewarded and not just a secular platform for sacred deeds.

Armed with a policy on “Commenting on Controversy” that authentically reflects the organization’s purpose and values, its people are empowered, in Dermeier’s words, to “act accordingly”.

PERSONAL NOTE (from PM):  In my role as a father, I am very happy that Vanderbilt’s new Chancellor and Dartmouth’s new President have surfaced as two models in how universities handle divisive social and political issues.  Our son graduated from Vanderbilt in 2021 and our daughter graduated from Dartmouth in 2023.  I am not so happy in my role as a Harvard alumnus.

ESSENCE: Leading with faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing should include implementing policies about when the organization will “speak up” or “shut up” about controversial social and political issues.  A recent news story highlights the importance of having policies in place before situations arise that the policies are intended to address.   We believe leading in alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles and priorities requires wisdom tempered by courage, prayerfully aspiring to “live quietly” while walking “in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes” to faithfully steward the organization’s WHY with authenticity.  Practically it means putting in place policies that ensure the organization and its people are prepared and empowered to take positions on controversial social and political issues that impact pursuing its purpose, values and culture but resist taking positions on potentially divisive issues that do not.  

Copyright © 2024 Integrous LLC.  Integriosity is a registered Service Mark of Integrous LLC.

Photo Credit: Original image by Petr from Pixabay (photo cropped)