Episode Summary

Should companies be involved in politics? What issues (moral, economic, or otherwise) should they take? Does politicalization impact their bottom line? How should they navigate the ever changing landscape of what's deemed "political" in the US today? Kim and Steve dig into these questions and more on this episode of Yes & No.

Show Notes

Kim’s Notes

Business Roundtable Decision: Changed purpose of organization from “maximize shareholder return” to “maximize return, deliver value to employees and customers, and support communities in which they operate”

NBER: Tracks the polarization of American executive teams. Between 2009-2020 executive teams became increasingly politically homogeneous–a lot of political actions have been pushed by the C-suite teams themselves, not employees.

The Big Sort: Startling demographic data showing how Americans have been sorting themselves over the past three decades into increasingly homogeneous communities–not just at the regional level, or the red-state/blue-state level, but at the micro level of city and neighborhood.

Leslie Cornfeld: “Talent is equally distributed, opportunity is not. Our mission is to help change that.” 1985 graduate of Harvard Law, and founder and C.E.O. of the nonprofit National Education Equity Lab.

Steve’s Notes

Hydock, C., Paharia, N., & Blair, S. (2020). Should Your Brand Pick a Side? How Market Share Determines the Impact of Corporate Political Advocacy. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(6), 1135–1151. Research suggesting taking a political stance on controversial topics creates greater risk for large companies but may help small companies grow market share.

Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S.-O., & Lin-Hi, N. (2012). The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees' affective commitment: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1186–1200. Study that found that company’s social activities do influence employee commitment, but the nature of the impact varies across cultures.