

Why CEOs Shouldn't Publicly Discuss Religion, Politics Or Sex(ual Orientation) - oldmill
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2012/08/21/shutup-and-sell-ceos-shouldnt-publicly-discuss-religion-politics-or-sexual-orientation/

======
mindcrime
I'm not seeing much "why" in this article. There are a couple of anecdotes and
a lot of opinion spewing, but not much of substance to support the idea that
"founders shouldn't publicly discuss Religion, Politics or Sex(ual
Orientation).

Also, to his point about having a responsibility to "maximize returns for all
shareholders":

 _It’s a myth that corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits to
shareholders at the expense of everyone else. Historically, the executives and
directors of U.S. public corporations understood that they had a
responsibility to other constituencies – customers, employees, suppliers,
creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation._ [1]

If doing what's best for "customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the
communities in which they operate, and the nation" involves discussing
politics, religion, or sex publicly, then a CEO _should_ do it, even if it
causes short-term financial loss. IOM, it's time for leaders to start looking
at the long-term view a little bit more; as opposed to only focusing on "this
quarter."

[1][http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-
myths...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths-that-
threaten-the-wealth-of-the-nation.html)

~~~
forgingahead
Agreed. For example, there is enough vitriol against private enterprise and
business in this upcoming American election that businesses NEED to make a
stand. The alternative is to quietly plan shifting capital and production
means to more business-friendly countries -- things which no one who started a
business in the US wants to do (they started the damn thing here in the first
place!).

------
roguecoder
So, they should never mention their wives/husbands? Was Zuckerburg's wedding a
terrible misstep? Catholic hospitals are a disaster? Every lobbying group is a
net negative for the company? I don't think he's thought this through.

The problem in those specific cases was not choosing not to advertise on talk
radio: it was failing to make up for those advertising channels elsewhere.
(Though in Carbonite's case, advertising to people who will swallow whatever
they are told without performing independent verification might be a superior
strategy, of course...)

The key is for the company to have an identity and a CEO who supports that
identity. No one is surprised when Google opposes SOPA or creates a It Gets
Better video: that is the kind of company it is. People who don't want to be
part of that wouldn't work for Google.

