tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/corporate-citizenship-6084/articlescorporate citizenship – The Conversation2018-04-12T15:31:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945492018-04-12T15:31:04Z2018-04-12T15:31:04ZFacebook’s social responsibility should include privacy protection<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214373/original/file-20180411-536-1b7n5pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Does this man understand how his company can be a responsible member of society?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Facebook-Privacy-Scandal-Congress/f36f9c1cf0cc495195301402de4aba50/25/1">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2018/04/10/b72c09e8-3d03-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html">congressional testimony</a>, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to understand the importance of protecting both the security and privacy of Facebook’s <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/">2.2 billion users</a>. People in the United States have come to realize <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-serve-a-free-society-social-media-must-evolve-beyond-data-mining-94704">the power of technology companies</a> in their daily lives – and in <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/0729/Opinion-How-to-make-democracy-harder-to-hack">politics</a>. As a result, what they expect of those companies is changing. That’s why I believe, privacy protection must now become part of what has been called corporate <a href="https://theconversation.com/notpetya-ransomware-attack-shows-corporate-social-responsibility-should-include-cybersecurity-79810">social responsibility</a>.</p>
<p>To its credit, the massive social network has begun taking action. <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/facebook-announces-plan-to-implement-26726/">Zuckerberg has promised</a> the company will apply the protections of the European Union’s <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5815110ce58c627afce9b2ff/t/5a00b3900852292b928f3bfa/1509995408177/One+Page+GDPR+What+to+Know.pdf">General Data Protection Regulation</a> to all users around the world. It will also require political advertisers to provide <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/facebook-announces-major-changes-to-political-ad-policies-1204796995900">additional transparency</a>, as a new weapon in the reported “<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43719784">arms race</a>” Facebook finds itself in with Russian propagandists. And the company is <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/new-elections-initiative/">partnering with researchers</a> to better understand its role in elections.</p>
<p>But there are <a href="https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/4429942-klobuchar-questions-facebooks-zuckerberg-capitol-hill">those in Congress</a> and in Europe who don’t think Facebook has gone far enough yet. European Data Protection Supervisor Giovanni Buttarelli, for example, has suggested Facebook views its users as “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/id/105113671">experimental rats</a>.”</p>
<p>In my view as a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1195469">scholar of law and ethics</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YtgRGx0AAAAJ&hl=en">in the technology industry</a>, Facebook – and other leading tech firms such as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/worried-about-what-facebook-knows-about-you-check-out-google-n860781">Google</a> and Twitter – should join nations around the world and declare that privacy and cybersecurity are <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-cybersecurity-be-a-human-right-72342">human rights</a> that must be respected.</p>
<h2>It’s not enough to just connect more people</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-basics-internet-africa-mark-zuckerberg">Zuckerberg himself has already embraced</a> the idea that internet access is a human right. And <a href="https://www.facebook.com/isconnectivityahumanright">his company is planning</a> to “connect the next 5 billion people” who have yet to go online. That will, of course, also create plenty more Facebook users just as the company’s <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/technology/business/facebook-earnings/index.html">growth plateaus</a> in the West. </p>
<p>Several countries – as varied as France, Finland, Costa Rica and Estonia – have also taken the stance that <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/02/unrestricted-internet-access-human-rights-technology-constitution/">all people should have access to the internet</a>. The former head of the UN’s global telecommunications regulator has said governments should “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm">regard the internet as basic infrastructure</a> – just like roads, waste and water.” Global <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm">public opinion</a> seems to overwhelmingly agree.</p>
<p>It’s not enough, though, to rely on human rights law. The <a href="https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&clang=_en">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a> already includes a <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx">right to privacy</a>, as does the UN’s <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. But it’s not uncommon for countries to <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1852&context=fss_papers">shirk their treaty responsibilities</a>. And efforts to clarify the right to privacy in the digital age have been <a href="https://www.cfr.org/blog/right-privacy-digital-age-where-do-things-stand">contentious</a>. </p>
<p>Facebook could take action: Its market power alone could make it a major advocate for privacy and cybersecurity around the world. The company could, for example, back efforts to modernize <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/0127/Opinion-Forget-about-Safe-Harbor.-Modernize-global-privacy-law-instead">international privacy law</a>. Facebook could also require its vendors and partners to provide <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-j-shackelford/understanding-cybersecuri_b_8140648.html">world-class cybersecurity protections</a> for users and their information. It could, in short, lead a global race to the top and in the process promote <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-for-a-cyber-peace-corps-85721">cyber peace</a>. In coordination with other technology companies, those efforts would only be more likely to succeed.</p>
<h2>Options for immediate action</h2>
<p>In the short term, I suggest Facebook formally, and publicly, demonstrate that the company understands <a href="https://www.cnet.com/videos/zuckerberg-to-congress-it-was-my-mistake-and-im-sorry/">the enormous role it plays in global affairs</a>. A good start would be for the company to follow <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-j-shackelford/sustainable-cybersecurity_b_6988050.html">other industries’ examples</a> by <a href="https://sustainability.fb.com/our-footprint/">publicly disclosing</a> its cybersecurity and data privacy practices as part of its <a href="https://integratedreporting.org/">integrated corporate report</a>.</p>
<p>Another logical next step would be for Facebook to provide its users with a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43639712">paid subscription option</a> and thereby allow them to completely opt out of having their personal data packaged and sold for advertising. However, that creates a different ethical problem, because poorer people would not be able to afford to keep their data private and still use Facebook. The main way to address that problem is to flip the relationship and have Facebook pay people for their data. <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/26/597036173/dollars-for-data">One economist</a> estimates the value could be as much as US$1,000 a year for the average social media user.</p>
<p>Proposed new laws could also help. The <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17221046/facebook-data-consent-act-privacy-bill-markey-blumenthal">CONSENT Act</a>, for example, would require data-gathering social networks to get clear consent from users before being able to “use, share, or sell any personal information.” The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/data-security">Federal Trade Commission</a> would enforce those rules. Lawmakers could go farther still and let the FTC impose larger fines for data breaches, make platforms <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-law-that-made-facebook-what-it-is-today-93931">liable for hosting</a> illegal information, or even require companies to establish <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/four-ways-to-fix-facebook">ethical review boards</a> similar to universities.</p>
<p>Richard Stolley, founding managing editor of People Magazine, famously (and somewhat ironically) described privacy as “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2011.01129.x">fragile merchandise</a>.” This merchandise, which we have all entrusted to Facebook, once broken, is not easily fixed. Zuckerberg told Congress he understands this fact, and that his firm needs to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/congress-is-unearthing-facebooks-terrible-power/">rebuild users’ trust</a>. If Facebook declared its support for both privacy and security as inalienable human rights akin to internet access, that could help the company get started, before policymakers in the U.S. and around the world step up to have their say.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Shackelford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facebook is realizing it has broad obligations to society. Here’s how it could start meeting them.Scott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Director, Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance; Cybersecurity Program Chair, IU-Bloomington, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/722522017-02-06T04:56:10Z2017-02-06T04:56:10ZStaying politically neutral is more dangerous for companies than you think<p>President Donald Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-best-legal-arguments-against-trumps-immigration-ban-72196">executive order temporarily banning</a> immigration from seven Muslim countries has put corporate executives in a bind. Almost from the moment he announced the ban, questions poured in about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trump-immigration-ban-company-reaction.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0">where those executives stood</a> on the issue. </p>
<p>The media have highlighted a cluster of companies that have made public statements against the executive order. For example, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/reed1960/posts/10154654737174584?pnref=story">Netflix</a> called it “un-American,” while <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-trump-idUSKBN15E1ZB?il=0">Ford Motor Company</a> said: “We do not support this policy or any other that goes against our values as a company.” </p>
<p>But overlooked are the many more companies that tried to distance themselves from the debate. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trump-immigration-ban-company-reaction.html">Chevron, Disney, Verizon, GM,</a> <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/30/donald-trump-immigration-ban-wall-street/">Wells Fargo</a> and others have all taken a wait-and-see approach. An illustrative example is <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/morgan-stanley-on-immigration-ban-talent-from-across-the-globe-is-key.html">Morgan Stanley</a>, which expressed concern and said it is “closely monitoring developments.” </p>
<p>Such responses are no doubt based on the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/06/03/why-we-dont-see-more-ceos-endorse-presidential-candidates/?utm_term=.19b09181f052">prevailing wisdom</a> that companies need to stay out of politics. Most large corporations have diverse constituencies that draw from both sides of the political spectrum. As a result, executives fear that attracting the political spotlight by taking a stand on the executive order will alienate either the millions of customers who voted for Trump or the millions who voted against him. </p>
<p>My research suggests their fears are misplaced. And in fact, the opposite may be true: It may be more dangerous to remain silent than to take a political stand. </p>
<h2>Violating expectations</h2>
<p>Consumers today form relationships with a company based not only on the quality of the products and services it sells but also on a <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46997572/When_Is_Honesty_The_Best_Policy_The_Effe20160704-21737-b1m5eq.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1486076685&Signature=vPKJgIuCM1AyY%2BSbY2HqOybH5qc%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DWhen_Is_Honesty_the_Best_Policy_The_Effe.pdf">set of expectations</a> of how it should comport itself (<a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/31/1/87/1812070/The-Effects-of-Brand-Relationship-Norms-on">see also here</a>). </p>
<p>When companies violate these expectations by behaving inconsistently, consumers reconsider that relationship. Obviously, this can have a major impact on company performance if many customers experience a violation. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I at Clemson University and Drexel University have been testing this notion in a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2806476">series of controlled experiments</a>. </p>
<p>In one field experiment, for example, we exposed study participants to statements about a pharmacy chain moments before they entered one of its stores. Some read a statement in which the company described itself as guided by a set of values (what we call a “values orientation”), while others read that it tries to adapt to whatever market conditions warrant (a “results orientation”). </p>
<p>These statements established participants’ political expectations of the company. We predicted that for a values-oriented company, taking a stand would align with expectations but that abstaining would violate expectations. </p>
<p>Participants then read a short article reporting that the company had either just taken a stand on proposed gun control legislation (we randomized what side of the issue the company took) or had abstained from making a comment. After shopping, participants reported their in-store experience and whether or not they had bought anything that they hadn’t planned to purchase before entering the store. We used the unplanned purchase to indicate the impact of the political stand on the customer-company relationship. </p>
<p>In general, unplanned purchases remained consistent no matter how the company reacted to the political issue. That is, about 18 percent of participants made an unplanned purchase whether they read that the company had taken a position or not. </p>
<p>But when we accounted for expectations set by the company, the effects were stunning. For a values-oriented company, 24 percent of participants made an unplanned purchases when it took a stand, but that dropped to just 9 percent when it abstained – violating expectations. For a results-oriented company, the effect was reversed: Unplanned purchasing was 26 percent when it abstained and dropped to 13 percent when it took a stand (again, violating expectations). </p>
<p>Even after accounting for the personal view of the participant and whether his or her state voted Republican or Democratic in the 2016 election, purchasing behavior was significantly affected if the company went against prior expectations.</p>
<h2>Costs of staying silent</h2>
<p>Additional experiments reveal that consumers behave this way because they find it hypocritical for a company that claims to be “guided by core values” to then withhold its position on a political issue. The implication appears to be that the company is hiding something and therefore trying to deceive its customer base. Conversely, reinforcing expectations may forge trust and enhance relationships with customers. </p>
<p>For a real-world quasi experiment on the potential costs of staying silent, we need look no further than Lyft’s and Uber’s respective responses to President Trump’s executive order. <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/lyft-aclu-trump-travel-ban/">Lyft</a> reacted by publicly opposing the order and pledging US$1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union. Uber was more equivocal. In a <a href="https://m.facebook.com/traviskal/posts/1331814113506421">Facebook post</a>, CEO Travis Kalanick acknowledged concerns and said he would raise the issue “this coming Friday when I go to Washington for President Trump’s first business advisory group meeting.” </p>
<p>As part of a <a href="http://bit.ly/2kLphAP">poll</a> I administer periodically to gauge reactions to companies that take political stands, a group of leading scholars were asked to grade Lyft and Uber on their respective approaches. The panel was generally favorable toward Lyft, although conservative panelists questioned whether its actions would have a lasting impact on the political issue at hand. </p>
<p>However, Uber was criticized by scholars of all political persuasions for not confronting the issue. Panelists thought Uber was taking some leadership by reacting quickly, but its lackluster response was not consistent with its <a href="https://www.uber.com/our-story/">purported beliefs</a> as a bold game-changer. It is little surprising, then, that the move motivated many customers to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/delete-uber.html">uninstall the Uber app</a> from their phones. Uber received so many requests, in fact, that it had to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/delete-uber.html">implement a new automated process</a> to handle all the deletions. The company later announced in <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/delete-uber-email-response-trump-immigration-order-unjust-wrong.html">an email</a> to defecting customers that the executive order was “wrong” and “unjust.” Kalanick also <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council/">resigned</a> from President Trump’s business advisory council. </p>
<h2>Feet to the fire</h2>
<p>The danger of inaction – as Uber’s experience shows – is real. In remaining silent on important societal issues, executives may be harming performance more than they think. </p>
<p>It is no longer enough to engage government solely through private channels, although that will certainly be necessary as well. Consumers are willing to hold executives’ feet to the fire if they believe the executives are betraying corporate values. </p>
<p>This may be especially true for companies that forcefully advocated for <a href="https://www.ibm.com/ibm/ibmgra/data-ibm-future-trade-09162016.html">free trade</a>, access to a <a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/7/18/12209842/mark-zuckerberg-fwd-immigration-trump-rnc-convention">global talent pool</a>, <a href="http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-company/insights/articles/position-statements/articles/climate-change.html">action on climate change</a> and <a href="http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/diversity">inclusivity for all orientations and religious backgrounds</a> during Barack Obama’s tenure. My research suggests that both liberals and conservatives could view it as a breach of trust to abandon those beliefs by acquiescing to a swing of the political pendulum. </p>
<p>Though our current political environment is polarized and contentious, most people still find failures of sincerity more troubling than differences of opinion. As long as a company is not being deceptive by obfuscating its beliefs, consumers can be surprisingly tolerant of a company that holds an opposing view. </p>
<p>So to corporate executives: Your constituents are watching. They acknowledge that your company has a distinct set of values. They are asking for you to be forthright. And they want to know that you have the gumption to stand up for your stated values.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Korschun occasionally consults for companies on their corporate responsibility practices.
</span></em></p>Companies historically have avoided taking stands on contentious issues, but new research suggests consumers punish businesses that don’t stand up for their core values.Daniel Korschun, Associate Professor of Marketing, Drexel UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642032016-09-27T09:56:52Z2016-09-27T09:56:52ZWhen did Che Guevara become CEO? The roots of the new corporate activism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139277/original/image-20160926-31856-15hv1ze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">His example appears to be living on in corporate America these days.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Che Guevera via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Target recently staked out a position in the culture wars by announcing that it will build private bathrooms in all its locations, after earlier allowing transgender customers to use whichever room corresponds with their gender identity – <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/target-to-spend-20-million-to-roll-out-private-bathrooms-to-all-stores-1471453630">both actions</a> sparking anger from many conservatives. </p>
<p>While big business hasn’t always been on the vanguard of social justice, in recent years companies like Target, Apple and even Wal-Mart have increasingly taken positions that put them squarely on the side of socially progressive activists. So how did Che Guevera – the face of the Cuban Revolution – become CEO of corporate America? </p>
<p>When I first began studying the interactions between social movements and corporations 25 years ago, it was rare to see business take a public stand on social issues. Yet today we see organizations ranging from General Electric to the NCAA <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/major-corporations-join-fight-against-north-carolina-s-bathroom-bill-n605976">weighing in</a> on transgender issues, something that would have been hard to imagine even a decade ago.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139327/original/image-20160926-31842-15nz195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When the Greensboro Four launched their sit-in protest, companies tended to stay neutral on social issues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A%26T_four_statue_2000.jpg">Cewatkin via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>From custom abiders to bullies</h2>
<p>Traditionally, corporations aimed to be scrupulously neutral on social issues. No one doubted that corporations exercised power, but it was over bread-and-butter economic issues like trade and taxes, not social issues. There seemed little to be gained by activism on potentially divisive issues, particularly for consumer brands. </p>
<p>A watershed of the civil rights movement, for example, was the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095077?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">1960 sit-in protest by students that began at a segregated lunch counter</a> in a Woolworth store in Greensboro, North Carolina, and spread across the South. Woolworth’s corporate policy had been to “abide by local custom” and keep black and white patrons separated. By supporting the status quo, Woolworth and others like it stood in the way of progress.</p>
<p>But negative publicity led to substantial lost business, and Woolworth eventually relented. In July, four months after the protest started – and after the students had gone home for the summer – the manager of the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in">Greensboro store</a> quietly integrated his lunch counter.</p>
<p>In general, companies were more worried about the costs of taking a more liberal stand on such issues, a point basketball legend and Nike pitchman Michael Jordan made succinctly in 1990. Asked to support Democrat Harvey Gantt’s campaign to replace segregationist incumbent Jesse Helms as a North Carolina senator, Jordan declined, reportedly saying “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/07/did_michael_jordan_really_say_republicans_buy_sneakers_too.html">Republicans buy sneakers, too</a>.”</p>
<p>And companies presumed that taking controversial positions would lead to boycotts by those on the other side. That’s what happened to Walt Disney in 1996 as a result of its early support for gay rights, such as “gay day” at its theme parks. Its stand prompted groups including America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/">launch a boycott</a>, calling Disney’s support for gay rights an “anti-Christian and anti-family direction.” The <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318263/ns/us_news/t/southern-baptists-end--year-disney-boycott/">eight-year boycott</a>, however, was notably ineffective at changing Disney policy. It turns out that too few parents had the heart to deny their children Disney products to make a boycott effective. </p>
<p>Since then, some of the biggest U.S. companies have taken similar stands, in spite of the reaction from conservatives. For example, when the Arkansas legislature passed a bill in March 2015 that would have enabled LGBT discrimination on the grounds of “religious freedom,” <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walmart-arkansas-analysis-idUSKBN0MT13E20150402">the CEO of Wal-Mart urged the governor to veto the bill</a>. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, given Wal-Mart’s status in the state and the corporate backlash that accompanied a similar law in Indiana, the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/govt-and-business-leaders-object-to-ark-religion-bill/70757942/">governor obliged</a> and eventually signed a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/arkansas-religious-freedom-anti-lgbt-bill/">modified bill</a>. That din’t sit well with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, however, who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/bobby-jindal-im-holding-firm-against-gay-marriage.html">argued in The New York Times</a> that companies in those states were joining “left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty.” He warned companies against “bullying” Louisiana.</p>
<p>Why have corporations shifted from “abiding local custom” around segregation and other divisive social issues to “bullying elected officials” to support LGBT rights?</p>
<h2>Changing environment</h2>
<p>In my view, there are two broad changes responsible for this increased corporate social activism.</p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Your-Company-Inside-Intrapreneurs/dp/1422185095/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8">social media and the web have changed the environment for business</a> by making it cheaper and easier for activists to join together to voice their opinions and by making corporate activities more transparent. </p>
<p>The rapid spread of the Occupy movement in the fall of 2011, from Zuccotti Park in New York to encampments across the country, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-social-media_n_999178.html">illustrates</a> how social media can enable groups with a compelling message to scale up quickly. Sometimes even online-only movements can be highly effective.</p>
<p>When the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off funds to Planned Parenthood that were aimed at supporting breast cancer screenings for low-income women, a pop-up social movement arose: Facebook and Twitter exploded with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/komen-foundation-urged-to-restore-planned-parenthood-funds.html">millions of posts and tweets voicing opposition</a>. Within days the policy was walked back.</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/what-matters-about-mozilla-employees-led-the-coup/">Mozilla’s appointment of a new CEO</a> who had supported a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage also generated outrage online, both inside and outside the organization. He was gone within two weeks. </p>
<p>More recently, Mylan’s exorbitant price hikes on its EpiPen took place over several years, but an <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/how-parents-harnessed-the-power-of-social-media-to-challenge-epipen-prices/">online petition fueled by social media</a> this summer turned it into a scandal and a talking point for presidential candidates.</p>
<p>In each case, social media allowed like-minded “clicktivists” to draw attention to an issue and demonstrate their support for change, quickly and at very little cost. It’s never been cheaper to assemble a virtual protest group, and sometimes (as in the Arab Spring) online tools enable real-world protest. As such, activism is likely to be a constant for corporations in the future.</p>
<h2>Millennials don’t like puffery</h2>
<p>Second, <a href="http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_new_face_of_corporate_activism">as consumers and workers, millennials are highly attuned</a> to a company’s “social value proposition.” </p>
<p>Companies targeting the sensibilities of the young often tout their social missions. <a href="http://www.toms.com/improving-lives">Tom’s Shoes</a> and <a href="https://www.warbyparker.com/buy-a-pair-give-a-pair">Warby Parker</a> both have “buy a pair, give a pair” programs. Chipotle highlights its <a href="https://chipotle.com/food-with-integrity">sustainability efforts</a>. And Starbucks has promoted fair trade coffee, marriage equality and racial justice <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3046890/the-inside-story-of-starbuckss-race-together-campaign-no-foam">more or less successfully</a>. In each case, transparency about corporate practices serves as a check on puffery. </p>
<p>Social mission is even more important when it comes to recruiting. At business school recruiting events, it is almost obligatory that <a href="http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_new_face_of_corporate_activism">companies describe</a> their LEED-certified workplaces, LGBT-friendly human resource practices and community outreach efforts. </p>
<p>Moreover, our employer signals something about our identity. Value alignment is part of why people stay at their job, and among many millennials, socially progressive values – particularly around LGBT issues – are almost a given.</p>
<p>In this situation, corporate activism may be the sensible course of action, at least when it comes to LGBT issues. According to the <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/">Pew Research Center</a>, for example, support for same-sex marriage has increased from 31 percent in 2004 to 55 percent today, and there is little reason to expect a reversal. </p>
<h2>Risks remain</h2>
<p>Even as trends lead to more corporate activism, the reaction hasn’t always been as the businesses expected. Businesses on the vanguard of social issues themselves can become targets if and when they slip up.</p>
<p>When Starbucks attempted to promote a dialogue about race after the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner by police in 2014, its method – <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3046890/the-inside-story-of-starbuckss-race-together-campaign-no-foam">asking baristas to write “race together”</a> on cups to encourage conversations – was widely ridiculed. Some even regarded the effort as a <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/22/394710277/starbucks-will-stop-writing-race-together-on-coffee-cups">misguided marketing ploy</a> rather than a sincere effort to promote understanding. </p>
<p>In 1998, William Clay Ford Jr. became chairman of Ford Motor and aimed to turn the company green by improving fuel economy and “greening” its production processes. The company even put an <a href="https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/features/ford-s-living-roof--ten-years-in--rouge-center-experiment-helps-.html">energy-efficient “living” roof</a> on a truck assembly plant. Its continued reliance on its profitable line of gas-guzzling SUVs, however, prompted some to <a href="http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,108802,00.html">accuse Ford of hypocrisy</a>. </p>
<h2>Red and blue companies?</h2>
<p>While prominent companies like Starbucks and Target have taken stances associated with liberal causes, some businesses have gone the other direction. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-gay-20120718-story.html">Chick-fil-A aimed to implement</a> “biblical values” and supported anti-gay groups in the 2000s. Those groups returned the favor by encouraging like-minded people to dine there on “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/us-news-blog/2012/aug/01/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day">Chick-fil-A appreciation day</a>.”</p>
<p>Hobby Lobby <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/10/after-hobby-lobby-ruling-hhs-announces-birth-control-workaround">famously sought to abstain</a> from providing funding for birth control for employees on religious grounds. Koch Industries, overseen by the famous Koch Brothers, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/1/1288957/-Sign-the-pledge-Don-t-buy-these-Koch-products">has long been a lightning rod</a> for boycotts due to the right-wing proclivities of its dominant owners. And small businesses across the country are not always shy in advertising their conservative political orientations. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9030.html">states have seemingly divided</a> into red (for conservative) and blue (for liberal), might we expect the same thing from corporations, as consumers and employees drift toward the brands that best represent their views – red companies and blue companies? </p>
<p><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php">It is already easy to look up</a> political contributions by companies and their employees. For example, Bloomberg, Alphabet and the Pritzker Group lean Democratic; Oracle, Chevron and AT&T tend Republican. </p>
<p>In the current electoral climate, it is not hard to imagine this continuing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jerry Davis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Companies, which in the past tended to stay neutral on divisive social and political issues, are increasingly taking a stand. What’s behind the change?Jerry Davis, Professor of Management and Sociology, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/227922014-02-10T14:43:05Z2014-02-10T14:43:05ZWhy autocratic bosses are a dying breed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41152/original/3mhnpjq9-1392026593.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C3%2C1019%2C545&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do I look like I need leading?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Linda Tanner</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea that everyone wants leadership and wants to be led is a popular one, especially among corporate CEOs, but how true is it? Recent political events in <a href="https://theconversation.com/east-or-west-battle-lines-clear-in-struggle-for-ukraines-future-22450">Ukraine</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-knifes-edge-elections-and-democracy-in-thailand-22144">Thailand</a> should focus business leaders’ minds on this question and start them rethinking their own role and their relationship with their followers.</p>
<p>The myth that everyone wants to be led is an old one, and like many myths, there is not a lot of solid foundation to it. Leaders like to believe it, of course, and why not? If it were true that our followers really want to follow us, that they look to us for a lead and will do nothing without our say-so, then life at the top becomes much easier. All we would have to do is give orders, and the masses would rush to obey them.</p>
<p>Until very recently, this was the perceived wisdom about leadership circles. There were two classes of people, leaders and followers. The former were the “great men and women”: the visionaries, the brains of the business who directed and guided it. From their Olympian heights they could see further than the common workers – and their innate wisdom (for why else would they have become leaders, if they were not wise?) gave them the ability to chart a course for the business. Leaders were chosen ones, marked out, special. Others recognised in leaders qualities that they lacked in themselves, and followed them accordingly.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41151/original/qvhr9db4-1392025890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Juergen Schrempp: Look into my eyes. ‘I am the boss’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jan Bauer/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many business leaders succumbed to at least parts of this myth. <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3XXxhbDU9P4C&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=%22henry+ford%22+humiliation&source=bl&ots=53cyLVnZDH&sig=tdGiGo2QQ3tqY462qGYxKiJ_GqI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UvL0UurwAo6p7Aajh4HoBg&ved=0CHgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22henry%20ford%22%20humiliation&f=false">Henry Ford</a> was among the most famous, believing that his success was due to his own powers and wisdom. In his own mind, he became the company; disloyalty to him was disloyalty to the firm. More recently we have seen strong personalities held up as examples of successful leaders: <a href="https://www.ge.com/about-us/leadership/profiles/john-f-welch-jr">Jack Welch</a> at General Electric (GE), <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worst-ceos-in-american-history-2010-5?op=1">Juergen Schrempp</a> at Daimler and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/phone-hacking">Rupert Murdoch</a> at News International are conspicuous examples of leaders who believed that they were in control and expected others to follow them.</p>
<p>Yet, all four of these leader reached a point when they could no longer simply give orders and have them obeyed. Ford’s own managers and shareholders revolted against him and forced him to resign. Welch’s final takeover bid came apart at the seams and his career ended under a cloud. Schrempp’s ambitious merger of Daimler and Chrysler fell apart. Since the phone-hacking scandal, Murdoch’s powers have been on the wane.</p>
<h2>Power games</h2>
<p>These might have done better to have listened to the great political scientist and management theorist <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tZ4Z29T1GgIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=mary+parker+follett+management+research&ots=qNinp25o1E&sig=PU7I_tdrTzpWJfSFzrIq3SJsK9g#v=onepage&q=mary%20parker%20follett%20management%20research&f=false">Mary Parker Follett</a>: all control is an illusion. The best that leaders can hope to do is bring people together and try to persuade them to work together. That is the limit of their powers.</p>
<p>In fact, as one business leader recently told me, the only real weapons through which leaders can enforce their will is through hiring and firing people. If they can get the right subordinates into place, then they stand a chance of enforcing their will on the rest of the organisation. But even this is dubious. Who knows how long those subordinates will remain loyal if things start to go wrong? </p>
<p>Again, business leaders can look to the political arena and see how support has drained away from <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/07/us-thailand-protest-economy-idUKBREA1608L20140207">Yingluck Shinawatra</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/ukraine.html?ref=world&_r=0">Viktor Yanukovych</a> over the past few months.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41150/original/js36qwx2-1392025717.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ratan Tata. In control.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gautam Singh/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most intelligent and capable business leaders I have ever met, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/ratan-tata/">Ratan Tata</a>, understood very clearly the idea that control is an illusion. Tata, who stepped down as head of India’s Tata Group in 2012, led people through gentle persuasion. He himself described this as “cajoling”. When he wanted to get something done, he first laid his case before his colleagues and offered reasons as to why this should be done. If they agreed, they in turn went away and tried to persuade their own supporters. If everyone agreed, then the thing was done. If they did not, the idea was returned to the shelf. Tata knew, beyond doubt, that leaders can only get things done if their followers want to do the same things.</p>
<h2>Get humble</h2>
<p>Other business leaders have recognised the same thing. In 1911 the softly spoken <a href="http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_WW/History/3M/Company/McKnight-principles/">William McKnight</a> took over the struggling 3M company and turned it into a global leader. How? By appealing to the rest of the company to contribute ideas and work as a team. In the 1920s <a href="http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about/our-founder.html">John Spedan Lewis</a> realised the fundamental truth that “his” company’s prosperity depended absolutely on the people who worked there, and handed over ownership of the company to them. </p>
<p>In the 1980s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/apr/27/theobserver.observerbusiness7">Ricardo Semler</a> experimented with devolved leadership, making people responsible for their own decisions and actions, and much more recently <a href="https://theconversation.com/goodbye-to-bosses-zappos-is-biting-off-more-than-it-can-shoe-21821">Tony Hsieh at Zappos has abolished all hierarchy</a> in an attempt to ensure that there is no difference between leaders and followers.</p>
<p>Today, social media is making it more and more difficult for leaders to enforce their will on unwilling followers and ever easier for those followers to co-ordinate their resistance. Leaders need to learn the limits of their power; they need, in essence, to learn humility. They need to work in partnership with their organisations, not attempt to rule them. Above all they need to learn that leadership is something that is best done with people, not to them.</p>
<p>We may need leadership, but very rarely do we want it. We want to be free, to do our own thing, to undertake the tasks that seem important to us. The leaders that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones capable of managing that paradox of need and want – and then of understanding the great secret at the heart of good leadership: it is not about getting people to do what you want them to do, it is about enabling them to do what they want to do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22792/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgen Witzel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea that everyone wants leadership and wants to be led is a popular one, especially among corporate CEOs, but how true is it? Recent political events in Ukraine and Thailand should focus business…Morgen Witzel, Fellow of the Centre for Leadership Studies, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/152242013-06-27T04:47:22Z2013-06-27T04:47:22ZMen at the helm – mad, bad and dangerous to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/25956/original/d46ndbbg-1371777761.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C667&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sixties style - Mad Men characters Roger Sterling and Don Draper still show men how it's done in business and politics.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Labor may have “ditched the witch”, but does the ejection of Julia Gillard from her seat of power close the book on the debate about sexism that she championed and the role of women in leadership? </p>
<p>Our first female prime minister is gone, but the feminist challenges she raised, and the battles she fought, are far from forgotten. They continue to sound their clarion call from the depths of a business and political culture that regresses increasingly to the <em>Mad Men</em> days. </p>
<p>We may think that we have left behind the attitudes found in the award-winning television series, where sexism and discrimination is overt and celebrated, but the legacy of the 1960’s remains deeply embedded in our DNA and that of our organisations.</p>
<p>But corporate and government leaders have an influence footprint that transcends the boundaries of these organisations, and they must exercise it by showing the way for a more mature, ethical and sustainable society where men and women are equal partners.</p>
<h2>Board games</h2>
<p>Thanks to the big stick of the ASX corporate governance guidelines, <a href="http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Governance-and-Director-Issues/Board-Diversity/Statistics">women now hold 15.6%</a> of board seats compared to 8.3% three years ago. However, the rate of progress has stalled. In 2011, 68 women were appointed to the boards of ASX 200 companies. In 2012, this dropped to 41 and in 2013 there have been just nine appointments.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.mallesons.com/Documents/Directions_2013_Final.pdf">2013 report</a> by law firm King & Wood Mallesons found that only 13% of directors regarded diversity as a key priority, compared to 63% the previous year. According to the authors, directors believe the diversity issue has been adequately dealt with. Good intentions have also not translated into action on gender issues: four in 10 companies do not have policies or targets in place, according to a <a href="http://www.bain.com/offices/australia/en_us/publications/creating-a-positive-cycle.aspx">2013 gender parity report</a> by <a href="http://www.bain.com/">Bain & Company</a> and <a href="http://www.cew.org.au/">Chief Executive Women</a>.</p>
<p>Failure to harness female talent continues for the following reasons:</p>
<p>First, there is a dissonance between corporate citizenship and profitability. Business has a social licence to operate irrespective of commitment to diversity. Reputational capital is acknowledged as a major strategic asset; however, most companies under-invest in corporate citizenship efforts, including diversity, and their <a href="http://landor.com/#!/talk/articles-publications/articles/2012-global-corporate-reputation-index-citizenship-deficits-limit-reputations/">citizenship ratings</a> significantly lag their ratings on other basic performance attributes, such as quality and innovation.</p>
<p>Second, the business case is too often biased towards one-dimensional frameworks that encourage perverse drivers of business practice that privileges the short term and immediate over the sustainable and ethical. It is these very business frameworks that led to the corporate disasters associated with GFC and more recent examples of corporate malfeasance. They treat female labour as disposable, embracing or dispensing with it according to the vagaries of the economy.</p>
<h2>Art of leadership</h2>
<p>Third, it is hard to shift old-aged paradigms that align leadership with masculinity in the minds of both men and women. </p>
<p>By the sixth iteration, popular-culture heroes like James Bond might be expected to portray a softer, more sensitive male presence. Not so Daniel Craig, the most recent 007, who has been described as an ideally muscular Bond, less of a gentleman and more of a street fighter than previous incarnations. </p>
<p>In the business world, such masculine language and imagery has been co-opted to portray leadership – often as individualistic acts with back-stories of larger-than-life characters. Brash, driven, tough, the new adventurer, bold enough to challenge the status quo, leader as a helmsman, captain of a ship, eager and fearless young entrepreneur, corporate saviour - these are the descriptors for CEOs of the future, highlighted in recent research from Fortune 500, <a href="http://www.haygroup.com/au/">Hay group</a>, IBM and <a href="https://www.kornferry.com/">Korn/Ferry</a>.</p>
<p>While many of these traits raise a man’s status in masculine cultures such as Australia and the US, where competitiveness, assertiveness and ambition are valued, they are likely to make a woman less acceptable. Moreover, society reinforces masculinity at the helm. <a href="http://workingwithourselves.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/executive-presence-report-g-dagley-2013.pdf">Recent Australian research</a> indicates that both men and women nominate men as leadership exemplars, with women nominating men more often than men do. </p>
<h2>More than words can say</h2>
<p>Fourth, is the vilification of women. While subtle, hidden and subversive sexism has been acknowledged as a benign but virulent force that continues to stymie women’s progress, the rise of shameless and overt vilification of women is of major concern. </p>
<p>I refer to the increasing culture of tirade against female authority and the disrespectful depiction of women as an acceptable part of infotainment, a form of larrikinism that brings comedic levity to our political debate. </p>
<p>The mock menu of “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small breasts, Huge Thighs & Big Red Box…” was not an aberration. It was the continuation of a verbal-abuse diet that was regularly meted out with impunity, a slap on the wrist at most: “ditch the witch”, “a menopausal monster”, “a lying cow”, “a horrible mouth on legs” and “political slut”, “get over it Julia, you’ve got a big arse”.</p>
<p>This ranting is not benign humour but the slippery slope of degradation that normalises disrespect for women in everyday discourse and is responsible, in part, for the unconscionable abuse and violence against women in our society. It provides a red light to masculine cultures, such as the defence forces that are once again exposed for recidivist sexism and misogyny at the highest ranks, with footage of soldiers engaged in sex. It fuels the default position of sporting bodies with displays of off-the-cuff commentary from high-level sporting officials that women should “shut up in public”.</p>
<p>As a society we hold ambiguous feelings towards women, particularly those at the helm, and attempts to address discrimination and sexism so far have been insufficient. More leadership is needed now. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15224/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Piterman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor may have “ditched the witch”, but does the ejection of Julia Gillard from her seat of power close the book on the debate about sexism that she championed and the role of women in leadership? Our…Hannah Piterman, Adjunct Associate professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.