Connect with us


How to mix business and politics (if you must)



I’ve never really understood the fashion industry. I get the concept (though no one has ever described me as fashionable), but fashion trends seem fickle, making the business too unpredictable.

Industries like technology, engineering, medicine and even most services evolve and improve as a result of advances in science and know-how. But fashion is somewhat erratic and capricious, making the risks of being in the business more difficult to manage. Those at the top of the fashion game may set the tone, but not even they are always right.

“There’s no accounting for taste” is an old cliché that seems especially true for companies in the fashion business — I suspect their accountants would agree.

No industry is exempt from changing dynamics, of course, and a risky new fashion has arisen to confront us all: the injection of politics into business. Talk about distasteful.

Politics has an insatiable appetite to take up all the oxygen in the room. Any room. Just when we could use a more businesslike approach in the political realm (earn your way, serve people, solve problems, focus on customers rather than competitors) we’re seeing politics increasingly muscle its way into business.

Unfortunately, the two don’t mix well, putting the onus on corporate leaders to minimize the risks of the potentially explosive concoction. Sooner or later, someone from within (or outside of) your organization is going to cross your threshold insisting that your company say or do something about this or that issue.

When that happens, I’d recommend five considerations for how to best navigate what to do next.

1. Consider the source

From whom or where is the inquiry, information or insistence that the company take action ultimately coming? Businesspeople regularly and intuitively do detective work when it comes to rumors about competitors, trends in customer feedback and even calls from salespeople offering the latest and greatest idea they say we can’t live without.

You can’t find an advertising salesperson, for example, who doesn’t have statistics to prove their medium is the best. They’re not being dishonest, but they are cherry-picking. It’s on us to question not only where the information is coming from but the legitimacy (and motivation) of the source.

2. Consider the context

If one of your people made a consequential strategic recommendation to reorient your company in response to a competitor’s anticipated move or a promising but unproven new technology, you’d have plenty of hard questions for them. Similarly, you’d never consider embarking on an expensive research initiative without first having a thorough understanding of its methodology, margin of error, risks and limitations.

But interest groups and the media regularly use statistics that can easily be misleading or quotes taken out of context to prove the righteousness of their causes — often unknowingly but sometimes intentionally. Accepting any claim at face value is a risk you must not take.

3. Consider the relevance

Focus is difficult enough to maintain in the normal course of business; no company can be all things to all people. Nor can it solve all the problems in the world. Those who advocate political action might label your unwillingness to get on board as cowardice or a copout because to them everything is political. But not everything is political. Hobbies aren’t political. Friendships aren’t political. Serving customers isn’t political.

Sure, if your business has been shut down due to a public health emergency or is in the pathway of a protest, politics has been thrust upon you. But if an issue doesn’t directly affect your operations, think twice before you devote your reputation and resources to it. The best way to accomplish nothing is to take on everything, and if you don’t stick to your knitting, you’ll never knit anything. That’s your call to make, not any special interest group’s.

4. Consider the consequences

This consideration may be most neglected in our increasingly high-stakes political culture. It is indeed quite fashionable these days for CEOs to be proudly quoted in the press about “doing the right thing.” But when you get involved in an issue about which public opinion is split 50/50, 35/65 or even 65/35, your “right thing” is the “wrong thing” to a whole lot of other people. Playing with fire using your company’s stakeholders as kindling is a dangerous game.

True leaders recognize that controversial issues are controversial for a reason, multiple interests are always intertwined, and conceding to one group might require compromising another. Knowing whether you’re doing more harm than good requires — and deserves — a complex, levelheaded analysis.

5. Consider that you may be missing something

Humility is one of those things in life that always seems to be in short supply, and as rare as it is in business it’s even more rare in politics. From Jacobins to Confederates, history is littered with examples of those who were convinced of their cause, only to be proven wrong with time.

We can easily become so certain of the righteousness of our opinions that we make decisions we’ll regret down the road. Especially if we neglect the above four considerations. Self-righteousness is as dangerous as it is blinding.

None of this is to suggest that your company should never speak up, stand up or get involved. But good intentions don’t justify bad strategy, and fear of or intimidation by others are illegitimate motivators. It’s tough enough to lead a diverse team through the rough and tumble of a market economy in which win-win outcomes are often the norm. Political issues tend to be win-lose, and while nobody ever intends to be on the losing side, somebody always is.

It’s one thing to take a personal risk of being one of the first to don a leisure suit because the fashionistas say the style is coming back (let’s hope not — ever). But before you put your shareholders, employees, customers, communities and even our culture at risk, wisely consider the costs.


Source: – SmartBrief

Source link


Why Coinbase will struggle to ban politics from the workplace – The Verge



Programming note: There’s a presidential debate tonight! Here’s how to watch it online. And here’s Politico’s handy “pre-bunk” of 10 lies you’re likely to hear at the debate.

If there is a manager in your life, there is a good chance that they are miserable right now.

They are miserable for the reasons everyone is miserable: the pandemic; quarantine; the challenges of working from home while raising children; the steady erosion of American democracy. But unlike us working stiffs, managers are miserable for another reason: their employees are miserable, too — and worse, they expect the managers to do something about it.

In July I wrote about how a surge of employee activism inside tech companies was beginning to remake the relationship between managers and their workforces. The turbulent past four years have roiled once-harmonious businesses of all sorts, from venture-backed e-commerce companies to giants like Google. Increasingly, workers want their employers to take political stands, as I wrote about last week after listening to a summer’s worth of internal meetings at Facebook. And because these companies sell themselves as “mission-driven” to their idealistic employees, many managers feel pressure to live up to that by engaging with current affairs.

This is particularly true because the US government has become staggeringly unresponsive to its citizenry — unable to provide for their basic safety and economic security during a historic crisis. Meanwhile, corporations — particularly big US tech corporations — tend to be very responsive to their workforces, courting their feedback regularly and using it to improve the operations of the company. And so the worse that the government performs, the more that workers ask of their employers.

Other managers, though, are taking a look at all of these dynamics and saying the hell with it. Take it away, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (emphasis his):

It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism, even those unrelated to what the company does, and there are certainly employees who really want this in the company they work for. So why have we decided to take a different approach?

The reason is that while I think these efforts are well intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division. We’ve seen what internal strife at companies like Google and Facebook can do to productivity, and there are many smaller companies who have had their own challenges here. I believe most employees don’t want to work in these divisive environments. They want to work on a winning team that is united and making progress toward an important mission. They want to be respected at work, have a welcoming environment where they can contribute, and have growth opportunities. They want the workplace to be a refuge from the division that is increasingly present in the world.

As a result, Armstrong said, Coinbase would not take positions on broader societal issues, advocate for political causes or candidates, or commit more than a minimal amount of time or resources to nonprofit work. “We are an intense culture and we are an apolitical culture,” he wrote.

Armstrong’s post resonated with some prominent members of the managerial class, who showered it with more than 5,000 Medium claps. “Yet again, Brian Armstrong leads the way,” tweeted Y Combinator founder Paul Graham. “I predict most successful companies will follow Coinbase’s lead. If only because those who don’t are less likely to succeed.”

As more people read Armstrong’s post, my timelines began to light up with takes. The tweets, which more often come from rank-and-file workers, expressed skepticism that an organization whose mission is “to use cryptocurrency to bring economic freedom to people all over the world” could also manage to be apolitical. Meanwhile, my direct messages lit up with takes from managers, who argued that a less political company is the kind that most people want to work at. If you’re an underrepresented minority and find yourself regularly confronted with internal posts that you regard as hostile, you’ll probably want to work elsewhere.

And sure, a person who is regularly posting hostile or borderline-hostile messages internally might deserve to be fired. But certain beliefs are protected — you can’t be fired for your views on religion, for example. And so, like basically everything we cover here at The Interface, the question of what employees should be allowed to say — and what they should be allowed to demand from their employers — becomes a question of content moderation.

Given how difficult content moderation is, it’s no surprise that some companies are trying to limit discussion of these issues at all. Coinbase made headlines for it this week, but earlier this month it was Facebook in a similar spot. Here’s Salvador Rodriguez at CNBC:

Under the new set of principles, Zuckerberg said, Facebook will ensure all employees feel supported at work, especially the company’s Black community, by strengthening the company’s harassment policy with more protections for underrepresented employees.

The company will also be more specific about which parts of Workplace can be used to discuss social and political issues. This change will be so that employees do not have to confront social issues during their day-to-day work.

If the past year has seen a surge of employee activism in the workplace, it seems, the next will see managers attempt to swing the pendulum back in the other direction. In addition to the moves announced this week, for example, Coinbase also removed two Slack channels that employees were once able to use to ask questions. (Like Facebook, the company now asks employees to submit questions in advance, with Armstrong and other executives answering only the questions with the most votes.)

Talking with current and former Coinbase employees over the past day, I found mixed reviews of Armstrong’s post. (The company itself declined to comment when I asked.)

“Most people disagree with the stance and don’t see a clear-cut separation of the company’s mission and societal issues,” one employee told me. “Others may agree with the spirit of what Brian’s suggesting, knowing how he personally thinks about mainstream issues, but don’t agree with the tone or the approach.”

Whatever you think about Armstrong’s move, I suspect that on some level we will ultimately look back on it as an act of wishful thinking. Armstrong is not alone in wishing that the polarized politics of 2020 would recede into the background long enough to let us concentrate on work. But nothing now unfolding in the world around us suggests that anything of the sort is about to happen. On the contrary, the next several weeks promise to inject politics into everyday life in frequent and possibly unsettling new ways.

It may be that your friendly neighborhood cryptocurrency exchange has nothing of consequence to add to these events. But it seems more than a little odd to declare that to be so in advance, and by fiat. Politics are not vampires — they do not need to be invited in to enter your home.

One last point: it was reported last night on Twitter by Erica Joy, and confirmed by my own sources, that Coinbase engineers walked out on the job in June after Armstrong declined to issue a public statement affirming that Black lives matter. (He later did so in a Twitter thread.) Inside the company, it is widely believed that Armstrong’s post this week is his response to the walkout — an effort to remind employees who is in charge.

And if that’s the case, it’s worth saying that much of what we have been discussing this summer has not been “politics” so much it has been human rights. Breonna Taylor was shot dead by police in the middle of the night; Armstrong’s post referred to the killing only as “recent events regarding Breonna Taylor,” before the coldness of the language was mocked on Twitter and he deleted any reference to her.

There are many issues on which I can easily accept that a cryptocurrency exchange, or really any company, has no opinions. But during an election year in which democracy itself is at stake, and state-backed violence against protesters continues unchecked, racial justice can’t be one of them. By lashing out at employees who dared to challenge him, the CEO’s worldview became crystal clear. Coinbase won’t be apolitical so much as it will be as political as he wants it to be, and those politics will be whatever Brian Armstrong says they are.

The Ratio

Today in news that could affect public perception of the big tech platforms.

Trending up: Facebook estimates that 100,000 new poll workers have signed up in response to the company’s election efforts. In North Carolina alone, 11,000 people signed up from Saturday to Monday morning, with 60,000 people clicking the link on Facebook. (Facebook)

Trending up: TikTok launched an in-app guide to the 2020 US election as part of its ongoing efforts to protect the platform from misinformation. It’s meant to help users register to vote and get information about federal, state, and local candidates. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

Trending down: Amazon has deceived the public about rising injury rates among its warehouse workers, according to internal documents. The crisis is especially acute at robotic facilities and during Prime week and the holiday peak. (Will Evans / Reveal)


The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is stepping up its scrutiny of Chinese investments in US tech start-ups. The committee has been sending a flurry of inquiries about past deals, making startups more cautious about accepting foreign investments. Here’s Jeanne Whalen at The Washington Post:

Michael Borrus, the founding general partner of XSeed Capital, said CFIUS scrutiny is causing investors and companies to think twice about deals.

“We’ve had Chinese VCs or Chinese families who have been interested in putting money in” to some companies where XSeed Capital is a shareholder, Borrus said. “In the current environment, we’ve decided it’s too complicated.” […]

CFIUS is particularly focused on companies and apps that collect sensitive personal information on users, such as location or financial data, and on companies involved in technology seen as critical for national security, such as certain types of battery technology and biotechnology, lawyers said, requesting anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. The committee is mostly inquiring about Chinese investment, but on a few occasions has asked about Russian investors.

President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines lashed out at Facebook for taking down fake accounts that supported his policies. The president, who rose to power in part by harnessing Facebook’s platform to get his messages to millions, is now making vague threats to shut it down in the Philippines. This is why Facebook was not excited about India banning TikTok, incidentally. (Jason Gutierrez and Paul Mozur / The New York Times)

QAnon leaders are asking followers to drop the “QAnon” label from their conspiracy theories and simply refer to their fight against a fictitious cabal of powerful baby-eating politicians. The move comes as tech companies crack down on QAnon content. (Ben Collins / NBC)

Baseless rumors about Joe Biden planning to use a hidden earpiece during tonight’s debate are spreading among right-wing influencers on Facebook and Twitter. “If Joe Biden isn’t hiding anything, why won’t he consent to a third party checking for an earpiece before tonight’s debate?” asked conservative activist Charlie Kirk. These lies have a history in US presidential debates dating back at least 20 years. (Kevin Roose / The New York Times)

Project Veritas, an organization run by right-wing activist James O’Keefe, has a new investigation on “ballot harvesting” that’s going viral on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The video contains significant misinformation. (Popular Information)

There have been at least 10 major foreign interference claims related to the 2020 election in the month of September. The Digital Forensic Research Lab launched a tracker to assess the credibility and impact of each claim. (Digital Forensic Research Lab)

President Trump’s assault against Twitter may represent the most egregious violation of the First Amendment by a president since Nixon went to war against the Washington Post almost half a century ago, say these authors. The president has repeatedly accused the platform of censorship. (Lee C. Bollinger and Donald E. Graham / The Washington Post)

Google is set to win EU antitrust approval for its $2.1 billion purchase of Fitbit. The news comes after the search giant said it would restrict the use of Fitbit data for Google ads and would also tighten the monitoring of that process. (Foo Yun Chee / Reuters)


Amazon unveiled a new biometric technology called Amazon One that allows shoppers to pay at stores by placing their palm over a scanning device. To register to use the technology, a customer will scan their palm and insert their payment card at a terminal. After that, they can just pay with their hand. Jason Del Rey at Recode has the story:

The technology will be available at the entrance of two of the company’s Amazon Go cashierless convenience stores in Seattle, Washington, starting Tuesday, and will roll out to the rest of the chain’s 20-plus stores in the future, Amazon Vice President Dilip Kumar told Recode in an interview Monday. Recode reported in December that Amazon had filed a patent application for such a hand-payment technology.

The technology could also show up in Whole Foods stores, with Amazon hinting in a press release that it will introduce palm payments in the coming months at its other stores beyond its Amazon Go locations. Kumar wouldn’t comment on a potential Whole Foods implementation, though the New York Post reported a year ago that such a plan was in the works.

Facebook is promoting Alex Schultz, one of its longest-tenured product and growth executives, to take over as chief marketing officer. Schultz is taking over the CMO job from Antonio Luciom who departed last month. (Kurt Wagner and Sarah Frier / Bloomberg)

Zynga is shutting down its original FarmVille web game on Facebook at the end of the year. In July, Facebook said it would no longer support Flash games as of December 31st. (Kim Lyons / The Verge)

Media companies have largely backed off their attempts to compete with Facebook and Google’s digital advertising dominance. In 2017, many invested in pricey ad tech deals to lure advertisers away from the tech giants. (Sara Fischer / Axios)

Colleges are hiring students as COVID-19 safety influencers. They’re tasked with sharing coronavirus content written by the university on their personal accounts. (Ezra Marcus / The New York Times)

Emma Chamberlain has mastered the art of being relatable on YouTube, despite her increasing wealth and fame. She also just launched a new line of fair-trade coffee. (Rebecca Jennings / Vox)

And finally…

Talk to us

Send us tips, comments, questions, and political opinions appropriate to your workplace: and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Social media's impact on politics in spotlight in 'Hacking Democracy' – Sequim Gazette



Humanities Washington speaker Travis Ridout offers “Hacking Democracy: What Social Media is Doing to US Politics,” an online presentation, at 3 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 3.

Registration is required to receive the Zoom login; register at or by contacting a North Olympic Library System branch.

With Hacking Democracy,” Ridout — a political scientist — explores the pros and cons of social media in political campaigns.

“While social media use gives citizens access to a wealth of information, it also exposes them to messages that are carefully tailored and targeted in a highly sophisticated manner,” Ridout’s Humanities Washington presentation notes. “More ominously, social media can be used to psychologically manipulate voters in unprecedented ways, beyond the fact-checking and scrutiny of the news media spotlight. How real is this latter possibility as we head toward the 2020 presidential campaign? Learn how politicians — and foreign spies — are using social media and personal data to their advantage.”

Ridout is the Thomas S. Foley Distinguished Professor of Government and Public Policy at Washington State University. His research on political campaigns has appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science and in the Journal of Politics.

Ridout’s most recent book is political advertising in the United States.

One of Humanities Washington’s oldest and most popular programs, Speakers Bureau is designed to “spark conversation and critical thinking using story as a catalyst, nurturing thoughtful and engaged communities across the state.” For more about Speakers Bureau, visit

Travis Ridout




Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Kuwait’s New Emir Takes Over an Economy Paralyzed by Politics



(Bloomberg) — Kuwait’s new leader, Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, 83, will take the reins of one of the world’s wealthiest countries as it faces a financial crisis made worse by internal political wrangling.

Sheikh Nawaf succeeds his half brother, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, who died on Tuesday at the age of 91. Sheikh Nawaf, the crown prince since 2006, had been serving as acting head of state since July, when the emir was flown to the U.S. for medical treatment.

The new leader comes to power at a time when Kuwait is facing the highest budget deficit in its history, brought on by the drop in oil prices and the coronavirus pandemic. A potential solution to its brewing liquidity crisis has been blocked by parliamentary opposition to a law that would allow the government to borrow, as other Gulf nations have done in response to the dual crisis.

While Kuwait’s oil and foreign policy is unlikely to change, its domestic political landscape could be redrawn under the new leadership, particularly if Sheikh Nawaf makes a bid for national reconciliation. Such an initiative could help unblock Kuwait’s gridlocked politics and restore some balance among the different branches of the ruling family.

Kuwait is the only country in the Gulf where nationals have a genuine say in how they’re governed, but the resulting political paralysis means it’s been left behind by less democratic neighbors like the United Arabic Emirates. The emir appoints the prime minister and political parties are banned, so there’s no coherent opposition. The elected parliament is often filled with populist independents who butt heads with governments they accuse of being too soft on corruption.

Opposition Meetings

Sheikh Nawaf has split from his predecessor in meeting with two of Kuwait’s veteran opposition politicians, Ahmed Khateeb and Ahmed Al-Saadoun, amid calls to allow the return of self-exiled opposition leaders. The new leader also recently received proposals for political and economic reforms from two opposition politicians. The meetings came ahead of crucial parliamentary elections later this year.

The opposition has boycotted parliamentary polls since December 2012, when the electoral law was amended at the order of the former emir. The boycott followed one of the biggest opposition rallies in the nation’s history, as critics called for the government to share more power with elected politicians.

The opposition claimed at the time that the changes to voting rules were aimed at reducing its chances of winning and made it easier for candidates to buy votes. The government said the amendments were intended to ensure stability and boost democracy.

According to the constitution, the crown prince ascends to power upon an emir’s death. That would leave Sheikh Nawaf with the duty of appointing a new crown prince, which he has one year to do. The new emir needs the endorsement of parliament for his crown prince nominee. In theory, parliament could reject the emir’s choice, forcing him to submit three fresh nominees for the house to vote on.

Sheikh Nawaf, born in Kuwait on June 25, 1937, is the sixth son of Kuwait’s tenth ruler, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah. He was first appointed to the cabinet in 1978 as interior minister, and thereafter held the defense and social affairs portfolios. Sheikh Nawaf has also served as deputy chief of the national guard. He was educated in Kuwait and is married with four sons and one daughter.



Source: – BNN

Source link

Continue Reading