Amidst civil unrest and unrelenting uncertainty, the Black community demands statements and action from their leaders. A natural reaction, mainly when Black political leaders have been conspicuously absent and do not engage in the transformational leadership the current historical moment requires.
But although it may seem as if the responsibility for the deafening silence of contemporary Black leadership relies exclusively on the shoulders of the political figures, it is nothing more than a mirage. After all, in its most basic definition, a leader is the person that leads and commands a group of people.
Athletes, entertainers, CEOs, and other Black corporates play a crucial role in moments of civil unrest, and the population’s demands of concrete action echo such beliefs. But despite appearances, the complexity of the issues faced by current Black Corporate America shouldn’t be underestimated.
Finding it more challenging to reach the top, Black corporates face a fork in the road—do they play it safe and avoid disrupting the status quo, or take the risk of making uncomfortable statements?
The choice is not as easy as it may seem. To understand this, it’s essential to go down the rabbit hole of current business in America.
The Fulfillment of Civil Duty.
Within the angle of private business, corporations exist to maximize their profits and minimize their losses. As such, their reason to be and mechanisms for prolonged survival can be easily explained, regardless of the goods or services they might provide.
Subsequently, many believe corporations have no business extending their tasks and duties beyond this specific reason. Under this belief, they claim every action taken should be regarding their well-being as a money-making institution, and that leaves no room for further concerns.
Of course, anyone believing this statement is factually wrong.
Corporations and businesses do not exist within a vacuum, isolated from the rest of society. In basic business theory, it’s well-known that a company is subjected to the influence of at least five major external factors—the economic environment, the legal framework of the area, the current technological developments, and, of course, the political and social context.
Regarding the latter two, the crises of the 60s within America—the Civil Rights Movements and the Vietnam War—led to a change in the way corporations are expected to behave.
In particular, research led by the Committee for Economic Development (CED) and published in 1971 under the name of Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations affirmed the existence of “social contract” between companies and the societies they work in. Specifically, it explained that business exists thanks to the community, so they must serve the community back.
According to the CED, this leads to three (3) primary responsibilities from private corporations to society: 1) Stimulate economic growth and reduce the unemployment rates, 2) Treat their employees and customers justly and fairly, and 3) Involve themselves in the improvement of the environment they work in.
These three fundamental elements become the core of what is currently known as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and remain a staple in most businesses nowadays.
In past decades, corporations methodically engaged in CSR. After establishing their mission, vision, and goals, the business would select social causes aligned with the principles and corporate ethics they wanted to project. Subsequently, they outlined the formal processes to contribute to the betterment of said cause, and eventually develop a specific policy.
But those days are long gone—Corporate Social Responsibility in current America is different.
Do Black Lives Matter to you? The Racial Problem in Corporate America.
For decades, corporations have neglected to make racial discrimination the focus of their corporate social responsibility. The topic has been deemed controversial and polarizing—as if ensuring the end of racism is a subject that should not be discussed.
However, the advent of the internet, social media, and information globalization became a game-changer.
Starting in the early 2000s—when the Nike sweatshops controversy skyrocketed—current generations are more politically involved than ever before, and information spreads fast. Their financial support shifts from established companies to businesses they feel they can trust.
And their trust is gained through social justice.
Companies can no longer stick to a single social cause to defend. Silence equals compliance, and compliance equals injustice. And silence on the Black Lives Matter movement is the most deafening of all, particularly in corporate America.
After all, it is well-known corporations and private businesses are some of the most challenging fields for African-Americans.
According to USA Facts, as of 2020, only 2.2% of the country’s six million businesses are run by African-Americans. Most of these are small businesses, and they focus on three sectors: healthcare and social assistance (32%), professional and technical services (13%), and administrative & support and waste management (8.2%).
If these numbers seem discouraging, it is because they are. Since Black and African-Americans make up 13.4% of the population, owning just 2.2% of the country’s businesses is an infuriatingly small percentage and representation.
In regards to Black roles in corporations, the statistics don’t get any more heartening. Information gathered by the Center for Talent Innovation establishes that Black and African-American people only occupy 3.2% of senior leadership roles at large corporations.
Only five Black CEOs made it to the Fortune 500 list during 2020. There are 614 billionaires in the United States, and only seven are Black, with five of those achieving the position through media and sports careers.
Understanding the racial dynamics nowadays, corporations have begun to shift their gears. Even if they don’t compromise to fight against racism, they’re at least concerned about looking the part—take Adidas as an example.
Pledging a $20 million commitment to Black communities, Adidas thought it would “make a statement” against racism, claiming Black Lives Matter. Instead, the pitiful amount—for a company worth 16.48 billion—betrayed the cosmetic and superficial nature of the move. Facing the backlash, the company decided to invest $100 million more, if only to save their reputation with the Black community.
Systematic racism within corporate America is a disease that has yet to heal. Subsequently, white-owned companies and corporates’ silence regarding the current civil protests is taken as a tacit endorsement of racism, particularly if they have a history of discrimination, segregation, or racist policies.
However, the most uncomfortable silence of all is that of Black corporates themselves.
Black Corporates: Power & Social Expectations.
As disheartening as those statistics were, they are astoundingly good at highlighting the importance and role of Black private business owners and corporates within their community.
Only a few of them make it to the very top, turning them—in the eyes of the community—into unofficial spokespersons for them. Then, the implication is that Black corporates, millionaires, and influential figures carry the expectation of dedicating their businesses’ “social responsibility quota” to racial justice. Give back to the community.
Subsequently, Black millionaires, corporates, and influential figures are expected to dedicate their “social responsibility quota” to racial justice. Give back to their people.
While it may seem unfair to many—after all, entertainers and athletes did not sign up to become activists—it’s just the natural consequence of two aspects: cultural expectations and power dynamics.
Regarding the first aspect, it turns out that Black corporates’ cultural expectations are something no other American society segment can be quite familiar with.
For Black people, race and culture are a quintessential part of their identity.
A 2019 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center established that race and ethnicity play a pivotal role in Black people’s identities, with an impressive 74% of Black adults affirming that being Black is essential to who they are, and an additional 54% declaring it is extremely important. In comparison with other minorities, race was important to 59% of Hispanics, 56% of Asians.
Such a high percentage of value on race naturally comes from a place of oppression and adversity. In the same poll, over half of the interviewed Black Americans manifested that being Black limited their ability to succeed, and 76% have faced discrimination.
The correlation is evident—facing oppression due to race has led to an exacerbation of the same elements that have been used to set them apart.
Subsequently, the Black community has a sense of union and understanding based on race that other minorities do not fully manifest. Naturally, this means that Black corporates, millionaires, and other successful folks are still considered part of the Black community—of the family—and are expected to guarantee the next generations can get to enjoy a similar number of opportunities.
This leads to the second aspect mentioned above—power dynamics.
Within political science, power is defined as an individual’s ability to influence others through words or actions. Due to their financial, economic, cultural, and social standing, Black corporates naturally enjoy a significant portion of power, at least in comparison to their middle and lower class peers.
Borrowing terms used in international relations, Black corporates can have two types of power to execute in favor of the current Black movement: hard or soft. Within established societies and democracies, hard power involves financial and economic measures to induce change coercively. Soft power consists of the use of appeal and influences to generate change through non-forceful means.
As such, Black corporates are expected to use their hard or soft power to induce change within their communities. This can take the form of withdrawing funds or monetary support to strategic parties—hard power—or use their platform and influence as celebrities to speak of these issues to their adoring masses—soft power.
If so, why do some of them choose silence?
When Black corporates fail to use their power to benefit the community, they quickly come under scrutiny. However, understanding why private Black leadership may fail to take a step forward is essential to know the unique struggles they face.
Black Corporates in a White World.
Statistics don’t lie—Black corporates making it to the top are playing a white man’s game. Massively outnumbered and facing a plethora of biases to make it to the top, only a few can overcome the senseless and irrational challenges placed upon their path.
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies sponsored a Town Hall Meeting titled Rising African American Leaders: Challenges for a New Generation. In the subsequent discussion, the panelists agreed that said challenges could be summarized in three broad categories: limited opportunities, conflicts regarding whose interests must be represented, and greater scrutiny by white employers.
Limited Opportunities.
The reduced percentage of Black Americans within corporate power positions makes way for concerns about tokenism within private businesses. If only 3 in every 100 senior leaders in large companies are Black, are there limited opportunities at the top?
Xavier Williams succinctly explains the conflict. “African Americans think that there are limited numbers of opportunities,” he explains in the town hall meeting, “many people may feel that until… one black officer moves on, they won’t promote another one.”
The prevalence or not of such belief has not been formally studied, but it’s not an odd assumption to make. Tokenism is just racism with makeup on, and many corporations may feel a few Black corporates is “enough representation,” effectively judging candidates by skin color instead of abilities.
Black corporates in power positions, then, can face this challenge in two different ways.
The first way is that of a transformative leader—use their influence to encourage, protect, and guide up-and-coming African-American leaders to help them reach the top, guaranteeing further diversity and opportunities for future generations.
The second way involves compliance with the status quo—either by inaction or by actively discouraging young Black corporates that may pose a risk to their token spot within the institution.
Whose interests do you represent?
This particular issue ties directly with the previously discussed cultural expectations on Black corporates.
In this regard, Black leaders frequently feel torn between their cultural background and corporate aspirations, as they often deem them incompatible with one another. On one hand, they must fulfill their social responsibility towards the Black community and use their power to induce change, but that clashes against the desire to keep racial discussions away from the table—mainly due to the overwhelmingly white majority of corporates.
So—do Black corporate leaders represent the interests of their community or their fellow corporates?
Susan Chapman summarizes the conflict without further ado. “We all make choices. Some people’s motivation in life is about money, and about the power, and about the title, and for other people, it’s not.” She explained. “Black folks are a diverse group of people, that we are just as different as everybody else, and that we all have different motivations for why we do the things we do.”
To be laconic, Black leaders’ potential routes regarding this issue involve two simple questions—do their values match the company’s? And if they don’t, where do their priorities lie?
Greater Scrutiny by White Employees.
Succeeding in the corporate world is twice as hard for Black people. As a consequence of tokenism, potential aspirates of color must be twice as good as their white peers to be considered for promotions.
But this level of scrutiny is not limited to academic, practical, or professional aspects of a candidate’s life. It also involves their private views, behavior, and whether they are “too Black” to be considered “apt enough” for the overwhelmingly white environment.
It’s the tale as old as time—“good Blacks” vs. “bad Blacks”. Non-confrontational African-Americans who do not disrupt the status quo are well-received by the majority. At the same time, their outspoken counterparts are deemed aggressive or, in the case of Black women, stereotyped as perpetually “angry.”
This time, Black leaders’ potential options in Corporate America are easy to see—are they “good” Blacks, or “bad” Blacks? Do they “act white” in the workplace, or do they remain in touch with their culture?
There is a fork in the road.
At this point, it’s quite evident that Black corporates and private leaders are facing a dichotomy, and the answer to their hesitation lies in their preferred solutions to the three challenges mentioned above.
Corporate social responsibility pushes them to help the Black community and be the transformative leaders it needs within their field of expertise—do they rise to the challenge?
Depending on their answer, Black leaders in the private sector can be reduced to two main groups: Transformative Black corporates, and corporates that happen to be Black.
Transformative Black Corporates.
Transformative Black corporates understand that, although there are limited options at the top, it’s up to them to use their hard and soft power to transform the status quo and allow future generations to have more opportunities. Subsequently, Transformative Black corporates do their best to take younger leaders under their wing and guide them to success.
Likewise, they work for institutions with ethics and moral codes that align with their own. Subsequently, fulfilling their corporate interests does not directly contradict their values, nor does it damage the Black community.
Suppose for some reason the Transformative Black corporate’s company engages in values or acts that damage the fight for equality in America. In that case, the leader decants for the integrity of society as a whole. This type of leader does not hesitate to use power to make a difference.
Finally, Transformative Black corporates understand they are subjected to bigger scrutiny from their peers, but they do not let them repress their identity. They speak out for the causes they believe in and let their excellence take them high.
In short, Transformative Black corporates succeed and are Black. They work to change the status quo, and their most significant investment is in the future.
Corporates that happen to be Black.
Corporates that happen to be Black see the limited options at the top and decide that they must protect the achievements they worked hard for. To avoid risking their position, they play by the unfair rules and survive in an environment that plays against them. Young Black leaders must follow the same path they did, and understand their own the challenges lying ahead.
When it comes to the moral codes and ethics of their companies, corporates that happen to be Black play the financial game in a way that maximizes profits and minimizes losses. The assumption under this logic is that the playing field is rigged against them, so they are not concerned by aspects not strictly attached to a cost-benefit dichotomy.
To achieve this, this type of Black corporate understands that the best way to survive in the private industry is to mimic their white peers’ behavior. In fact, most rich Black investors are reported by The Washington post to take a more conservative approach to investment than other races and are less likely to invest in political campaigns.
In short, Corporates who happen to be Black succeed despite being Black. They understand the status quo and play against a rigged game to achieve success, and their most significant investment is in the present.
Conclusion: What is the right route?
Black leaders are not monolithic. Each has a particular set of values, morals, priorities, and interests. Black Corporates and Corporates who happen to be Black coexist.
Not everyone can be a Black Corporate—a transformative leader. Being Black and successful in a world that discourages it is no small matter, particularly understanding how quickly America demonizes Black transformative leadership. Colin Kaepernick is a transformative leader, but not many are ready to face the consequences as he did.
And yet, although such self-preserving positions are understandable, there is always disgraceful extremes. The soulless capitalists seen everywhere, but with the addendum of being Black and rejecting it—the White Man Wannabe. “I’m not black, I’m O.J.”
In this regard, and despite the numerous race-exclusive challenges, Black leadership in the private sector is no different from others. Only an exceptional few have the integrity, moral commitment, and desire to make a difference for the Black community that vouches for their success.
But America needs more Transformative Black Corporates.
Although we cannot blame up-and-coming Black corporates for protecting the product of their hard work by playing safe, the ones at the very top have the hard and soft power to make a difference without facing nearly as many consequences. It is their moral duty to make a change.
Black billionaire Robert F. Smith succinctly explains the basics to fellow Black leaders.
“Love your community by taking care of your community. Love your community by actually doing something wherever you can.”
French 
English