When the going gets tough, the tough get going

Protests have rocked the streets of Hong Kong for months now, and in the past few weeks a number of companies have felt the consequences. The most visible corporate victim? Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong-based founding member of the oneworld alliance.

Image by Paul Blow, posted by the Economist

Cathay’s bumpy ride began after news spread that staff took part in the demonstrations. China’s aviation regulator, state-owned enterprises, and netizens retaliated by levying curbs and calling for boycotts. Well before the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rupert Hogg had a chance to steer the company back into cruising altitude and turn off the fasten seatbelt light, its stock hit a 10-year low, leaving the CEO with no other choice as to resign – in the company’s words, “as a way of taking responsibility amid recent events”. Weeks later, co-pilot John Slosar booked a one-way ticket into retirement, far away from the troubled carrier, causing shares to drop another 2%.

It wasn’t just Cathay Pacific that went down with the protests. ZARA took heat after social media users noticed that some of its Hong Kong stores were closed on Monday, feeding speculation that it was because staffers took part in the general strike. In response, the clothing company issued a public statement on its Weibo distancing itself from any actions related to the strike or the protests in general.

Yet, a new study by Erica Ciszek from the University of Austin and Nneka Logan from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shows that distancing yourself from politics is not necessarily the right thing to do in times of crisis – rather, it might just be better to fight. 

Let’s get political

It’s not just these two companies that have found themselves embroiled in politics – these days, pretty much everything seems to be political. Whether it’s the shoes you wear, the soda you drink, or the ice cream you eat – even choosing your daily cuppa joe has turned into a political statement.

But the voicing of political viewpoints has always been a struggle for PR folks since we generally tend to focus on collaboration, emphasizing symmetrical, consensual communication. If we can’t compromise via dialogue, it’s not ethical. In times of crisis, we listen, apologize, take action and move on (whilst praying that the stakeholders won’t leave us). We just want to be friends, right?

In digital communication, however, the focus on collaboration is misguided: social media is not a place where people engage in dialogue (surprise!) – which is why we shouldn’t aim for dialogue and consensus-building in situations where dialogue isn’t there in the first place. Instead, we should approach our communications differently: with a focus on contestation, dissensus, and agony. 

When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on – it’s agony

Agonism is all about embracing the potential positivity of political conflict. It doesn’t tell you to go pick a fight with your stakeholders, but it does state that conflict is unavoidable so we must learn to channel this in positive ways. Perfect for a PR strategy that fits our digital era because, let’s face it: social media likes are good, but fights are better. Thus, PR needs a different approach to dialogue that embraces dissensus and accounts for power and conflict.

Agonistic PR communication serves as a starting point for analyzing social change, Ciszek and Logan note, because “it shines a light on ideologies of oppression and positions organizations to publicly fight them. Issues of morality, equality, and democracy all then become a central concern and responsibility of public relations”. In other words, it opens up a path to resistance that sows the seeds of social change.

"[Agonism] shines a light on ideologies of oppression and positions organizations to publicly fight them. Issues of morality, equality, and democracy all then become a central concern and responsibility of public relations"

This requires something that goes beyond a commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA), which both have the company’s bottom line in mind. What it needs, is Corporate Political Advocacy (CPA).

Stuck in the middle with you

In the framework of CPA, businesses should take a stance on pressing sociopolitical issues, supporting groups, causes or values whilst encouraging others to do the same. It’s risky, because not all stakeholders will agree with what you advocate for. But fear not! By situating yourself as a values-driven organization, you position yourself as a changemaker breaking the mold for the greater good. Millennials will love you for it.

So there you go. When it comes down to taking a political stance: just do it. Pick a side. It’s better than being stuck in the middle like Cathay Pacific.

Screenshot taken from Twitter

Remember, you can’t please everyone. You’re not ice cream.

--

Kimberley Ho is a Communication Science student at the University of Amsterdam, specializing in Political Communication. She also holds an MA in International Relations from Leiden University, and studied at the University of Sydney and William & Mary, VA, USA. Used to make coffee for a living, because #liberalartsgraduate.