Partners, Advocates, and Challengers: An Organizational Positioning and Market Communication Model for DEI and Social Impact Leaders
It’s time for U.S. organizations (corporations, nonprofits, and foundations) to get serious about defining who their stakeholders are, what their long-term role is in the work of pursuing economic and social equity, and using their brand power to drive the work of inclusion and equity. But first they have to determine what level of powerful action they’re willing to commit to.
Many organizations wait until a social emergency, like the murder of George Floyd in 2020, or the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson in 2014, or the passage of legislation that negatively targets their employees, like the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida in 2022, to figure out where they stand on social issues, how their brand and products or services relate to the issue, and what to message to their employees and communities who wonder if their organization is truly walking the talk. This is a disastrous way to lead, and at Justice Informed, this is why we encourage our clients to consider an organizational design model for beginning with the end in mind.
"Pexels-fauxels-3184339.jpg" by Cbecke12is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
Social impact work is often siloed from an organization’s holistic strategic vision. A singular corporate focus on profit maximization for the last century of business design and impact, and an assumption that because a nonprofit/foundation does external social impact work means that they are by default practicing real equity has left many leaders without the requisite skills and knowledge to tackle emergent social issues that demand their response. Now we are in a world with government agencies retracting generations of civic legislation, conservative activists bent on destroying the work of equity in favor of an immature understanding of fairness are receiving more and more platforms, and leaders of many types are moving back into their “wait to see who jumps first” approach to social impact leadership.
Without applying social equity as a lens through which to view all organizational work, it is difficult to avoid turmoil among staff in the wake of social emergencies when those staff feel unclear about when, where, and how their organization places stakes in the ground. For example, Justice Informed does not release statements for cultural or identity-based appreciation months like Black History Month and LGBTQ+ Pride Month. Since Justice Informed commits to powerful actions for both Black and queer folks through our services and policies, this decision, which might otherwise feel disconcerting to Black and/or queer staff, is instead understood and accepted.
“Social impact work is often siloed from an organization’s holistic strategic vision. A singular corporate focus on profit maximization for the last century of business design and impact, and an assumption that because a nonprofit/foundation does external social impact work means that they are by default practicing real equity has left many leaders without the requisite skills and knowledge to tackle emergent social issues that demand their response”
All organizations—from Fortune 500 companies to small nonprofits to philanthropic foundations—have the potential to use their power and position to partner with, advocate on behalf of, and/or become a challenger for certain communities and causes. However, because powerful action necessitates taking on a degree of risk—a potential hazard posed to one’s comfort or power—it can be harmful to commit to the highest level of powerful action for causes that your organization has not already proven a deep level of care for. Therefore, this vision-setting work most powerfully serves organizations when it responds directly to the needs and desires of their staff and ultimate clients, the folks and communities they intend to be most positively impacted.
“Because powerful action necessitates taking on a degree of risk—a potential hazard posed to one’s comfort or power—it can be harmful to commit to the highest level of powerful action for causes that your organization has not already proven a deep level of care for. ”
To create organizational clarity, Justice Informed uses its Partner, Advocate, Challenger framework, which establishes a philosophy of organizational commitment to various areas of social equity based on the intersection of the level of powerful action and perceived or real risk an organization is willing to take on. According to the framework, Partnership requires organizations to take on the least risk, while simultaneously producing the lowest volume of powerful action--both factors that increase as an organization moves toward an Advocate and then Challenger stance. Specifically, understanding this framework—in conjunction with a deep awareness of when, why, and by whom certain social issues are hotly-contested—provides thoughtful foresight into how best to respond to social emergencies based on an organization’s existing market and audience. To understand the importance of this framework and the potential for disaster when it is neglected, let’s consider Anheuser-Busch, a company currently facing backlash and financial devastation from both sides of the political spectrum for their handling of a “partnership” with transgender influencer and activist Dylan Mulvaney.
When Anhueser-Busch sent Mulvaney a handful of Bud Light beers earlier this year, the assumed intention was for the company to partner with Mulvaney, and by extension, the transgender community. It soon became clear, however, that Anheuser-Busch did not consider the series of questions Justice Informed asks clients to examine before committing to a partnership, including a definition of the intention of the partnership, its logistics, and the expected accomplishments if the partnership is successful. It is likely that Anheuser-Busch intended to reap the benefits of Mulvaney’s network of other transgender individuals and allies in their sales strategy. However, this rationale is inherently flawed because partnership implies some degree of mutual benefit. What’s more, this intentionality did not take into account the company’s long history of prioritizing a sales demographic that is largely antagonistic to transgender folks. Also take note that Justice Informed defines a partner as the people and organizations that are similar in power and access to your organization. It is clear that regardless of her influencer status, Mulvaney’s marginalized and minoritized gender identity in today’s cultural climate is not on par with the social power held by (what was at the time) America’s best-selling beer brand. A “partnership” between Anheusuer-Busch and Mulvaney, then, was ripe for conflict from the start.
Further, what Anheuser-Busch did not consider in this “partnership” is that certain social causes, by nature of the space they inhabit in the cultural and political zeitgeist, necessitate taking on a higher degree of risk. With Florida’s recent ban on gender-affirming care for minors and anti-transgender sports bans in a plethora of states, today, transgender activism is very clearly one of these causes. Therefore, the corporation’s relationship to Mulvaney necessarily becomes more akin to Justice Informed’s definition of an advocate (working on behalf of someone who does not have the same “seat at the table” as an organization) or a challenger against anti-transgender people and sentiments (challenging people that do not share the values of distribution of power and accountability toward marginalized and minoritized populations). However, it is impossible for a company to enter anything resembling an advocate or challenger stance without first proving to their staff and external stakeholders that they can be trusted as powerful actors toward social change—it requires a history of allyship or a desire to continue speaking up and activating like Ben and Jerry’s has on the topic of police and prison reform and capitalism. Anheuser-Busch was not prepared to take on this opportunity and risk, as shown by their refusal to stand up for Mulvaney and the transgender community in the wake of the controversy, immediately demonstrating their core lack of commitment to the issue. Now, the company is facing the consequences of its lack of foresight on a momentous scale—the company recently lost its title as America’s best-selling beer.
“It is clear that regardless of her influencer status, Mulvaney’s marginalized and minoritized gender identity in today’s cultural climate is not on par with the social power held by (what was at the time) America’s best-selling beer brand. A “partnership” between Anheusuer-Busch and Mulvaney, then, was ripe for conflict from the start. ”
It is certain that social emergencies will continue, and for social impact professionals, it is imperative to understand what level of risk and powerful action your organization is willing to commit to before they inevitably arise. Without creating clear definitions and standards, and establishing consensus among staff at all leadership levels, there is a strong potential for growing distrust at best and outright turmoil at worst. It’s beyond time for your organization to set itself up for powerful social action; your marginalized and minoritized employees and stakeholders are counting on you.
At Justice Informed, we lead organizations in developing their overall positioning, identifying their core stakeholders, and integrating these values into the way its entire company or nonprofit operates. If you’re looking to get clear on positioning your organization for social equity and/or believe you could benefit from the use of Justice Informed’s Partner, Advocate, Challenger framework or training, visit justiceinformed.com or email info@justiceinformed.com for more information.
