When and how to respond to controversial topics in the workplace

From high-profile CEO activism to front-line workers rallying around causes that affect them, employees at every level increasingly face decisions about whether — and how — to act when controversial issues arise at work.

Thoughtful professionals might frame the decision by asking, “When should our personal views be kept to ourselves? What constitutes a duty to take action, and what difference can that action make? With ideological divisions at a fever pitch, do our obligations change in a particularly charged climate?”

These are critically important questions, and the most thoughtful advisors will suggest considering whether the organization has a genuine stake in the issue and whether it possesses relevant expertise or influence. In other words, some issues are best addressed through personal, individual action, while others warrant the involvement of the organization itself.

However, an important next step is often overlooked: Once an issue is identified as one in which the organization should play an active role and has value to contribute, how can leaders and employees effectively voice and act on their values?

The Risks and Rewards of Taking a Stand

Consider two hot-button issues: Corporate attention to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — regardless of the terminology associated with them — continues to be the subject of debate inside organizations and in the public sphere. Likewise, whether companies should proactively address climate impact generates heated sentiment on both sides of the issue.

The data on how stakeholders respond to corporate action — or inaction — on these causes is mixed. Some research finds that when a CEO speaks out on a polarizing issue, the company’s culture and brand image can be enhanced. Further, the value of engaging with ethical issues is realized in public perception, talent recruitment and retention, and investor value, among other benefits.

But there are risks. Companies often face backlash for taking public stands, and the way they express their position matters just as much as the stance itself.

Senior leaders may refrain from weighing in on these issues in an effort to avoid calling attention to controversial topics, or they may attempt to appease the voices that appear most powerful, from public sector regulators to social media and public sentiment. On the other hand, employees often don’t speak up about their concerns for fear of retaliation or feelings of futility in that what they say won’t be taken seriously. This failure to voice concerns at work is harmful to the organization at every level.

However, the more skillful, competent and confident leaders and employees are in framing controversial issues in ways that bridge differences, the more likely they are to succeed. And the more success they experience, the more willing they become to raise such issues in the future. It can become either a vicious or a virtuous cycle.

Finding the Courage — and the Method — to Speak Up

Often, individuals argue that raising these values-laden issues is not feasible because they are either too junior or too senior in the company to be successful. “I don’t have enough positional power to stand up in this situation,” the thinking might go. “That’s for those with more authority.”

From the C-suite, however, the opposite argument can be tempting: Corporate officers may feel that the pressures and responsibilities of their roles prevent them from expressing their personal values. In reality, however, every individual has agency within their sphere of influence, and virtues are shaped and revealed through the choices made in each situation. As Kierkegaard observed, we create ourselves through our choices.

How we raise an issue will, in fact, differ depending on where an individual sits within the organization. The most impactful tactics and tools employed will differ. Senior leaders have a wider platform, a broader team of advisors and colleagues with whom to craft messages and more influence tools at their disposal. This can be a great advantage, but their position also involves greater risks and more pressures. The challenge for these leaders is often to listen more so they can frame positions in ways that respond to the expressed needs of their stakeholders without abdicating their own — and their company’s — guiding principles.

For example, Jim Sinegal, co-founder and former CEO of Costco, shared his view on Costco’s recent announcement affirming its commitment to inclusive hiring practices — a sentiment expressed by several other high-profile companies. True commitment to inclusion is going beyond simple statements, he said in a recent interview with the authors of this article.

Sinegal noted that if leaders want to be inclusive and supportive —  to have a workforce that really reflects the customers the company serves around the world — they can’t just hang a sign on the wall. He said, “The honesty and integrity of your business comes from actually creating value for your stakeholders.”

Sinegal presents his message as centered on organizational success, a priority that few could reasonably challenge. For leaders, there is also the need to develop the patience and skill to truly listen when employees raise concerns. This often means managing their own preferences as well as their own egos.

“Be prepared to take the action necessary to correct it. If it’s truly an issue, it will fester and grow,” Sinegal said. He went on to advise, “Shooting the messenger is never the right answer. When someone brings you a concern—even if you disagree—it deserves a response.”

He emphasized that an open-door policy is key and stressed that leaders should create an environment in which employees are encouraged to raise concerns and know that they will be heard.

Thinking about the decision to voice one’s values from the perspective of the more junior employee, Harry Kraemer, former chairman and CEO of Baxter International, counseled regular self-reflection for the purpose of clarifying what an individual’s values really are. In his book, “From Values to Action: The Four Principles of Values-Based Leadership,” Kraemer said the key ingredients for values-driven action are self-reflection, balance, true self-confidence and genuine humility.

During the interview for this article, Kraemer recommended keeping the list of inviolable values short and clear.

“I don’t think enough people really understand the term ‘values,’” he said. “There’s a difference between values and preferences. If it’s something you truly value, you’ll never negotiate and you’ll never compromise. Otherwise, it’s not a value.”

Leadership is Influence, not an Org Chart

However, that doesn’t mean walking out at the first sign of friction. “Being a leader has nothing to do with the organizational chart. Remember that it’s about influence,” Kraemer said. “So ask yourself: Do I have the ability to convince [a colleague] that I can be of help in this situation by advocating for a specific decision or stance based on something you value? People assume it’s obvious, but you’ve got to be incredibly focused.”

When an employee’s initial reaction is to doubt their ability to influence a decision, Mary Gentile (one of the authors of this piece) suggested that her “Giving Voice to Values” (GVV) approach can be particularly valuable. GVV encourages individuals to begin by reflecting on their own strengths and communication preferences: How and when have they been most effective in influencing others? From there, they can frame the current issue in ways that draw on those strengths, whether through one-on-one conversations, written communication, thoughtful questioning, group collaboration or other methods.

They can then consider what is at stake for all the impacted parties, not because they are questioning their own position, but rather to identify points of leverage or ways to present their views that can appeal to the concerns of the individuals they are trying to influence or mitigate the risks they may be asking them to take.

Finally, they can try to anticipate the arguments —  the “Reasons & Rationalizations” as described in GVV —  that they might face when they raise their concerns. Such arguments can be powerful, but they are rarely bulletproof. Often, the individual must think in advance about how to counter them. For example, a commonly heard argument is that the issue under discussion is simply “standard operating procedure.”

To counter this objection, employees might point out that this is usually an exaggeration. If this were truly “SOP,” why would there be rules against it as there often are? Other options would be to point out counterexamples or ask what it would mean for us if everyone truly behaved in this way.

In the face of ever-changing political, organizational and societal realities, leaders and employees will continue to face challenges to their values. The complexities of deciding when and how to speak up at work can be fraught. Yet businesses are inherently interconnected with the complexities of the world, and ignoring them will not make them go away. The key for leaders and employees is to realize that they often have more agency in responding than they think they do.

To recognize and operationalize that insight, it is essential to avoid both a knee-jerk reaction — speaking out without adequate reflection — and simply remaining silent. Instead, individuals and organizations need to understand their strengths, frame challenges in ways that leverage those strengths, and build the capacity to respond effectively in pursuit of shared goals.

About The Research

Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business professors Adam Wowak, John Busenbark and co-author Donald Hambrick (Penn State) define sociopolitical activism as “a business leader’s personal and public expression of a stance on some matter of current social or political debate, with the primary aims of visibly weighing in on the issue and influencing opinions in the espoused direction.” 

Their research finds that employees’ responses to CEOs who take a stand depend on their alignment between their ideological values and those reflected in the CEO’s public stance. When they agree, the response is positive, which strengthens their commitment to the firm and support of the CEO. When their stances are not aligned with their CEO’s, they display diminished commitment and support for the CEO’s cause. The challenge becomes: How can CEOs present their challenges in ways that help more employees (or customers) see an alignment with their own concerns?

Further Reading

• Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right (Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D.)
• Leaning Into the Discomfort: Managing Difficult Conversations at Work (NDDCEL)
• Use this Receptiveness Recipe to Improve Your Next Disagreement (NDDCEL)
• Be Honest or Be Kind: Do You Really Have to Choose? (NDDCEL)
• Turn Your Toxic Conflicts into Productive Disagreements (NDDCEL)
• “Voice Veneer” Erodes Employee Trust in Management (Academy of Management)

Research Cited

• Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee Voice and Silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197.
• Wowak, A. J., Busenbark, J. R., & Hambrick, D. C. (2022). How Do Employees React When Their CEO Speaks Out? Intra- and Extra-Firm Implications of CEO Sociopolitical Activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(2), 553-593.

Authors

Jessica McManus Warnell

Jessica McManus Warnell is the Rex and Alice A. Martin Faculty Director of the Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership, and the Managing Director for Research Strategy, Operations, and Engagement for the Human-centered Analytics Lab at the Mendoza College of Business. She teaches undergraduate, MBA, and executive courses in business ethics, sustainability, inclusive leadership, managing early career employees, and business and culture in Japan. Along with published research in business ethics and moral reasoning, Jessica is the author of Engaging Millennials for Ethical Leadership: What Works for Young Professionals and Their Managers, part of the Giving Voice to Values collection on corporate social responsibility.

Adam Kronk

Adam Kronk, EdD, is Director of Research and External Engagement at the Institute for Ethics and the Common Good at Notre Dame. In that role, he orchestrates the activities of scholars and practitioners in a variety of settings, all centered around interdisciplinary inquiry into how virtue ethics can guide people and organizations toward the good life. He holds a doctorate of education, focused on how organizations operationalize values, from Vanderbilt University, as well as undergraduate and master’s degrees from the University of Notre Dame. With centering the dignity of the human person as its throughline, his career has involved leading and working with homeless families, rural Cambodian teachers, high school and college students, and C-suite executives at a publicly-traded manufacturing company. Firmly convinced that we are all wired to serve one another and “do the right thing,” Adam focuses on increasing the odds of that happening in whatever contexts present themselves.

Mary Gentile

Mary C. Gentile, PhD, served as the Practitioner-in-Residence for the Notre Dame Institute for Ethics and the Common Good (2024-25) and has been a member of the Advisory Board of the Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership at the Mendoza College of Business since its inception. She is Creator and Director of Giving Voice to Values (www.GivingVoiceToValuesTheBook.com), a pioneering curriculum for values-driven leadership that has been piloted and/or presented in over 1,500 sites globally and has been featured in Financial Times, Harvard Business Review, Stanford Social Innovation Review, McKinsey Quarterly, etc. She was formerly the Richard M. Waitzer Bicentennial Professor of Ethics at UVA Darden (2016-2022) and was previously faculty at Harvard Business School (1985-95) and Babson College (2009—2015). She holds a B.A. from The College of William and Mary and Ph.D. from State University of New York-Buffalo.