We already know about CEOs making political statements using their firm as a tool – such as leaving California while protesting taxes and regulation, or publicly announcing that they will cover travel expenses for abortions for their employees in abortion-banning states. There is debate over how much CEOs should engage in political debates and use their firms to make statements. But what about employees? Of course, anyone is free to act politically outside work, but it is also possible to use the firm as a tool for public protest.
Some politicians, some team owners, and
some audience members were aghast when this movement began – and many others
were delighted. As any real form of protest should be, it was controversial,
and it was also a powerful ingredient of the Black Lives Matter movement to
protest racism and police violence. But what made some players in some teams
join the movement, while others did not? The research found two factors that
made the players more likely to use their team as a tool for public protest.
The first was fairness – teams treating
their players equally, as expressed through similar pay levels, were more
likely to see players emboldened and making protests. Keep in mind that these
were protests not against the team, but using the team colors, and they were
protests for fairness in society. This makes sense.
The second was openness – teams that were
open to the message of the movement, as expressed through having a greater
proportion of black players, were more likely to see their players protest.
Again, this action is part of the Black Lives Matter movement, so it matters
that a team does not specifically favor white players through its recruitment.
This makes sense too.
Both fairness and openness made individual
players more likely to protest before a game, and it added up to making at
least one player in the team, usually multiple, more likely to protest too.
This brings us back to what happens when employees use the firm as a tool for
public protest. Of course, it is a worthy effort for the employees, who feel
strongly about the issue and want to express their views as publicly as
possible. But should managers and owners be worried?
That brings us to the last part of the
story. Another item predicting protests was that the teams were in more liberal
communities – communities that generally agreed with the Black Lives Movement and
would likely react positively to players protesting on its behalf. At least in
this context, one could argue that the player, by taking an overall
controversial stance, brought the team closer to its community. For a move that
received so much public attention – even with the president at the time (who
has no particular authority on football team hiring decisions) telling teams to
fire the protesters – this is an unusually happy ending.
