When Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff seemingly joked earlier this month that immigration officials were standing by to deport international employees at an all-hands meeting, the comment not only fell flat, but it also set off a wave of employee criticism and public distancing from his own leadership. It’s a situation that highlighted the blurred lines between political tensions outside and inside the workplace and the increasing responsibility of HR to help leadership navigate those boundaries.

It’s not a wholly new problem for HR, note consultants Rey Ramirez and Jason Walker of Thrive HR.

Take the recent example of Target, for instance. The retail giant’s leadership reversed course on DEI investments in recent years, triggering intense employee and public backlash and creating a stain on the legacy of recently departed CEO Brian Cornell. Meanwhile, Apple’s Tim Cook has faced criticism for what has been seen as waffling between policy positions during the transition between the Biden and Trump administrations. And Hilton faced protests after dropping a franchisee that denied lodging to officers from Immigration & Customs Enforcement during the recent ramp-up in Minneapolis.

For leaders who share their personal views on such hot-button topics, there’s rarely a good ending, Walker says.

“The ones who have stepped out and gotten into the middle of things? I don’t think it’s worked out well for anyone,” Walker says.

That risk has heightened significantly in the last few years, as political divisions nationwide deepen. HR and data insights provider Brightmine recently found that nearly two-thirds of American workers have witnessed political disagreements at work over the last year.

In such an environment, when a top company official or a member of the C-suite makes a “joke” like Benioff or professes a particular political ideology, the odds of a warm reception are not in their favor.

“Trying to be cute and funny about a very real issue,” Ramirez notes about Benioff’s ICE comments, “is just going to create a real challenge for you. It’s going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.”

“It’s not a benefit, at the end of the day,” Walker adds about leadership’s public political posturing. “Especially if you want to sell your product to 100% of the population, why alienate a large portion of that population?”

An ‘expensive proposition’

After Benioff’s comments, online chatter within company Slack channels and on employees’ LinkedIn pages soared.

Employees dissatisfied with their leadership’s political leanings or a company’s position on controversial issues frequently turn to LinkedIn or job review sites, which could ultimately hinder both internal culture and the external talent brand. Yet, a chasm between the workforce and leadership could lead to even more public friction; Walker points to the frequent walkouts at tech firms like Google, which has experienced “an amazing amount of employee activism” in recent years.

“The thing is, employees want their company to be vocal [about social issues] but they want them to be vocal about what they want them to be vocal about,” Walker says.

Political divisions are so stark—and employees so willing to speak out—that some companies may even be rethinking where they operate, Ramirez says.

For instance, Peter Thiel-founded Palantir, which has found itself the target of frequent protests, recently announced it was moving from Denver to Miami, after already relocating from the Bay Area.

“Moving your headquarters can be an expensive proposition,” Ramirez says. “But people are making moves if they don’t like the environment they’re in. And that may be what we start to see more of.”

Such decisions should factor in both the talent a company is trying to attract and the foundational values of the organization.

“If a company has more blue state values, they may stay in Colorado or California; if they have red state values, they could end up in Texas or Florida,” Walker says

Satisfaction or stock price?

Understanding how employee viewpoints align with company values is key to helping the C-suite navigate political friction and to help leaders avoid stoking the flames.

Thrive HR is increasingly seeing companies whose employees are more politically active incorporate questions about organizational involvement in social issues in regular sentiment polling.

HR teams need to examine such data carefully and share the insights with leadership, Ramirez says.

If issues do start bubbling up, leaders may need to speak widely about company policies or positions and business objectives, but HR should guide them to do so as objectively as possible, without the politically inflammatory tone many criticized Benioff for. For instance, organizations that have a contract with ICE and face employee backlash for it should lean into transparency, identifying the business goal of the relationship—messaging that can invite employees to “decide whether they feel comfortable staying or going,” Ramirez says.

Despite the risks of leaders personally wading into such controversies, the threat will persist—and HR may continue to be caught between a rock and a hard place, Walker says.

“If a CEO wants to make comments and the board is supportive, at the end of the day, it’s about making money,” he says. “So, how employees feel may become secondary to shareholder value and stock.”

The post From Salesforce to Apple: When CEO politics backfire appeared first on HR Executive.