As the former CEO of a global organization with 35,000 employees and now serving on the boards of three public companies, I have deep sympathy for my fellow business leaders as the United States heads into a close and contentious election year . The June 27 presidential debate feels like the kickoff to new and heightened emotions, which means business leaders will once again find themselves dealing with political drama at work.
Even outside the United States, this year’s national elections are unprecedented. By 2024, there will be more than 50 such events worldwide, affecting nearly half of the planet’s population. These range from November’s U.S. presidential race to already-concluded elections, such as the vote in Mexico and Taiwan, that will shape geopolitics for years to come.
This time of critical choice is stressful for everyone, especially business leaders. Previously, there were clear boundaries between an individual’s personal and professional life, but these boundaries are gradually disappearing. Business leaders have to not only make positive statements and take a stand on today’s seemingly most divisive issues, but do so in a way that doesn’t cross the line or offend, which is, by definition, an almost impossible task.
To put it mildly, business leaders may fear the possible consequences of saying or doing the wrong thing. The stakes are highlighted by the resignations of top universities over academic leaders’ comments and handling of the conflict in Gaza.
Looking back on my own experience, I understand how difficult this can be. One misstep in particular stands out.
After the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I wrote a few lines in a routine weekly email to my team to commemorate her life—a kind, personal one. , apolitical messages. In my mind, I was acknowledging the life of a female Cornell graduate—one who accomplished so much well beyond the age at which many professionals are considered past their prime. To me, it’s about acknowledging diverse voices and the pride you feel when someone from your alma mater goes on to achieve great things. I did not mention her opinion or her ruling. I included her photo and forwarded this article to my HR, legal, and public relations partners to make sure I didn’t trip over any wires.
What I didn’t do was think about how these comments might be interpreted outside of HR, legal, and PR among colleagues who viewed her as a standard-bearer for moral and political stances on women’s rights, including health care and abortion. I did not anticipate that what I viewed as an acknowledgment of an extraordinary life would be interpreted by others as a blanket endorsement of all her public positions and rulings.
What I lacked when I was conceptualizing my position was a broader perspective. But soon a team member helped me expand the framework.
Throughout my corporate career, I have maintained an inbox where team members could anonymously comment on any issues that might arise in our organization, and through it, I did receive comments on my posts that were specifically worded. Strong reply. To give this commenter an equal voice in the conversation, I read this message at the next plenary meeting to express my sincere gratitude to the authors for their candor and courage in sharing their different perspectives.
An important takeaway for me is that leaders committed to inclusion must purposefully seek out contrarian perspectives. True inclusivity welcomes the perspectives of people from all backgrounds, including political views. Leaders succeed when they build genuine, trustworthy relationships with a wider range of stakeholders. As leaders, we need to be curious and empathetic, accepting and understanding the strongly held views of our stakeholders, even if they do not align with our own personal ideologies.
A few simple conversations with the rest of the team could have saved me. They might simply explain that my admission did not reflect shared company values and instead created the impression of supporting one side of the political aisle rather than the other.
My example isn’t even one of the hardest needles to thread. It’s voluntary, and today, without a doubt, we all know at least a half-dozen divisive topics on which leaders are likely to argue. forced Share their opinions. This creates tremendous pressure—whether from employees or customers—to say something. In some cases, saying nothing may be seen as a leader abdicating his responsibility to care for his people. In fact, when shared values or the safety and well-being of stakeholders are at risk, saying nothing may be seen as cowardice or even undermine trust.
To leaders on this front today, I would like to offer this advice: Consider the difference between values and ideology. In any group, there are shared values. That’s your North Star. Ideologies—often political or religious in origin—are more likely to be personal. There are exceptions where the ideology is a shared value: for example, a religious organization, or a bank that advocates free market capitalism.
This framework—shared values on the one hand, and personal ideology on the other—is a clear indicator for me of when to speak out and when to keep my personal stance to myself.
Leaders should feel pressure to make statements on public matters only if they reflect the purpose of the organization, the core values held by the organization, or the needs of the people the leader serves. It follows that organizations that have done the hard work of clarifying their purpose and values will be better prepared to make good decisions when facing challenging public issues. This approach de-prioritizes what leaders want to say and instead elevates what the organization must say to thrive while doing the right thing for employees.
It also means talking to a range of stakeholders (board members, key members, investors, valued customers, partners, etc.) before making any announcement to better understand their potential reactions. Take the time to weigh the broader consequences of your actions within the context of your personality, standards and corporate values.
As the saying goes, “country over party,” from a business leader’s perspective, the path forward must be guided by “purpose over politics.”
More must-read comments by wealth:
The views expressed in Fortune Star review articles represent solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the following views and beliefs: wealth.
