Should your employer hold up your protest sign?
Summary
The larger the company, the harder it is for them to express dissent, especially under authoritarian regimes. If employees expect their C-suite to be their protest comrades, they’re likely to be disappointed. Our employers cannot be vehicles for our activism.
“No, we won’t make a statement about our government’s so-called fascist tendencies,” said the CEO. Jayden was aghast! He loved his company. It was like home. He thought the company was family. Why wouldn’t the CEO decry what Jayden thought was a fascist regime? Why couldn’t the company amplify his spirit of activism?
When companies go silent
As the liberal left loses power all across the globe, many technologists see new, authoritarian governments eroding the values they’ve held dear. Back in the day, climate, immigration, race, gender and sexuality were issues for corporations to find common cause with activists. But as political power changes hands, companies are going silent on these issues.
Black people are 3x more likely than white people to die from a police bullet. Yet, Black Lives Matter statements aren’t part of CSR agendas anymore.
Companies are putting their DEI agendas into cold storage.
Corporations say little about Islamophobia or about Palestine.
I can go on with that list, but even I’m scared. I can’t become the target of an infinitely more powerful government. Indeed, this is the fear corporations also have. Yes, corporations are wealthy. They have access to excellent lawyers. They have “reach” on social media. But they also have far more to lose than the individual.
It’s no surprise to me that companies only support causes when there’s a visible business upside.
DEI and supporting LGBTQI+ movements were an excellent way to attract talent when it was a job-seeker’s market. It’s an employer’s market for now, isn’t it?
It’s all good to put out a Black Lives Matter statement when you know the government won’t retaliate. Even better, if you get a brand boost! Not when you know that the government can strike back. Not even if 425 Black and Hispanic people died from police violence in 2024.
And hey, governments can strike back in many ways. The most overt way would be to target an executive and send the taxmen or an investigative agency behind them. A more subtle way would be to target the firm’s customers, clients and partners. By damaging a corporation's market and ecosystem, governments can exert a crippling influence on its shareholder value. And guess what a company’s most significant social responsibility is? Paying its employees. I’m certain you wouldn’t want your employers to be in such jeopardy that you don’t earn your paycheck!
Every corporation fears these consequences. Which is why corporate activism is of the most anodyne variety. Small companies can be admirable - such as Peak Design or Black Baza. The bigger the company, the more risk-averse they are. Dissent can be costly.
The high price of dissent
There was a time when my employers, Thoughtworks, were an activist company. Indeed, I found energy and inspiration from our founder, Roy Singham. In his heyday, Roy brought several real-life activists into the company. One of them was Prabir Purkayastha, founder of the news organisation, NewsClick. Prabir is no pushover. He was in jail for a year in 1975/1976, during the infamous emergency.
When Roy sold the company, Prabir went back full-time to NewsClick and did what you’d expect a journalist organisation to do - ask the hard questions. At the age of 71, Prabir saw the might of a government come hard at him. The police arrested him in October 2023 under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). The allegation? The ED (Enforcement Directorate) said that Prabir had received foreign funds to spread an anti-India narrative. Prabir spent 225 days in custody before the Supreme Court invalidated his arrest and remand, finding procedural violations — including the lack of written communication about the grounds for arrest. The arrest violated Prabir’s fundamental rights as an Indian citizen. He’s received some justice from the courts, but in the meantime, the process was the punishment.
Let that story sink in. 225 days in custody, before a court deems the remand illegal! If this could happen to Prabir, it could happen to Jayden’s CEO, too. Few corporations will take these risks. Invoke the wrath of a government, or disappoint a woke, but fungible employee? The choice is clear.
The workism trap
I could drop the mic at this point, but I want to reflect on Jayden’s dismay. I blame the cult of workism for his state of mind. Here’s how Derek Thompson first defined workism.
“It is the belief that work is not only necessary to economic production, but also the centrepiece of one’s identity and life’s purpose; and the belief that any policy to promote human welfare must always encourage more work.”
If work is at the centre of our lives, if the corporation is our home and our coworkers are family, if we pour all or most of our waking hours into work, surely that home and that family should be a vehicle for our activism, shouldn’t it? Except, no!
Coworkers aren’t always friends. Or family.
Most corporations exist for profits, not much else.
Jayden’s emotional turmoil should be instructive for us all. We can’t seek all our emotional fulfilment from our employers. Let’s make time for friendships, relationships and life outside work. When we tie our identities to our jobs, we set ourselves up for disappointment. If activism is part of that identity, most of that activism must be out on the streets, not on company Slack channels. No government feels uncomfortable because a few workers decide to agitate in private chatrooms.
Jayden’s story should also raise hard questions for employers. In the days of talent shortage, companies loosely used terms like “community” or “family” to invoke a sense of one-way loyalty. Of course, no family will “unfamily” you, the way companies lay off people these days. No community will excommunicate you because you’re “redundant”. It’s a bit unfair for corporations to invoke disingenuous language when it’s convenient and throw the book at employees otherwise.
It’s high time both corporations and employees recognise that they’ve signed an employment contract. Nothing more. Nothing less. The agreement defines the terms of engagement. Corporations can manage their risks. Workers can manage their expectations. And activists can take their activism where it truly matters. Wouldn’t that be a more honest world?