Leadership
I thought it might useful to look at how, in a general sense, to make political change. By that I mean changing minds on issues followed by changing laws. Culture is a part of this, too.
There’s a rough playbook, or more like a roadmap.
Mass political and social movements have a long, rich history in the United States, the most famous and successful being the 1960s civil rights movement. Some of that progress is being undone today, no question. But over four decades, giant leaps forward for racial equality of Black Americans were made. It remains a template.
The clarion call for the marriage of gay couples in the 2010s was another wildly successful change effort that took decades before hitting its 110 mph stride in the 2010s in state legislatures, on the ballot, and in the courts.
The movements for gun violence prevention–and for increased gun rights and access– have both been successful, but the latter continues to prevail, at least in terms of public policy.
The MAGA movement, and its antecedent, the 2010 Tea Party, has grown relatively fast over a decade-plus, not just electorally and legislatively but culturally. That movement hit its zenith in the 2024 presidential election.
All of these movements, and others, have had enormous advocacy campaigns behind them. None of these issues or trends came out of the blue. A campaign mindset, strategy, and structure has led to tangible outcomes.
Georgetown Business School professor Leslie Crutchfield studied a range of social/political movements in the U.S. In her 2018 book, she found that “winning movements made their destinies come true, rather than being destined to succeed.”
Crutchfield found patterns in successful movements, including:
- Change came from the bottom-up–at the grassroots level. Winning movements took their campaigns to all fifty states with their change campaigns, rather than going for national change at the start. Small wins create momentum, which is the holy grail of any growing movement.
- Persuasion. Great social change leaders marry policy reform and changing people’s minds.
- Leaders check their egos and organizational identities at the door, even if for a minute. This allows (if only temporarily) the messiness of factions within a movement to come together around a common agenda.
- The management structure is a hybrid. Crutchfield writes, “Instead of small handfuls of elites dictating to troops from the top down or an amorphous mob of activists genuflecting for change from the bottom up, the most effective movements find balance between the ‘leaderless’ and ‘leader-led’ extremes.”
I would add elections to this list. Putting the right people in office who agree with your issues is vital.
Of course, individual dynamics, politics, media landscape, and tech tools have changed over time. But how to go about strategically building an effective movement hasn’t.
I’ve been wondering how the federal government‘s autocratic tendencies, as well as the heavy hand of some state governments, alters the general roadmap for movements within our democracy, if at all. It’s an area for further research.
I have taken large chunks of an interview World 50 did with Sally Susman, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Pfizer, in 2023. The original story is on LinkedIn.
Communications is often mistaken as a soft skill
Susman believes that stakeholder activism today, coupled with the ubiquitous nature of digital and social media, means there is no longer a “back room” safe space for companies. Virtually every corporate interaction is public and open to interpretation. Communication skills are no longer a soft skill; they are a “rock hard competency as important to an executive’s success as finance, sales, or accounting expertise,” she says.
Knowing when to speak out is another core competency. To help her CEO and team navigate the nuances of when and how to take a public stand, Susman developed her own framework—a set of five questions to help determine appropriate action.
- Does it relate to our purpose? If a company speaks out on everything, it loses its agency, Susman believes. Take a stand on issues that are most aligned with your company’s values.
- How does it impact our most important stakeholders? This can involve both internal and external actions, depending on how personal, or political, the issue is, says Susman. For example, in the June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, Pfizer chose to speak directly to colleagues, providing increased health care benefits, coupled with a safe space for colleague conversations. However, in response to the recent debate over the abortion pill ruling in Texas, Pfizer took a public stance, joining 400 of the pharmaceutical industry’s most prominent companies in issuing a statement condemning the ruling as a threat to the critical independence of the FDA.
- How does the question at hand intersect with our values? For Pfizer, whose values are courage, excellence, equity, and joy, Susman says that an event that incites any of these can stir the company to action.
- What are my choices here? As public companies, we are often too reactive, Susman believes. An effective way to get ahead of a story is to proactively craft the company’s narrative on a topic and circulate it externally (more on this below).
- What is the price of silence? Increasingly, “the cost of saying nothing can be too deafening,” says Susman. George Floyd’s murder and the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, were situations where Pfizer felt compelled to condemn the violence and racism affecting our communities.
Own your own narrative
A mistake many leaders make is allowing a reporter on deadline, or government pressure, to force a rushed, defensive response. Susman’s favorite tool for going on the offensive is to post a letter from the CEO or a top leader on the company website, stating the company’s stand, in its own words, on its own timetable.
Susman used this approach effectively during the 2020 U.S. elections, when the company was receiving political pressure to discover a vaccine. When President Trump used the presidential debates to claim that Pfizer was going to deliver a vaccine by Election Day, Susman and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla crafted a letter explaining that the company “would move at the speed of science” and not politics. Though Susman initially tried to pitch the letter to traditional media, no one was interested. She ended up posting a letter to employees on Pfizer’s website. It went viral, and all the major media outlets covered it.