| Amy & Kelton’s “Point-Counter Point” on “Captive Speech” Legislation and its Impact on Corporate Grassroots Programs
I was alerted to pending legislation in West Virginia by one of my successors at Nationwide Insurance, the always-learning and growing Chad Wilson, now leader of Nationwide’s esteemed Civic Action Program (That program, by the way, turns 30, yes, as in three decades, this year).
The legislation would prohibit employers from requiring their employees to attend meetings where employers offer their opinions about religious or political matters. If you don’t think that sounds ominous, you should. Applied liberally, this cuts to the very bone and marrow of corporate grassroots involvement programs.
Good corporate grassroots programs utilize lots of opportunities to get employees together to discuss candidates, issues, and to learn about how government action impacts their jobs. This legislation would make that illegal, although I’ve never, in almost twenty years in this profession, seen or heard of an employer who “requires” employee attendance at such meetings. In fact, they avoid such language with great zeal.
The legislation’s sponsors cite recent actions by the business community to engender employee involvement in legislative issues, most notably the Business Industry Political Action Committee’s (BIPAC) “Prosperity Project” and the U.S. Chamber’s “Vote for Business” programs. These programs provide turn-key web interfaces that help employers quickly educate their employees about issues that impact the business community in general, and the candidates that favor pro-business positions.
Company-sponsored programs that educate employees about issues that impact their jobs have been in existence since ARCO and Nationwide Insurance got in the game in 1978, and they have only grown since. What’s changed? Why the attention now?
This is happening for several reasons. First, we can assume that these advocacy programs have achieved their intended effect. According to Bethany Dame, Executive Director of Grassroots Advocacy at BIPAC:
- Nearly 12 million voters said the information they received from their employer was the most credible they received during the election
- 53 percent wished their employers would provide more information about issues and how they impact their jobs
- 24 percent said that employer-provided information made them more likely to vote
- Employees don’t want to be told for whom to vote but they do want information on the issues that matter to their company and job and how candidates voted on those issues.
Second, the approach used to inform employees may be one-sided and that always strikes fear in the heart of worker’s rights groups. I’ve been a proponent of greater employee education on the external legislative and political factors that impact the business, because that is a part of any company’s operating environment, like the stock price or the tactics of their competitors. Just ask Wal-Mart or Microsoft.
When executed properly, (and I’ll get to what that means below) these programs lead to increased espirit de corps among employees, and, not incidentally, an increased understanding of how the business really operates (…and yes, I’ve measured that). That is a benefit I would assume all executives would cherish.
I’ve written about this in several published columns in The Hill, Roll Call, and have been quoted by the Christian Science Monitor and interviewed by the New York Times on this very topic. So, I have no dearth of views on how to implement an authentic, influential, employee grassroots program. The corporate grassroots arena was my training ground and I’m partial to good government programs in the corporate world. However, I think there are many mistakes corporations make in their well-meaning attempts to educate and influence employees on civic and industry issues of the day.
When I read about the Captive Speech legislation, I sent an email to my colleague, Dr. Kelton Rhoads. You’ll recall he’s a psychologist colleague of mine, the guy with a “Ph.D. in Persuasion.” What resulted was a feisty email exchange between us, where we were soon exchanging practical, theoretical (and yes, personal) views on this subject. We decided we should share this exchange with you…you can tell us who’s right!
ARS: Kelton, note article in this link. . . when you boil it down, it pertains basically to corporate grassroots programs. They call the proposed legislation the “Worker Freedom” proposal, where they hope to make it illegal for corporations to hold meetings that contain any political or religious content.
KR: I read the article…they call it a “worker freedom” proposal? What, freedom to be exposed only to anti-business advocacy? If I’m understanding this bill, I’m philosophically opposed to it. It looks like someone’s trying to shut down advocacy in the corporate workplace, while leaving it untouched in competing areas…unions, academia, government, activist groups, mainstream media, etc. It looks to be a selective gag rule. Wait, says here, “based on AFL-CIO data." Is this the work of the unions, attempting to weaken corporate America?
ARS: Well, I’ll tell you why this is happening. . .various associations now have “turn key” employee education web sites where they provide info on issues and candidates that impact their business. Of course that’s great, but the problem is that they are one-sided. Totally biased. And, many of the corporate grassroots programs that are very customized and attuned to their corporate culture do the same thing.
Every employee focus group I’ve conducted, plus what you’ve shared with me, is that we have to present both sides of an issue to help build credibility and thus persuasion. Every time I do a focus group I hear an employee say, ”I just want to know both sides of the issue.” Employees may not be issue experts and political junkies, but they aren’t stupid. Companies need to realize that giving both sides of an issue won’t endanger their cause, but it will build trust and long-term influence. And that’s what most corporate grassroots programs don’t do.
KR: Sorry, I’m still having an ethical reaction. Business should be able to advocate as they see fit, just as academia, government, media, unions, political groups, and nonprofits advocate their various causes. What if a law were passed against these groups, disallowing discussion of politics? In the academic world there’s a lot of (usually partisan) advocacy, much of it one-sided. I suspect there’s lots of one-sided, values-based, political indoctrination occurring inside other groups that advocate. Isn’t this law being put forward for the express purpose of kicking out an important business support? Passing some sort of law where business alone cannot bolster its intellectual support bothers me. It’s so anti first-amendment. Imagine if you had such a law being passed against NPR--there’d be outrage.
Also I am suspicious that the framers of this bill are throwing the “religion” canard in there, to make it sound like corporations are brainwashing their employees like cult members. Clever for them to imply that analogy, I suppose. Separation of church and everything else. Are we certain the unions aren’t doing the very thing they are trying to stop business from doing? Bolstering their own support? Discussing political issues? Sounds like an argument based on semantics: I call it ‘education’ if I do it, and ‘propaganda’ if you do it.
Now regarding messages being one or two sided…the classic research findings are that you want one-sided when ‘preaching to the choir,’ and that you use two-sided when you are certain your audience will be exposed to the opposition’s points of view, or the audience is hostile. Thus two-sided messages are more frequently recommended, because seldom do you have audiences that won’t hear both sides of the argument, and often audiences you are trying to persuade, are hostile. However, never do you want to be introducing novel opposition arguments to ‘the choir’ if they’re not likely to encounter them otherwise. So I don’t know that the programs using one-sided messages are totally off base…they’re doing the right thing if they have a ‘choir’ who is listening. But there are a lot of anti-business employees in businesses these days. If that’s the case, then a two-sided approach would be appropriate for even an internal hostile audience. It’s also a sign of how the private sector has become beat-down in the battle to advocate their own issues to their own people, whereas the public sector freely and vigorously advocates theirs. Score another victory for the public sector.
ARS: Right, right. . . . I also think there is a lack in many companies of a true, authentic culture that promotes “good government” in general. When they suddenly start informing employees on issues, it is like “big brother” to some employees. Companies wouldn’t think of starting a new customer service initiative with only a web site, would they? But they do that with grassroots programs and wonder why people view it as corporate brain-washing rather than “real roots.”
KR: I do know that just about every person ever tested, when asked, “what persuades you,” has the same answer: “Just give me both sides of the argument and let me decide.” The irony is that those same people will then go on to be persuaded by communications that are anything but fair and balanced. There’s a disconnect between what people say persuades them, and what actually does. For example, citizens howling about how they hate negative political campaigns. But they work…really well. On the very people who say they hate them.
ARS: Well, here is how it can backfire. . . . I remember a workshop participant, a government relations professional, who was in charge of getting his organization’s employees more aware of various state supreme court candidates so that when it was time to vote, the employees would know the judicial philosophies of these candidates and vote accordingly. The supreme court in his state made decisions that hugely impacted their bottom line. So, they used some communications from their state chamber, slapped the CEO’s name on them, and sent to all employees. (sending to all employees is another problem rather than allowing them to self-select)
The GR professional told me that he heard lots of cafeteria chatter that, “Well, if the CEO wants us to vote for candidate “X”, I’m voting for candidate “Y.” It massively backfired and probably also contributed to less employee morale! So, I think it’s a combination of 1) being unbiased, 2) managing the messenger, and 3) creating the culture rather than “dumping” this info on employees without a self-selecting, opt-in type of program.
KR: LOL, reminds me of a time I worked at a corporation where there was a round of layoffs, and the CEO, a sanctimonious, imperial sort of guy, sent around a memo (with a formal, smug-looking photo of him) that said, “While the loss of your job may be personally painful to you, surely you realize it is for the greater benefit of our company.” Great example of how to get your employees voting against you, every chance they get.
In your anecdote, sounds like there are some strong moderating variables there, including a hostile audience. If everybody hates the CEO, you’ll have teenage-style reactance set in when the CEO advocates anything. The idea that people are automatically persuaded by authority is 1950s-vintage old-school doctrine. Today’s savvy influence professionals try to recruit respected but similar communicators. In this case the Chamber of Commerce might have been a more similar and sympathetic communicator. The other missing variable in this story is whether or not employees could make the connection between the supreme court candidates, the future health of the corporation, and the potential impact on their own jobs. Or were they just focusing on a disliked CEO?
But here’s the question as it pertains to one- or two-sided arguments: Do you think the CEO’s advocacy, with the addition of opposition arguments, would have helped or hurt his case? Couldn’t that have put employees even more in the opposition’s camp, once their hated CEO exposed them to novel opposition arguments? On the other hand, could a beloved CEO give a one-sided argument to good effect? (I think so.) Also, why do you suppose one-sided political and advocacy arguments seem to be working so well in the mainstream media culture, in the entertainment industry, inside academia, inside unions, and in various activist groups? I think the answer is, relatively homogenous culture within the group--aka, a “choir.” To me it looks like one-sided indoctrination, and the suppression of counter arguments, is working just fine for groups that have philosophically or ideologically homogenous memberships. That’s exactly what the unions don’t want inside corporate America … a homogenous group with a sense of community and group loyalty. They don’t want a corporate choir.
ARS: I read a recent article in Campaigns and Elections where their GOTV expert stated that they foster a culture where they can make certain their members know where all of the candidates stand on the issues and that they follow up with the members who didn’t vote in the last election to make sure the drop-off voters engage in the next election. They pay attention.
KR: I totally agree with the ‘create-a-culture’ method you advocate…and that’s exactly what this legislation is trying to stop. It is trying to disrupt a sense of community, common values, and advocacy within corporations. It’s a clever move on the part of the anti-business groups. Let’s see if the business community sticks up for itself on this one.
ARS: Roger that. We agree on the destination, but maybe not the route.
So, there you have it. We agree on the ultimate outcome, creating an authentic grassroots culture,
but acknowledge that there are nuances on achieving it. Our ultimate advisory? Pay attention to
the variables within your corporate culture before embarking on employee grassroots initiatives.
Amy Showalter is a national grassroots consultant and trainer who works with associations and corporations that want to increase their grassroots and PAC effectiveness. www.showaltergroup.com 513.762.7668
Dr. Kelton Rhoads is an influence consultant and presenter, as well as professor at University of Southern California. www.workingpsychology.com 310.533.9470
|
