Why staying in your lane makes sense for many senior leaders
I’m very careful about what I post online. The “Gail Golden” you hear from in my posts and newsletters is my professional persona. To use one of my favorite words, I carefully curate what I share on social media so it fits my brand as a leadership advisor and executive performance coach.
It’s not that I don’t have strong opinions on all kinds of subjects. Believe me, I can sound off on a wide variety of topics, most of which I have little or no expertise on. But I confine those diatribes to personal communications with people I know well.
Pressure to pipe up
To be honest, there are times I’ve felt guilty about that. One of my friends said to me, “Gail, you are in a position of influence. You could be using your voice to address some of the serious political and moral issues of our day.”
BUT, no one is paying me to be their political or moral advisor. My expertise is helping people become the best leaders they can be — as individuals, as teams and as organizations. So that’s what I write about in the public sphere.
In the past few years, there has been a lot of pressure on corporations, academic institutions and other large organizations to take a public stance on many moral and political issues. This has become sort of a Catch-22 for senior leaders. If they put out a point of view — let’s say on immigration — they will be cheered by those who agree with them and vilified by those who don’t. If they don’t express an opinion, they may be vilified for being morally inadequate. It’s a no-win situation.
This dilemma has been especially apparent as the presidents of a number of elite universities have been pressed to take a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Several college presidents have been forced to resign because their remarks were deemed offensive.
Why institutional neutrality makes sense
As universities have wrestled with this complex issue, a number of them have turned to the University of Chicago’s principle of “institutional neutrality.” Tom Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, characterized his university’s policy as a near-ban on its leaders and administrators making official statements on events in the wider world, such as elections or war.
Stepping back from issuing an institutional response, Ginsburg said, clears the way for scholars who are experts in those areas to take positions and engage in the wider societal conversation. He went on to say that the UChicago policy makes an exception for developments considered to be at the core of its institutional mission of education and teaching.
It seems to me that UChicago’s approach is a wise one for business leaders to follow. We may choose to comment on controversies that are within our area of expertise or directly related to our work’s mission. But straying outside those boundaries puts us at risk and poses several dangers. We may alienate some of our peers and customers. Or we may come off as arrogant idiots who are opining on matters we really don’t know much about. Either way, it’s not going to be good for us as individuals or for the organizations we serve.
Explore more about what it takes to be an effective leader in today’s business world by reaching out at ggolden@gailgoldenconsulting.com.
