Integrity Ideas are specific actions a leader can consider during the RE-ALIGN step of Integriosity^®—actions that will begin to RE-ALIGN the organization with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities.  You can find more Integrity Ideas at Integrous | Integrity Ideas (integriosity.com)

INTEGRITY IDEA: Don’t Take the Communication Bait

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” is about a faithful leader implementing a communications policy that creates clear guidelines for employees on responding to or commenting on inquiries from the press, criticism, and controversial social and political issues.

It recognizes that in a broken world in which the standard is business as usual in alignment with the world’s ways, an organization pursuing alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities will inevitably encounter spiritual resistance, and that resistance can come in the form of communications “bait.”

With this being an election week that holds the possibility of political and social power shifts, faithful leaders must be prepared for continuing and renewed pressure to comment on controversial topics.

Integrity Ideas are practical actions toward implementing a bigger WHY for the organization.  Some are helpful ideas to consider as a faithful leader prayerfully discerns how best to steward the organization. Others may be important steps in the RENEW/RE-IMAGINE/RE-ALIGN/RESTORE process.

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” falls into the “necessary” category.  The absence of guidelines that have been developed through prayerful discernment leaves the organization open to communicating reactive responses to provocation or controversy that undermine its WHY and its witness. 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.”

The University Case Study

The way universities handled controversial topics in the last few years highlights the importance of having policies in place before the situations they are intended to address arise.  We discussed this in post #239 (“Commenting on Controversy” Revisited).

A Wall Street Journal article from August 2024 made the observation that the presidents of five of the eight Ivy League universities had stepped down since the Israel-Gaza war began.  But this was the most insightful observation in the article, in our view:

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

The Importance of Communications Policies

It is a Biblical lesson going all the way back to the days of Hezekiah.  In Isaiah 36, we learn that the King of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh to King Hezekiah with a great army.  In verses 4–20, we see his efforts to provoke and intimidate Hezekiah’s people, speaking to them in their own language.  And then in verse 21 we learn about Hezekiah’s “Don’t Take the Communication Bait” policy:

But they were silent and answered him not a word, for the king’s command was, “Do not answer him.”

A modern-day Hezekiah may not face an army at their wall, but resistance to business a better way may come in the form of challenges from worldly systems. The Bible reminds us that the struggle involves spiritual forces, not merely the people and institutions through which resistance may come:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.  (Ephesians 6:12)

Communication “bait” may be one way that the kingdom of the world responds to, and tries to undermine the reputation of, a faithful leader following countercultural practices. James Hunter warns:

To enact a vision of human flourishing based in the qualities of life that Jesus modeled will invariably challenge the given structures of the social order.

Prayerfully developed communications policies can help faithful leaders and their people prepare for that temptation and respond with wisdom rather than react under pressure.

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, a common approach for public companies is to have a “no comment” policy on market rumors, whether the rumors are true or untrue, subject to applicable disclosure obligations.  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.  Following a denial with a future “no comment” may be interpreted as confirmation that the development has in fact occurred.  Moreover, the earlier denial may raise questions about whether further disclosure is required when circumstances change.

Even when nothing has changed, switching from a denial to “no comment” because there was no policy to guide responses may 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.

Jill E. Fisch and Jeff Schwartz describe this dynamic in their University of Chicago Business Law Review article, “How Did Corporations Get Stuck in Politics and Can They Escape?” They suggest that corporations become caught in a “feedback loop” in which responding to demands for political involvement “normalizes the conduct and leads to escalating expectations for further engagement.” A faithful leader’s decision to speak today can create expectations that the organization will speak tomorrow—even when the next controversy does not bear directly on its WHY.

Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt, has been a prominent advocate of a policy of “institutional neutrality” for universities.  Whether or not you agree with Diermeier, 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 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 representatives should respond to inquiries from the press, when provoked, or when asked to take a position on controversial social and political issues.

A person’s decision about how to respond in the moment 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 a response consistent with that policy even if it is costly to the organization.

In an article published by the American Bar Association’s Business Law Today, Maritza T. Adonis makes an important distinction: “The most important question is not who speaks for the corporation. It is who decides, and according to what process.” For a faithful leader, a communications policy should establish not only authorized spokespeople but also a process for prayerfully discerning whether speaking—or remaining silent—is consistent with faithful stewardship of the organization’s WHY.

Biblical Communications Wisdom

The Bible contains several passages that provide wisdom about communications:

• Proverbs 26:4-6 urges discernment regarding when to remain silent and when to respond, as well as care in choosing a messenger:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool
cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.

• Later in verse 17, Proverbs 26 warns against meddling in another’s quarrel—a principle relevant to commenting on controversial issues that do not bear directly on the organization’s purpose:

Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.

• Proverbs 15:28 urges discernment and reflection before responding:

The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer.

• The need to ensure that you understand what is being asked before responding is emphasized by Proverbs 18:13:

If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.

But the best example of a wise and courageous communicator is Jesus. In Matthew 22, we see him provoked by the Pharisees with a politically charged question about paying taxes to Caesar. Jesus does not take the bait. He recognizes their intent and answers without accepting the choice they attempt to force upon him.

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?” (Matthew 22:15-18)

In verses 19–22, Jesus asks them to identify the image and inscription on a coin and distinguishes what belongs to Caesar from what belongs to God. His answer leaves his questioners marveling—and they leave him.

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” under God’s guidance and accountable to Him, in order to faithfully steward the organization’s WHY with authenticity.

CONTINUUM: Policies

The Integriosity model organizes “heart change” along six Covert-Overt Continuums.  There is nothing inherently magical about these categories, but we believe they are helpful in thinking about practical execution of a Re-Imagined Purpose, Re-Imagined Values, and a Re-Imagined Culture.  The Continuums are Prayer, Proclamation, Policies, Practices, Products, People.

Each Continuum represents an area in which leaders can begin to think about, plan, and institute Re-Alignment changes to the heart of the organization.

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” is on the Policies Continuum. It involves establishing organization-wide communication policies.

COVERT-OVERT RATING: Highly Covert

The Integriosity model breaks the Covert-Overt Continuums into six gradations—from Highly Covert to Highly Overt—that we believe are helpful in beginning to pray and think about what is most appropriate for an organization at a particular moment in time.

Most Integrity Ideas have one place on the scale.  Some can vary depending on how they are implemented.  We identify “Don’t Take the Communication Bait” as Highly Covert (an action that would be taken by a secular company). As the last few years have illustrated, even secular organizations would benefit from self-restraint in how they respond to “bait”—provocation and requests to comment, particularly on controversial social and political issues.

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” can also move toward the overt end of the Continuum to the extent faithful leaders explain communications policies in terms of the Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities they reflect.

STAKEHOLDERS SERVED: Employees, Customers/Clients, Owners, Community, Kingdom

When we categorize faith-based actions, we also consider the stakeholders principally impacted by the action: Employees, Customers/Clients, Owners, Suppliers/Vendors, Community, and Kingdom.

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” serves many different stakeholders. Employees are served by having clear guidelines within which to operate. Owners benefit from the organization operating out of wisdom and preparation. Customers/Clients are freer to make their decisions about the organization based on its products, services, and its WHY. The Community and the Kingdom benefit from the organization standing as a model of behavior based on self-restraint and Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities.

IMPLEMENTATION

The focus of this post is responding to communications “bait.”  A broader communications policy aligned with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities should also address truthfulness, openness, and a respectful tone. But we believe a wise policy must address not only “how” to speak but when not to speak.

When it comes to setting guardrails on “bait,” we believe drawing on Hezekiah’s example of disciplined silence and Diermeier’s principle of being clear about your purpose and acting accordingly means putting in place a policy to ensure that:

• People know they should refer inquiries seeking the organization’s official response to designated spokespeople.

• People know they should not respond online on behalf of the organization (or in a way that might be associated with the organization) to provocation or lies about the organization or its people. They should refer such matters to the designated person or team for assessment. At the same time, the organization must remain open to legitimate criticism.

• The organization is prepared to take positions on controversial social and political issues that bear directly on the pursuit of its purpose, values, and culture—while resisting taking positions on potentially divisive issues that do not.

In the divisiveness of our current political and social environment, resisting the temptation to take a position on controversial topics may be the most difficult. 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 can be less divisive than publicly taking a position on a highly controversial social or political issue.

Fisch and Schwartz observe:

Within the last decade, the nature of corporate participation in politics has shifted dramatically. Companies now routinely make public statements that seek to align themselves explicitly with certain—usually progressive—political views that have no tie to their underlying business interests.

The authors warn that corporate political posturing “often backfires” and can do so “unpredictably and potentially catastrophically.” It is important to note that Fisch and Schwartz analyze corporations acting from a business as usual perspective—including efforts to “monetize the value of partisanship” and advance organizational or executive self-interest. In Integriosity terms, these reflect Profit as Purpose and the Self Interest Assumption.

A faithful leader pursuing business a better way must assess these pressures and risks through a different lens: faithful stewardship of the organization’s WHY toward Biblical flourishing. Their warnings are relevant, but avoiding backlash is not the measure of faithfulness. Faithful stewardship requires considering the potential consequences without allowing fear to determine the response.

Unlike a university which, in the words of Diermeier, 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”.

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

Fisch and Schwartz distinguish “political posturing” from statements that reinforce an organization’s established identity. Their distinction supports an important point for faithful leaders: resisting pressure to comment on controversy need not mean concealing or abandoning the organization’s WHY. The question is whether speaking authentically expresses that WHY or allows the organization to be pulled into a controversy that does not serve it.

• 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 people whose contributions sustain the organization.

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”?

Stakeholder agreement is a practical consideration, but it cannot replace prayerful discernment about faithful stewardship. Speaking up may sometimes be necessary despite stakeholder disagreement.

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).

In developing a policy on responding to “bait,” a faithful leader should prayerfully consider:

• What principles will guide decisions about when the organization will and will not take a stand on political and social issues or engage in politically explicit marketing and promotional activities.

• Who will be authorized to speak on behalf of the organization.

• What person or group of people will determine whether the organization will respond to untruthful allegations or comment on a controversial political or social topic, when it will respond or comment, the substance of its response or comment, and the manner in which it will respond or comment.

• What information decision-makers will need to evaluate the issue, the available responses, and the consequences of speaking or remaining silent—and how the reasons for their decision will be recorded.

• What changes in circumstances would warrant reconsidering a decision to speak or remain silent, applying the same purpose, values, and principles that guided the original decision.

• Whether a public relations firm retained to assist the organization with communications understands and embraces the organization’s commitment to Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities.  There are communication advisors, such as &Associates (formerly A. Larry Ross Communications), who specialize in advising faith-aligned organizations.

• Whether, and under what circumstances, the organization should restrict employees from publicly commenting on controversial topics in their individual capacity, consistent with applicable law and faithful stewardship of both the organization and its people.

• Whether the organization should organize information sessions and internal discussions on a controversial topic, either before or after the organization comments publicly.

• How employees will be trained to use the policy, including how to refer inquiries and how to respond when pressed for an immediate comment.

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, or public opinion. Applicable legal obligations must be honored, but faithful stewardship requires more than asking, “What does the law require?”

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.

PERSONAL NOTE (from PM):  I recently attended a law school reunion. At one point, the Dean began talking about a divisive issue. He referenced the school’s “institutional neutrality” policy in a way that made me wonder if he saw it as the “right thing to do” in an academic setting or an unwanted obstacle to be tolerated, complied with, and worked around.

ESSENCE:  Integrity Ideas are specific practical actions a faithful leader can consider in leading faithfully through business a better way.

INTEGRITY IDEA: Don’t Take the Communication Bait

“Don’t Take the Communication Bait” is about a faithful leader implementing a communications policy that creates clear guidelines for employees on responding to or commenting on inquiries from the press, criticism, and controversial social and political issues.  It recognizes that in a broken world in which the standard is business as usual in alignment with the world’s ways, an organization pursuing alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities will inevitably encounter resistance, and that resistance can come in the form of communications “bait.” 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.” The way universities handled controversial topics in the last few years highlights the importance of having policies in place before the situations they are intended to address arise.  It is a Biblical lesson going all the way back to the days of Hezekiah. 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” under God’s guidance and accountable to Him, in order to faithfully steward the organization’s WHY with authenticity.  Jesus famously recognized “bait” in questions from the Pharisees and responded with disarming wisdom. Proverbs calls for discernment about when and how to answer “fools.” Practically, it means putting in place policies that ensure the organization and its people are prepared and empowered to say “no comment” when appropriate, allow provocation to fade with the news cycle, and take positions on controversial social and political issues that bear directly on the pursuit of the organization’s purpose, values, and culture—while remaining open to legitimate criticism and resisting taking positions on potentially divisive issues that do not.  

COVERT-OVERT CONTINUUM (six Continuums for action): Policies

COVERT-OVERT RATING (several levels from Highly Covert to Highly Overt): Highly Covert

STAKEHOLDERS SERVED: Employees, Customers/Clients, Owners, Community, Kingdom

Copyright © 2026 Integrous LLC.  Integriosity is a registered Service Mark of Integrous LLC.

Photo credit: Original image by ClickerHappy on https://www.pexels.com/@clickerhappy/
(photo cropped)