It is not what you say, it is where you say it and how your audience is personally better off or better supported that matters.

In the wake of changes to US state voting laws, several CEOs at global firms (Ed Bastian at Delta, James Quincey at Coca Cola, Peter Zaffino at AIG) have taken it upon themselves to vocally express their views. To use business, and digital media outlets (LinkedIn etc) to convey their message.

What is less clear unlike MLB, is what meaningful steps (time, money and energy) that they are personally committing to their desired outcome.

Some critics have taken umbrage at the viewpoints, others at the inappropriate use of these platforms, which they perceive are reserved for “business”, not personal or party political viewpoints.

My question is where do CEOs draw the line at speaking out on social and other injustices? Who gains and who loses? Is it blindingly obviously in their shareholders, Boards, customers and employees self-interest for them to personally join the debate, and take firm positions? Are their firms’ and their own personal behaviour now “fair game” on all matters, wherever they do business globally or the private interests that they personally pursue? Do they have the competency and passion to participate in a two-way conversation or are they simply “posting” views (symbolic), and denying others a response? Who is advising them?

I don’t have answers, as I suspect, most CEOs don’t, to many of these questions.

What is patently obvious, is you cannot be taken seriously unless you are fully engaged in a two-way dialogue, and are seen as an expert in the topic under discussion or you make it clear that there are others better positioned to opine, on these matters. There is no “halfway house”.